If the Senate had been intelligent and just,--if, at the time of the retreat to the Mons Sacer, instead of the ridiculous farce enacted by Menenius Agrippa, a solemn renunciation of the right to acquire had been made by each citizen on attaining his share of possessions,--the republic, based upon equality of possessions and the duty of labor, would not, in attaining its wealth, have degenerated in morals; Fabricius would have enjoyed the arts without controlling artists; and the conquests of the ancient Romans would have been the means of spreading civilization, instead of the series of murders and robberies that they were.
But property, having unlimited power to amass and to lease, was daily increased by the addition of new possessions.

From the time of Nero, six individuals were the sole proprietors of one-half of Roman Africa.

In the fifth century, the wealthy families had incomes of no less than two millions: some possessed as many as twenty thousand slaves.

All the authors who have written upon the causes of the fall of the Roman republic concur.
M.Giraud of Aix [55] quotes the testimony of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Olympiodorus, and Photius.

Under Vespasian and Titus, Pliny, the naturalist, exclaimed: "Large estates have ruined Italy, and are ruining the provinces." But it never has been understood that the extension of property was effected then, as it is to-day, under the aegis of the law, and by virtue of the constitution.