AGORA.

AGRARIE LEGES.

pearance of a witness (hemoμaprupíov díkŋ), at 1000|"full market," was used to signify the time from drachmas.1 morning to noon, that is, from about nine to twelve o'clock.

AGONOTH ́ETAI (άywvobéraι) were persons, in the Grecian games, who decided disputes and adjudged the prizes to the victors. Originally, the person who instituted the contest and offered the prize was the dywvoðérŋs, and this continued to be the practice in those games which were instituted by kings or private persons. But in the great public games, such as the Isthmian, Pythian, &c., the ayovodéraι were either the representatives of different states, as the Amphictyons at the Pythian games, or were chosen from the people in whose country the games were celebrated. During the flourishing times of the Grecian republics, the Eleans were the dyorobérac in the Olympic games, the Corinthians in the Isthmian games, the Amphictyons in the Pythian games, and the Corinthians, Argives, and inhabitants of Cleone in the Nemean games. The ȧywvoléraι were also called αἰσυμνῆται, ἀγωνάρχαι, ἀγωνοδίκαι, ἀθλοθέται, ῥαβdovxor or pabdovóuot (from the staff they carried as an emblem of authority), βραβεῖς, βραβευταί. AGORA (ȧyopá) properly means an assembly of any nature, and is usually employed by Homer for the general assembly of the people. The ȧyopú seems to have been considered an essential part in the constitution of the early Grecian states, since the barbarity and uncivilized condition of the Cyclopes is characterized by their wanting such an assembly. The ȧyopá, though usually convoked by the king, as, for instance, by Telemachus in the absence of his father, appears to have been also summoned at times by some distinguished chieftain, as, for example, by Achilles before Troy. The king occupied the most important seat in these assemblies, and near him sat the nobles, while the people sat or stood in a circle around them. The power and rights of the people in these assemblies have been the subject of much dispute. Platner, Tittmann, and more recently Nitzsch, in his commentary on the Odyssey, maintain that the people were allowed to speak and vote; while Heerens and Müller think "that the nobles were the only persons who proposed measures, deliberated, and voted, and that the people were only present to hear the debate, and to express their feeling as a body; which expressions might then be noticed by a prince of a mild disposition." The latter view of the question is confirmed by the fact, that in no passage in the Odyssey is any one of the people represented as taking part in the discussion; while, in the Iliad, Ulysses inflicts personal chastisement upon Thersites for presuming to attack the nobles in the ayopa. The people appear to have been only called together to hear what had been already agreed upon in the council of the nobles, which is ealed βουλής and θόωκος, and sometimes even ἀγορά 10

Among the Athenians, the proper name for the assembly of the people was exKAnoia, and among the Dorians dia. The term ayopa was confined at Athens to the assemblies of the phylæ and demi.11 In Crete the original name ȧyopa continued to be applied to the popular assemblies till a late pe

riod 12

AGORANΌΜΙ (ἀγορανόμοι) were public functionaries in most of the Grecian states, whose duties corresponded in many respects to those of the Roman ædiles. At Athens their number was ten, five for the city and five for the Piræus, and not twenty, as Meier erroneously states, misled by a false reading in Harpocration. They were chosen by lot. Under the Roman empire, the agoranomi were called λoyioraí. They corresponded in the provinces to the curatores civitatis or reipublicæ.3

The principal duty of the agoranomi was, as their name imports, to inspect the market, and to see that all the laws respecting its regulation were properly observed. They had the inspection of all things which were sold in the market, with the exception of corn, which was subject to the jurisdiction of the otroúhakes. They regulated the price and quantity of all things which were brought into the market, and punished all persons convicted of cheating, especially by false weights and measures. They had, in general, the power of punishing all infraction of the laws and regulations relating to the market, by inflicting a fine upon the citizens, and personal chastisement upon foreigners and slaves, for which purpose they usually carried a whip. They had the care of all the temples and fountains in the market-place, and received the tax (Evikov Téλos) which foreigners and aliens were obliged to pay for the privilege of exposing their goods for sale in the market. The public prostitutes were also subject to their regulations."

AGRANIA (ȧypavía), a festival celebrated at Argos, in memory of one of the daughters of Protus, who had been afflicted with madness.

ΑΓΡΑΦΊΟΥ ΓΡΑΦΗ (ἀγραφίου γραφή). The names of all persons at Athens who owed any sum of money to the state (oi tÿ dnμooiw opeihovτes) were registered by the practores (púkroрeç) upon tablets kept for that purpose in the Temple of Minerva, on the Acropolis; and hence the expression of being registered on the Acropolis (éyyeypaμμévos év 'AkpoTóλe) always means indebted to the state. If the name of an individual was improperly erased, he was subject to the action for non-registration (aypapiov ypaon), which was under the jurisdiction of the thesmotheta; but if an individual was not registered, he could only be proceeded against by ένδειξις, and was not liable to the ἀγραφίου γραφή. Hesychius, whose account has been followed by Hemsterhuys and Wesseling, appears to have been mistaken in saying that the aypapiov ypaon could be instituted against debtors who had not been registered."1

ΑΓΡΑΦΟΙ ΝΟΜΟΙ. (Vid. ΝΟΜΟΙ.)

10

ΑΓΡΑΦΟΥ ΜΕΤΑΛΛΟΥ ΓΡΑΦΗ (ἀγράφου μετάλ λov ypaon) was an action brought before the thesmothetæ at Athens, against an individual who worked a mine without having previously registered it. The state required that all mines should be registered, because the twenty-fourth part of their produce was payable to the public treasury.

12

AGRA RIÆ LEGES. "It is not exactly true that the agrarian law of Cassius was the earliest that was so called: every law by which the commonwealth disposed of its public land bore that

1. (Demosth., c. Timocr., c. 29, p. 735.-Aristoph., Acharn.,

The name dyopa was early transferred from the assembly itself to the place in which the assembly was held; and thus it came to be used for the market-place, where goods of all descriptions were 689.). (Schol. in Aristoph., Acharn., 658; ayopavóμous, oûs bought and sold. The expression ȧyopà novoα, vv oyιoràs kaλooper: Müller, Eginetica, p. 138.)-3, (Cod. 1. (Harpocrat., sub chyripes.—Böckh, Public Econ., ii., p. 97, (Schol. in Aristoph., Acharn., 688.)-6. (Plato, Legg., vi., 10.) 100-Meier, Att. Process, p. 180, 725.) 2. (Od., ix., 112.)-3.-7. (Justin, xxi., 5.-Meier, Att. Process, p. 89-92.-Petitus, (Od, 11., 5-8.)-4. (Il., 1., 54.)-5. (Polit. Antiq., 9 56.)-6. Leg. Att., v., tit. 3, s. 2, p. 495.)-8. (Demosth. in Aristog., i., (Dorians, ii., 6.)-7. (II.,ii., 211, 277.) 8. (II., ii., 53; vi., 113; c. 15, p. 791-Harpocr. et Suid., sub cudeyy pan.) 9. (DeYEPOTES Bouλcuraí.)-9. (Od., ii., 26.)-10. (П., ix., 11, 33.- mosth. in Theocr., c. 13, p. 1337.)-10. (Demosth. in Theocr., Inscrip., 1., p. 135.)-12. (Bekker, Anecdot. Gr., i., p. 210.) P. 376.-Schömann, De Comitiis Athen., p. 27.-Böckh, Corp: Publ. Econ. of Athens, ii., p. 118-122, transl.)-12. (Böckh, E Publ. Econ. of Athens, ii., p. 478.-Meier, Att. Process, p. 354.)

i., tit. 54, s. 3.)-4. (Lysias, karà Twv ELTO., c. 6, p. 722.)—5.

name; as, for instance, that by which the domain of the kings was parcelled out among the commonalty, and those by which colonies were planted. Even in the narrower sense of a law whereby the state exercised its ownership in removing the old possessors from a part of its domain, and making over its right of property therein, such a law existed among those of Servius Tullius."

on the authority of Frontinus, supported by Livy,' as evidence of the correctness of his own division. It is obvious, however, on comparing two passages in Frontinus (De Re Agraria, xi., xiii.), that Niebuhr has mistaken the meaning of the writer, who clearly intends it to be inferred that the sacred land was not public land. Besides, if the meaning of Frontinus was what Niebuhr has supposed it to be, his authority is not equal to that of Gaius on a matter which specially belongs to the province of the jurist, and is foreign to that of the agrimensor. The passage of Livy, also, certainly does not prove Niebuhr's assertion. The form of dedition in Livy

The history of the enactments called agrarian laws, either in the larger and more correct sense, or in the narrower sense of the term, as explained in this extract, would be out of place here. The particular objects of each agrarian law must be ascertained from its provisions. But all these nu-may be easily explained. merous enactments had reference to the public land; and a great majority of them were passed for the purpose of settling Roman colonies in conquered districts, and assigning to the veteran soldiers, who formed a large part of such colonists, their shares in such lands. The true meaning of all or any of these enactments can only be understood when we have formed a correct notion of property in land, as recognised by Roman law. It is not necessary, in order to obtain this correct notion, to ascend to the origin of the Roman state, though, if a complete history of Rome could be written, our conception of the real character of property in land, as recognised by Roman law, would be more enlarged and more precise. But the system of Roman law, as it existed under the emperors, contained both the terms and the notions which belonged to those early ages, of which they are the most faithful historical monuments. In an inquiry of the present kind, we may begin at any point in the historical series which is definite, and we may ascend from known and intelligible notions which belong to a later age, towards their historical origin, though we may never be able to reach it.

Though the origin of that kind of property called public land must be referred to the earliest ages of the Roman state, it appears from Gaius that under the emperors there was still land within the limits of the Empire, the ownership of which was not in the individuals who possessed and enjoyed it, but in the populus Romanus or the Cæsar. This possession and enjoyment are distinguished by him from ownership (dominium). The term possessio frequently occurs in those jurists from whom the Digest was compiled; but in these writers, as they are known to us, it applies only to private land, and the ager publicus is hardly, if at all, ever noticed by them. Now this term Possessio, as used in the Digest, means the occupation of private land by one who has no kind of right to it; and this possessio was protected by the prætor's interdict, even when it was without bona fides or justa causa: but the term Possessio in the Roman historians-Livy, for instance-signifies the occupation and enjoyment of public land; and the true notion of this, the original possessio, contains the whole solution of the question of the agrarian laws. For this solution we are mainly indebted to Niebuhr and Savigny.

This latter kind of possessio, that which has private land for its object, is demonstrated by Savigny (the term here used can hardly be said to be too strong) to have arisen from the first kind of possessio: and thus it might readily be supposed that the Roman doctrine of possessio, as applied to the occupation of private land, would throw some light on the nature of that original possessio out of which it grew. In the imperial period, public land had almost ceased to exist in the Italian peninsula, but the subject of possession in private lands had become a well-understood branch of Roman law. The remarks in the three following paragraphs are from Savigny's valuable work, Das Recht des Besitzes.3

Gaius, who probably wrote under the Antonines, made two chief divisions of Roman land; that which was divini juris, and that which was humani juris. Land which was divini juris was either sacer or religiosus.3 Land which was sacer was consecrated to the Dii Superi; land which was religiosus belonged to the Dii Manes. Land was made sacer by a lex or senatus consultum; and, as the context shows, such land was land which belonged to the state (populus Romanus). An individual could make a portion of his own land religiosus by the interment in it of one of his family: but it was the better opinion that land in the provinces could not thus be made religiosus; and the reason given is this, that the ownership or property in provincial lands is either in the state 1. There were two kinds of land in the Roman (pop. Rom.) or in the Cæsar, and that individuals state, ager publicus and ager privatus: in the latter had only the possession and enjoyment of it (pos- alone private property existed. But, conformably sessio et usus fructus). Provincial lands were either to the old constitution, the greater part of the ager stipendiaria or tributaria: the stipendiaria were in publicus was given over to individual citizens to those provinces which were considered to belong to occupy and enjoy; yet the state had the right of rethe Roman state; the tributaria were in those prov-suming the possession at pleasure. Now we find inces which were considered as the property of the Cæsar. Land which was humani juris was divided into public and private: the former belonged to the state, the latter to individuals.

It would seem to follow, from the legal form observed in making land sacer, that it thereby ceased to be publicus; for if it still continued publicus, it had not changed its essential quality. Niebuhr has stated that "all Roman land was either the property of the state (common land, domain) or private property-aut publicus aut privatus ;" and he adds that "the landed property of the state was either consecrated to the gods (sacer), or allotted to men to reap its fruits (profanus, humani juris)." Niebuhr then refers to the view of Gaius, who makes the latter the primary division; but he relies

1. (Nieb., Rom. Hist., vol. ii., p. 129, transl.) -2. (ii., 2, seqq.) -3. (Compare Frontinus, de Re Agraria, xiii.)-4. (Appendix, i., walii.)

no mention of any legal form for the protection of the occupier, or possessor as he was called, of such public land against any other individual, though it cannot be doubted that such a form actually existed. But if we assume that the interdict which protected the possession of an individual in private land was the form which protected the possessor of the public land, two problems are solved at the same time: an historical origin is discovered for possession in private land, and a legal form for the protection of possession in public land.

An hypothesis, which so clearly connects into one consistent whole facts otherwise incapable of such connexion, must be considered rather as evolving a latent fact, by placing other known facts in their true relative position, than as involving any evidence in support of the hypothesis. independent assumption. But there is historical

1. (vii., 14.)-2. (i., 38.)-3. (5th edit., p. 172.)

AGRARIE LEGES.

2. The words possessio, possessor, and possidere are the technical terms used by writers of very different ages, to express the occupation and the enjoyment of the public lands; that is, the notion of a right to occupy and enjoy public land was in the early ages of the Republic distinguished from the right of property in it. Nothing was so natural as to apply this notion, when once fixed, to the possession of private land as distinct from the ownership; and, accordingly, the same technical terms were applied to the possession of private land. Various applications of the word possessio, with reference to private land, appear in the Roman law, in the bonorum possessio of the prætorian heres and others. But all the uses of the word possessio, as applied to ager privatus, however they may differ in other respects, agreed in this: they denoted an actual exclusive right to the enjoyment of a thing, without the strict Roman (Quiritarian) ownership.

3. The word possessio, which originally signified the right of the possessor, was in time used to signify the object of the right. Thus ager signified a piece of land, viewed as an object of Quiritarian ownership; possessio, a piece of land, in which a man had only a bonitarian or beneficial interest, as, for instance, Italic land not transferred by mancipatio, or land which from its nature could not be the subject of Quiritarian ownership, as provincial lands and the old ager publicus. Possessio accordingly implies usus; ager implies proprietas or ownership. This explanation of the terms ager and possessio is from a jurist of the imperial times, quoted by Sarigny; but its value for the purpose of the present inquiry is not on that account the less. The ager publicus, and all the old notions attached to it, as already observed, hardly occur in the extant Roman jurists; but the name possessio, as applied to private land, and the legal notions attached to it, are of frequent occurrence. The form of the interdict -uti possidetis-as it appears in the Digest, is this: Uti eas des...possidetis...vim fieri veto. But the original form of the interdict was: Uti nunc possidetis eum fundum, &c. (Festus in Possessio); the word fundus, for which ædes was afterward substituted, appears to indicate an original connexion between the interdict and the ager publicus.

AGRARIE LEGES.

mals. The rich occupied the greater part of this undivided land, and at length, feeling confident that they should never be deprived of it, and getting hold of such portions as bordered on their shares, and also of the smaller portions in the possession of the poor, some by purchase and others by force, they became the cultivators of extensive districts instead of mere farms. And, in order that their cultivators and shepherds might be free from military service, they employed slaves instead of freemen; and they derived great profit from their rapid increase, which was favoured by the immunity of the slaves from military service. In this way the great became very rich, and slaves were numerous all through the country. But this system reduced the numbers of the Italians, who were ground down by poverty, taxes, and military service; and whenever they had a respite from these evils, they had nothing to do, the land being occupied by the rich, who also employed slaves instead of freemen." This passage, though it appears to contain much historical truth, leaves the difficulty as to the original mode of occupation unsettled; for we can scarcely suppose that there were not some rules prescribed as to the occupation of this undivided land more precise than such a permission or invitation for a general scramble. It must, indeed, have happened occasionally, particularly in the later times of the Republic, that public land was occupied, or squatted on (to use a North American phrase), by soldiers or other adventurers.

But, whatever was the mode in which these lands were occupied, the possessor, when once in possession, was, as we have seen, protected by the prætor's interdict. The patron who permitted his client to occupy any part of his possessions as tenant at will (precario), could eject him at pleasure by the interdictum de precario; for the client did not obtain a possession by such permission of his patron. The patron would, of course, have the same remedy against a trespasser. But any individual, however humble, who had a possession, was also protected in it against the aggression of the rich; and it was "one of the grievances bitterly complained of by the Gracchi, and all the patriots of their age, that while a soldier was serving against the enemy, his powerful neighbour, who coveted his small estate, ejected his wife and children."(Nieb.) The state could not only grant the occupation or possession of its public land, but could sell it, and thus convert public into private land. A remarkable passage in Orosius1 shows that public lands, which had been given to certain religious corporations to possess, were sold in order to raise money for the exigencies of the state. The selling of that land which was possessed, and the circumstance of the possession having been a grant or public act, are both contained in this passage.

We know nothing of the origin of the Roman public land, except that it was acquired by conquest, and when so acquired it belonged to the state, that is, to the populus, as the name publicus (populicus) imports. We may suppose that in the early periods of the Roman state, the conquered lands being the property of the populus, might be enjoyed by the members of that body, in any way that the body might determine. But it is not quite clear how these conquered lands were originally occupied. The following passage from Appian appears to give a probable account of the matter, and one which is not inconsistent with such facts The public lands which were occupied by posas are otherwise known: "The Romans," he says, sessors were sometimes called, with reference to "when they conquered any part of Italy, seized a such possession, occupatorii; and, with respect to the portion of the lands, and either built cities in them, state, concessi. Public land which became private or sent Roman colonists to settle in the cities which by sale was called quæstorius; that which is often already existed. Such cities were considered as spoken of as assigned (assignatus) was marked out garrison places. As to the land thus acquired from and divided (limitatus) among all the plebeians in time to time, they either divided the cultivated part equal lots, and given to them in absolute ownership, among the colonists, or sold it, or let it to farm. or it was assigned to the persons who were sent out As to the land which had fallen out of cultivation as a colony. Whether the land so granted to the in consequence of war, and which, indeed, was the colony should become Roman or not, depended on larger part, having no time to allot it, they gave the nature of the colony. The name ager publicus public notice that any one who chose might in the was given to public lands which were acquired mean time cultivate this land, on payment of part even after the plebs had become one of the estates in of the yearly produce, namely, a tenth of the prod- the Roman Constitution, though the name publicus, uce of arable land, and a fifth of the produce of in its original sense, could no longer be strictly apoliveyards and vineyards. A rate was also fixed plicable to such public lands. It should be observto be paid by those who pastured cattle on this un-ed, that after the establishment of the plebs, the divided land, both for the larger and smaller ani- possession of public land was the peculiar privi

1. (Javolenus, Dig. 50, tit. 16, s. 115.-2. (Bel) Civ., i., 7.)

lege of the patricians, as before the establishment | they had before; but it appears that they were subof the plebs it seems to have been the only way in ject to a tax, the produce of which belonged to the which public lands were enjoyed by the populus: Roman people. Niebuhr seems to suppose that the the assignment, that is, the grant by the state of the Roman state might at any time resume such reownership of public land in fixed shares, was the stored lands; and, no doubt, the right of resumption privilege of the plebs. In the early ages, when the was involved in the tenure by which these lands populus was the state, it does not appear that there were held; but it may be doubted if the resumption was any assignment of public lands among them, of such lands was ever resorted to except in extrathough it may be assumed that public lands would ordinary cases, and except as to conquered lands occasionally be sold; the mode of enjoyment of which were the public lands of the conquered state. public land was that of possessio, subject, as al- Private persons, who were permitted to retain their ready observed, to an annual payment to the state. lands subject to the payment of a tax, were not the It may be conjectured that this ancient possessio, possessors to whom the agrarian laws applied. In which we cannot consider as having its origin in many cases, large tracts of land were absolutely anything else than the consent of the state, was a seized, their owners having perished in battle or good title to the use of the land so long as the an- been driven away, and extensive districts, either not nual payments were made. At any rate, the plebs cultivated at all or very imperfectly cultivated, behad no claim upon such ancient possessions. But came the property of the state. Such lands as were with the introduction of the plebs as a separate es- unoccupied could become the subject of possessio; tate, and the constant acquisition of new lands by and the possessor would in all cases, and in whatconquest, it would seem that the plebs had as good ever manner he obtained the land, be liable to a a title to a share of the newly-conquered lands, as payment to the state, as above mentioned in the exthe patricians to the exclusive enjoyment of those tract from Appian. This possessio was a real inlands which had been acquired by conquest before terest, for it was the subject of sale: it was the use the plebs had become an estate. The determina- (usus) of the land; but it was not the ager or proption of what part of newly-conquered lands (arable erty. The possessio strictly could not pass by the and vineyards) should remain public, and what part testament of the possessor, at least not by the manshould be assigned to the plebs, which, Niebuhr cipatio. It is not easy, therefore, to imagine any says, "it need scarcely be observed, was done after mode by which the possession of the heres was prothe completion of every conquest," ought to have tected, unless there was a legal form, such as Savigbeen an effectual way of settling all disputes be- ny has assumed to exist for the general protection tween the patricians and plebs as to the possessions of possessiones in the public lands. of the former; for such an appropriation, if it were actually made, could have no other meaning than that the patricians were to have as good title to possess their share as the plebs to the ownership of their assigned portions. The plebs, at least, could never fairly claim an assignment of public land, appropriated to remain such, at the time when they received the share of the conquered lands to which they were entitled. But the fact is, that we have no evidence at all as to such division between lands appropriated to remain public and lands assigned in ownership, as Niebuhr assumes. All that we know is, that the patricians possessed large tracts of public land, and that the plebs from time to time claimed and enforced a division of part of them. In such a condition of affairs, many difficult questions might arise; and it is quite as possible to conceive that the claims of the plebs might in some cases be as unjust and ill-founded as the conduct of the patricians was alleged to be rapacious in extending their possessions. It is also easy to conceive that, in the course of time, owing to sales of possessions, family settlements, and other causes, boundaries had often become so confused that the equitable adjustment of rights under an agrarian law was impossible; and this is a difficulty which Appian' particularly mentions.

Pasture-lands, it appears, were not the subject of assignment, and were probably possessed by the patricians and the plebs indifferently.

The property of the Roman people consisted of many things besides land. The conquest of a territory, unless special terms were granted to the conquered, seems to have implied the acquisition by the Roman state of the conquered territory and all that it contained. Thus not only would land be acquired, which was available for corn, vineyards, and pasture, but mines, roads, rivers, harbours, and, as a consequence, tolls and duties. If a Roman colony was sent out to occupy a conquered territory or town, a part of the conquered lands was assigned to the colonists in complete ownership. (Vid. CoLONIA.) The remainder, it appears, was left or restored to the inhabitants. Not that we are to understand that they had the property in the land as 1 (i., 10, 18.)

The possessor of public land never acquired the ownership by virtue of his possession; it was not subject to usucapion. The ownership of the land which belonged to the state could only be acquired by the grant of the ownership, or by purchase from the state. The state could at any time, according to strict right, sell that land which was only possessed, or assign it to another than the possessor. The possession was, in fact, with respect to the state, a precarium; and we may suppose that the lands so held would at first receive few permanent improvements. In course of time, and particularly when the possessors had been undisturbed for many years, possession would appear, in an equitable point of view, to have become equivalent to ownership; and the hardship of removing the possessors by an agrarian law would appear the greater, after the state had long acquiesced in their use and occupation of the public land.

2

In order to form a correct judgment of some of those enactments which are most frequently cited as agrarian laws, it must be borne in mind that the possessors of public lands owed a yearly tenth, or fifth, as the case might be, to the state. Indeed, it is clear, from several passages, that, under the Republic at least, the receipt of anything by the state from the occupier of land was a legal proof that the land was public; and conversely, public land always owed this annual payment. These annual payments were, it seems, often withheld by the possessors, and thus the state was deprived of a fund for the expenses of war.

The object of the agrarian law of Sp. Cassius is supposed by Niebuhr to have been "that the portion of the populus in the public lands should be set apart; that the rest should be divided among the plebeians; that the tithe should again be levied, and applied to paying the army." The agrarian law of Licinius Stolo limited each individual's possession of public land to 500 jugera, and imposed some other restrictions; but the possessor had no better title to the 500 jugera which the law left him than he formerly had to what the law took from him. The surplus land, according to the provisions of the law, was to be divided among the plebeians.

1. (Gaius, ii., 102.)—2. (Liv., xxxi., 13.)

AGRARIÆ LEGES.

AGRARIE LEGES.

The Licinian law not effecting its object, T. S. and a provincial town could only acquire the like Gracchus revived the measure for limiting the pos- freedom by receiving the privilege expressed by the session of public land to 500 jugera. The argu-term jus Italicum. The complete solution of the ments of the possessors against this measure, as question here under discussion could only be efthey are stated by Appian,' are such as might rea- fected by ascertaining the origin and real nature of sonably be urged; but he adds that Gracchus pro- this provincial land-tax; and as it may be difficult, posed to give to each possessor, by way of compen- if not impossible, to ascertain such facts, we must sation for improvements made on the public land, endeavour to give a probable solution. Now it is the full ownership of 500 jugera, and half that quan- consistent with Roman notions that all conquered tity to each of his sons, if he had any. If it is true, land should be considered as the property of the as Appian states, that the law of Gracchus forbade Roman state; and it is certain that such land, the rich from purchasing any of the lands which though assigned to individuals, did not by that cirmight be allotted to the plebeians by his agrarian cumstance alone become invested with all the law, this part of the measure was as unjust as it characters of Roman land which was private propwas impolitic. The lands which the Roman peo-erty. It had not the privilege of the jus Italicum, ple had acquired in the Italian peninsula by con- and, consequently, could not be the object of Quiriquest were greatly reduced in amount by the laws tarian ownership, with its incidents of mancipatio, of Gracchus and by sale. Confiscations in the civil &c. All land in the provinces, including even that wars, and conquests abroad, were indeed continu- of the liberæ civitates, and the ager publicus propally increasing the public lands; but these lands erly so called, could only become an object of were allotted to the soldiers and the numerous col- Quiritarian ownership by having conferred upon it onists to whom the state was continually giving the privilege of Italic land, by which it was also lands (see the list in Frontinus, De Coloniis Italia). released from the payment of the tax. It is clear The system of colonization which prevailed during that there might be and was ager privatus, or prithe Republic was continued under the emperors, vate property, in provincial land; but this land had and considerable tracts of Italian land were dispo- not the privileges of Italic land, unless such privsed of in this manner by Augustus and his suc-ilege was expressly given to it, and, accordingly, it cessors. Vespasian assigned lands in Samnium to paid a tax. As the notions of landed property in his soldiers, and grants of Italian lands are men- all countries seem to suppose a complete ownership tioned by subsequent emperors, though we may in- residing in some person, and as the provincial landfer that, at the close of the second century of our owner, whose lands had not the privilege of the jus æra, there was little public land left in the peninsu- Italicum, had not that kind of ownership which, la. Vespasian sold part of the public lands called according to the notions of Roman law, was comsubseciva, a term which expressed such parts as had plete ownership, it is difficult to conceive that the not been assigned, when the other parts of the same ultimate ownership of provincial lands (with the district had been measured and distributed. Domi- exception of those of the liberæ civitates) could tian, according to Aggenus, gave the remainder of reside anywhere else than in the populus Romanus, such lands all through Italy to the possessors. The and, after the establishment of the imperial power, conquests beyond the limits of Italy furnished the in the populus Romanus or the Cæsar. This quesemperors with the means of rewarding the veterans tion is, however, one of some difficulty, and well by grants of land; and in this way the institutions of deserves farther examination. It may be doubted, Rome were planted on a foreign soil. But, accord- however, if Gaius means to say that there could ing to Gaius, property in the land was not acquired be no Quiritarian ownership of private land in the by such grant; the ownership was still in the state, provinces; at least this would not be the case in and the provincial landholder had only the posses- those districts to which the jus Italicum was exsio. If this be true, as against the Roman people tended. The case of the Recentoric lands, which or the Cæsar, his interest in the land was one that is quoted by Niebuhr,' may be explained. The might be resumed at any time, according to the land here spoken of was land in Sicily. One obstrict rules of law, though it is easily conceived ject of the measure of Rullus was to exact certain that such foreign possessions would daily acquire extraordinary payments (vectigal) from the public strength, and could not safely be dealt with as pos- lands, that is, from the possessors of them; but he sessions had been in Italy by the various agrarian excepted the Recentoric lands from the operation laws which had convulsed the Roman state. This of his measure. If this is private land, Cicero assertion of the right of the populus Romanus and argues, the exception is unnecessary. The arguof the emperors might be no wrong "inflicted on ment, of course, assumes that there was or might provincial land-owners by the Roman jurispru- be private land in Sicily; that is, there was or dence," as Niebuhr affirms. This same writer might be land which would not be affected by this also observes, that Frontinus speaks of the "arva part of the measure of Rullus. Now the opposition publica in the provinces, in contradistinction to the of public and private land in this passage certainly agri privati there;" but this he does not. This proves, what can easily be proved without it, that contradistinction is made by his commentator Ag-individuals in the provinces owned land as individgenus, who, as he himself says, only conjectures the meaning of Frontinus; and, as we think, he has not discovered it. The tax paid by the holders of ager privatus in the provinces was the only thing which distinguished the beneficial interest in such land from Italic land, and might be, in legal effect, a recognition of the ownership according to Roman law. And this was Savigny's earlier opinion with respect to the tax paid by provincial lands; he considered such tax due to the Roman people, as the sovereign or ultimate owner of the lands. His later opinion, as expressed in the Zeitschrift für Geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, is, that under the Cæsars a uniform system of direct taxation was established in the provinces, to which all provincial land was subject; but land in Italy was free from this tax,

1. (Bell. Civ.,i., 10.)-2. (Frontinus, de Re Agraria.)-3. (vol. v., p. 254.)

uals did in Italy; and such land might with propriety be called privatus, as contrasted with that called publicus in the provinces: in fact, it would not be easy to have found another name for it. But we know that ager privatus in the provinces, unless it had received the jus Italicum, was not the same thing as ager privatus in Italy, though both were private property. Such a passage, then, leads to no necessary conclusion that the ultimate ownership or dominion of this private land was not in the Roman people. It may be as well here to remark farther, that any conclusions as to Roman law, derived solely from the orations of Cicero, are to be received with caution; first, because on several occasions (in the Pro Cacina for instance) he states that to be law which was not, for the purpose of

1. (Cice, c. Rull., i., 4.)