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

40 AGRARIAE LEGES. AGRARIAE LEGES.
by conquest, it would seem that the plebs had as statement is true, all the sums paid by the original
good a title to a share of the newly conquered landholders were appropriated to the colonists.
lands, as the patricians to the exclusive enjoyment Niebuhr seems to suppose, that the Roman state
of those lands which had been acquired by conquest might at any time resume such restored lands
before the plebs had become an estate; and ac- and, no doubt, the notion of a possibility of recording to Livy (iv. 49), the plebs founded their sumption under some circumstances at least was
claim to the captured lands on their services in the involved in the tenure by which these lands were
war. The determination of what part of newly held; but it may be doubted if the resumption of
conquered lands (arable and vineyards) should re- such lands was ever resorted to except in extraormain public, and what part should be assigned to dinary cases, and except as to conquered lands'the plebs, which, Niebuhr says, " it need scarcely which were the public lands of the conquered
be observed was done after the completion of every state. Private persons, who were permitted to
conquest," ought to have been an effectual way of retain their lands subject to the payment of a tax,
settling all disputes between the *patricians and were not the possessors to whom the agrarian laws
plebs as to the possessions of the former; for such applied. In many cases large tracts of land were
an appropriation, if it were actually made, could absolutely seized, their owners having perished in
have no other meaning than that the patricians battle or been driven away, and extensive districts,
were to have as good title to possess their share either not cultivated at all or very imperfectly culas the plebs to the ownership of their assigned tivated, became the property of the state. Such
portions. The plebs at least could never fairly lands as were unoccupied could become the subject
claim an assignment of public land, appropriated of possessio; and the possessor would, in all cases,
to remain such, at the time when they received and in whatever manner he obtained the land, be
the share of the conquered lands to which they liable to a payment to the state, as above-menwere intitled. But the fact is, that we have no tioned in the extract from Appian.
evidence at all as to such division between lands This possessio was a real interest, for it was the
appropriated to remain public and lands assigned subject of sale: it was the use (usus) of the land;
in ownership, as Niebuhr assumes. All that we but it was not the ager or property. The possessio
know is, that the patricians possessed large tracts strictly could not pass by the testament of the
of public land, and that the plebs from time to possessor, at least not by the mancipatio. (Gaius,
time claimed and enforced a division of part of ii. 102.) It is not easy, therefore, to imagine any
them. In such a condition of affairs, many diffi- mode by which the possession of the heres was
cult questions might arise; and it is quite as pos- protected, unless there was a legal form, such as
sible to conceive that the claims of the plebs might Savigny has assumed to exist for the general proin some cases be as ill founded as the conduct of tection of possessiones in the public lands. The
the patricians was alleged to be rapacious in ex- possessor of public land never acquired the ownertending their possessions. In the course of time, ship by virtue of his possession; it was not subject
owing to sales of possessions, family settlements, to usucapion. The ownership of the land which
permanent improvements made onil the land, the belonged to the state, could only be acquired by
claims on the land of creditors who had lent money the grant of the ownership, or by purchase froni
on the security of it, and other causes, the equitable the state. The state could at any time, according
adjustment of rights under an agrarian law was to strict right, sell that land which was only posimpossible; and this is a difficulty which Appian sessed, or assign it to another than the possessor.
(i. 10. 18) particularly mentions as resulting from The possession was, in fact, with respect to the state,
the law of Tib. Gracchus. precarium; and we may suppose that the lands so
Public pasture lands, it appears, were not the held would at first receive few permanent improvesubject of assignment. ments. In course oftime, and particularly when
The property (publiciz) of the Roman people the possessors had been undisturbed'for many
consisted of many things besides land. The con- years, possession would appear, in an equitable
quest of a territory, unless special terms were point of view, to have become equivalent to ownergranted to the conquered, seems to have implied ship; and the hardship of removing the possessors
the acquisition by the Roman state of the conquered by an agrarian law would appear the greater, after
territory and all that it contained. Thus not only the state had long acquiesced in their use and ocwould land be acquired, which was available for cupation of the public land.
corn, vineyards, and pasture; but mines, roads, In order to form a correct judgment of these enrivers, harbours, and, as a consequence, tolls and actments which are specially cited as agrarian laws,
duties. If a Roman colony was sent out to occupy it must be borne in mind that the possessors of
a conquered territory or town, a part of the con- public lands owed a yearly tenth, or fifth, as the
quered lands was assigned to the colonists in com- case might be, to the state. These annual payplete ownership. [COLONIA.] The remainder, it ments were, it seems, often withheld by the posappears, was left or restored to the inhabitants. sessors, and thus the state was deprived of a fund
Not that we are to understand that they had the for the expenses of war and othergeneral purposes.
property in the land as they had before; but it The first mention by Livy of conquered land
appears that they were subject to a payment, the being distributed among the plebs belongs to the
produce of which belonged to the Roman people. reign of Servius Tullius (i. 46, 47). The object of the
In the case of the colony sent to Antium, Dionysius agrarian law of Sp. Cassius (Liv. ii. 41; Dionys.
(ix. 60) states, " that all the Antiates who had viii. 70), B. c. 484, is supposed by Niebuhr to have
houses and lands remained in the country, and been " that the portion of the populus in the public
cultivated both the portions that were set aside for lands should be set apart, that the rest should be
them and the portions appropriated to the colonists, divided among the plebeians, that the tithe should
on the condition of paying to them a fixed portion again be levied and applied to paying the army."
of the produce;" in which case, if the historian's The agrarian law of C. Licinius Stolo (Liv. vi. 36;