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

42 AGRARIAE LEGES. AGRARIAE LEGES.
and the Campanus Ager, which all previous agra- GescJiclhtliche Rechtsweissenscca ft (vol. v. p. 254), is,
rlan laws had left untouched. The fertile tract of that under the Caesars a uniform system of direct
Capua (Campanus Ager) was distributed among taxation was established in the provinces, to which
20,000 persons, who had the qualification that the all provincial land was subject; but land in Italy
law required, of three or more children. After was free from this tax, and a provincial town could
this distribution of the Campanian land, and the only acquire the like freedom by receiving the
abolition of the port duties and tolls (portoria), privilege expressed by the term Jus Italicum. The
Cicero observes (ad Alt. ii. 16), " there was no complete solution of the question here under disrevenue to be raised from Italy, except the five cussion could only be effected by ascertaining the
per cent. (vicesi7c) " from the sale and manu- origin and real nature of this provincial land-tax;
mlss;on of slaves. and as it may be difficult, if not impossible, to
The lands wvhich the Roman people had acquired ascertain such facts, we must endeavour to give
in the Italian peninsula by conquest were greatly a probable solution. Now it is consistent with
reduced in amount by the laws of Gracchus and by Roman notions that all conquered land should he
sale. Confiscations in the civil wars, and conquests considered as the property of the Roman state;
abroad, were, indeed, continually increasing the and it is certain that such land, though assigned
public lands; but these lands were allotted to the to individuals, did not by that circumstance alone
s)lddiers and the numerous colonists to whom the become invested with all the characters of that
state was continually giving lands. The system of Roman land which was private property. It had not
colonisation which prevailed during the republic, the privilege of the Jus Italicum, and consequently
was continued under the emperors, and considerable could not be the object of Quiritarian ownership,
tracts of Italian land were disposed of in this man- with its incidents of mancipatio, &c. All land in
ier by Augustus and his successors. Vespasian as- the provinces, including even that of the liberae
signed lands in Samnium to his soldiers, and grants civitates, and the ager publicus properly so called,
of Italian lands are mentioned by subsequent em- could only become an object of Quiritarian ownerperors, though we may infer that at the close of ship by having conferred upon it the privilege of
the second century of or' aara, there was little Italic land, by which it was also released from the
public land left in the peninsula. Vespasian sold payment of the tax. It is clear that there might
part of the public lands called subsecicca. Domitian be and was ager privatus, or private property, in
gave the remainder of such lands all through Italy provincial land; but this land had not the
to the possessors (Aggenus). The conquests be privileges of Italic land, unless such privilege was
vend the limits of Italy furnished the emllperors expressly given to it, and accordingly it paid a tax.
with the means of rewarding the veterans by grants As the notions of landed property in all countries
of land, and in this way the institutions of Rome seem to suppose a complete ownership residing in
were planted on a foreign soil. But, according to some person, and as the provincial landowner,
Gains, property in the land was not acquired by whose lands had not the privilege of the Jus
such grant; the ownership was still in the state, Italicum, had not that kind of ownership which,
and the provincial landholder had only the pos- according to the notions of Roman law, was comsessio. If this be true, as against the Roman plete ownership, it is difficult to conceive that the
people or the Caesar, his interest in the land was ultimate ownership of provincial lands (with the
one that might be resumed at any time, according exception of those of the liberae civitates) could
to the strict rules of law, though it is easily con- reside any where else than in the popilus Rnomanus,
ceived that such foreign possessions would daily and, after the establishment of the imperial power,
acquire strength, and could not safely be dealt in the populus Romanus or the Caesar. This
with as possessions had been in Italy by the question is, however, one of some difficulty, and
various agrarian laws which had convulsed the well deserves further examination. It may be
Iomnan state. This assertion of the right of the doubted, however, if Gaius means to say that
populus Romanus and of the emperors, might there could be no Quiritarian ownership of private
be no wrong, c inflicted on provincial landowners land in the provinces; at least this would not be
t)y the Roman jnrisprudence,"' as Niebuhr affirms. the case in those districts to which the Jus Italicum
The tsx paid by the holders of ager privatus in was extended. The case of the Recentoric lands,
the provinces was the only thing which dis- which is quoted by Niebuhr (Cic. c. Rulluln, i. 4),
tinguished the beneficial interest in such land from may be explained. The land here spoken of was
Italic land, and might be, in legal effect, a recog- land in Sicily. One object of the measure of
nition of the ownership according to Roman law. Rullus was to exact certain extraordinary payAnd this was Savigny's earlier opinion with re- ments (rectigal) from the public lands, that is,
spect to the tax paid by provincial lands; he con- from the possessors of them; but he excepted the
sidered such tax due to the Roman people as the Recentoric lands from the operation of his measure.
sovereign or ultimate owner of the lands. His If this is private land, Cicero argues, the exception
later opinion, as expressed in the Zeitsclr'ift fib- is unnecessary. The argument, of course, assumes
- that there was or might be private land in Sicily;
Niebuhr observes that Frontinus speaks of that is, there was or might be land which would
the " arva publicU in the provinces, in contradis- not be affected by this part of the measure of
tinction to the agri privati there;" but this he Rullus. Now the opposition of public and private
certainly does not. This contradistinction is made land in this passage certainly proves, what can
-by his commentator Aggenus who, as he himself easily be proved without it, that individuals in the
says, only conjectures the meaning of Frontinus; provinces owned land as individuals did in Italy;
allnd, perhaps, he has not discovered it. (Rei Agr. and such land might with propriety be cal'ed
Soript. pp. 38. 46, 47.) Savigny's explanation of privatus, as contrasted with that called publicus in
this passage is contained in the ZeitsckiSrft file the provinces: in fact, it would not be easy to
Gescli. Reecltsw. vol. xi. p. 24. have found another name for it. But we know