Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

AGRARIAE LEGES. AGRARIAE LEGES. 37
sum of money to the state (oi TrCp 8700oow OPIEI- inquiry of the present kind, we may begin at any
Ao-rFs) were registered by the practores (?rpdhc- point in the historical series which is definite, and
TopES), upon tablets kept for that purpose in the we may ascend from known and intelligible notemple of Athena, on the Acropolis (Dem. c. Aristog. tions which belong to a later age, towards their
i. p. 791; Harpocr. and Suidas, s. v.'tevmeyypacpi); historical origin, though we may never be able to
and hence the expression of being registered on the' reach it.
Acropolis (Yesypa/U,'Eos'v'A1cpor'dXe) always Gaius (ii. 2, &c.), who probably wrote under
means being indebted to the state. (Dem. c. the Antonines, made two chief divisions of Roman
Tleoc'r. p. 1337.) Whoever paid his fine after regis- lald; that which was divini jsvris, and that which
tration was erased, either wholly or in part, ac- was humzani jzmris. Land which was divini juris
cording to the amount paid; but if a person's name was either sacer or religiosus. (Compare Frontinus,
was improperly erased, he was subject to the action De Re Agrcaria, xiii. or p. 42. ed. Goes.) Land
for non-registration (a&ypaplov ypap'), which was which was sacer was consecrated to the Dii Suunder the jurisdiction of the thesmothetae. If an peri; land which was religiosus belonged to the
individual was not registered, he could only be Dii Manes. Land was made sacer by a lex or
proceeded against by &E;t1Stis, and was not liable senatus consultum; and, as the context shows,
to the &ypacpiov ypaef. (Dem.-in Tlieocr. p. 1338.) such land was land which had belonged to the
Hlesychius, whose account has been followed by state (populuts Romlanus). An individual could
Ilemsterhuis and Wesseling, appears to have been make a portion of his own land religiosus by the
mistaken in saying that the aypaqplov ypacq could interment in it of one of his family: but it was the
be instituted against debtors, who had not been better opinion that land in the provinces could not
registered. (Meier, Att. Process, pp. 353, 354; thus be made religiosus; and the reason given is
BIockh, Pzbl. Econ. ofAt/lens, pp. 388, 389, 2nd ed.) this, that the ownership or property in provincial
AGRAPHOU METALLOU GRAPHE' lands is either in the state (pop. Romn.) or in the
(cyptcpov Ue'raXAXov oypaqpm) was an action brought Caesar, and that individuals have only the possesbefore the thesmothetae at Athens, against an in- sion and enjoyment of it (possessio et esus frziCdividual, who worked a mine without having pre- tizs). Provincial lands were either stipendiaria or
viously registered it. The state required that all tribzetcaria: the stipendiaria were in those provinces
mines should be registered, because the twenty- which were considered to belong to the Roman
fourth part of their produce was payable to the state; the tributaria were in those provinces which
public treasury. (Bdckh, Publ. Econ. of AtAhens, were considered as the property of the Caesar.
p. 664, 2nd ed.; Meier, Altt. Process, p. 354.) Land which was humani juris, was divided into
AGRA'RIAE LEGES.'" It is not exactly public and private: public land belonged to the
true that the agrarian law of Cassius was the state; private land, to individuals.
earliest that was so called: every law by which the It would seem to follow from the legal form obcommonwealth disposed of its public land, bore served in making land sacer, that it thereby ceased
that name; as, for instance, that by which the to be publicus; for if it still continued publicus, it:
domain of the kings was parcelled out among the had not changed its essential quality. Niebuhr
commonalty, and those- by which colonies were (Appendix I. vol. ii.) has stated that " all Roman
planted. Even in the narrower sense of a law land was either the property of the state (common
whereby the state exercised its ownership in re- land, domain), or private property, — att publicizs
moving the old possessors from a part of its aut privatus;" and he adds that "c the landed
domain, and making over its right of property property of the state-was either consecrated to the
therein, such a law existed among those of Servius gods (sacer), or allotted to men to reap its fruits
Tullius." (Niebuhr, Rome. Hist. vol. ii. p. 129. (profanus, hlunzanijzris)."' Niebuhr then refers to
transl.) the view of Gaius, who makes the division into
The complete history of the enactments called dinvi juris and lhuzani juris, the primary divi-:
agrarian laws, either. in the larger and more cor- sion; but he relies on the authority of Frontinus,
rect sense, or in the narrower sense of the term, supported by Livy (viii. 14), as evidence of the
as explained in this extract, would be out of place correctness of his own division.*
here. The particular objects of each agrarian law Though the origin of that lind of property
must be ascertained from its provisions. -But all
these numerous enactments had reference to the * It is obvious, on comparing two passages in
puablic land; and many of them were passed for Frontinus (De Re AgraTia xi. xiii.), that Niebuhr
the purpose of settling Roman colonies in con- has mistaken the meaning of the writer, who
quered districts, and assigning to the soldiers, who clearly intends it to be inferred that the sacred
formed a large part of such colonists, their shares land was not public land. Besides, if the meaning
in such lands. The true meaning of all or any of of Frontinus was what Niebuhr has supposed it to
these enactments can only be understood when we be, his authority is not equal to that of Gains on a
have formed a correct notion of property in land, matter which specially belongs to the province of
as recognised by Roman law. It is not necessary, the jurist, and is foreign to that of the agrimensor.
ill order to obtain this correct notion, to ascend to The passage of Livy does not prove Niebuhr's
the origin of the Roman state, though if a com- assertion. Livy merely states that the temple and
plete history of Rome could be written, our con- grove of Sospita Juno should be common to the
ception of the real character of property in land, Lanuvini municipes and the Roman people; and
as recognised by Roman law, would be more en- in what other terms could he express the fact
larged and more precise. But the system of that the temple should be used by both people?
Roman law, as it existed under the emperors, That does not prove that a temple was considered
contained both the terms and the notions which the same kind of public property as a tract- of
belonged to those early ages, of which they are unconsecrated land was. The formn of dedition in
the most faithful historical monunents. In an Livy (i. 38) may easily be explained.
D 3