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

POSSESSIO. POSTLIMINIUM..'9:9
(On what ground is hare Possession to 1)e main- was a simrfple process to transfer it to that notion of
tained, if it is not a Right? The answer is, that Possessio which had existed in the case of the Ager
Possession cannot be disturbed except by force, Publicus. [EMPIYTVEUSIS.]
and force is not allowed. The fundamental notion This article read in connection with the article
then is this; a violent disturbance of Possession is on the Agrariae Leges, and the Licinian Rogaan attack on a man's personality, on his freedom. tions FLEX, pp. 693, 694], will give the reader an
It is shown in the article AGRARIAE LcEGCs that outline of the law of Possession both in relation to
the origin of the Roman doctrine of Possession may the Ager Publicus and Privates.
probably be traced to the Possessio of the Ager The preceding view of possession is from
Publicus. Possessio, Possessor, and Possidere are Savigny, D)cs Recclt des Besifes, fifth ed. 1827.
the proper technical terms used by the Roman There is an analysis of this excellent work by
writers to express the possession and the enjoy- Warnkonig,'"Analyse du traite de la possession
Ment of the Public Lands. These terms did not par M. de Savigny, Liege 1824 a" and a summary
express ownership (ex jure Quiritiam): they had view of Savigny's Theory is given by Mackeldey,
in fact no more relation to ownership than the LersbSucls, tc. ii. p. 7. See also Puchta, Inst. ii.
Possessio of which this article treats. Still the ~ 224; Gaius, iv. 138-170; Inst. 4. tit. 15;
notion of this kind of use and enjoyment was Dig. 41. tit. 2, 3; 43. tit. 16-23, 26, 31; Cod.
such, that one may easily conceive how the tenn 7. tit. 32; 8. tit. 4, 5, 6, 9; Cod. Theod. 4. tit.
P'ossessio became applicable to various cases in 22, 23. [G. L.]
which there was no Quiritarian ownership, but POSSE'SSIO;~ BONORUM. [BONORITu Possomething that had an analogy to it. Thus in the SESSIO.]
case of Damnuln infectum, with reference to the, POSSE'SSIO C LANDESTI'NA. [INTERsecond missio in possessionen (ex secuzedo decreto), DICTcrui.]
the Praetor says "possidere jubebo," which is POSTI'CUM. [JANUA.]
equivalent to giving bonitarian ownership with the POSTLIMIINIUM, JUS POSTLIMI'NII.
power of usucapion. A ususfructus which could " There are," says Pomponius (Dig. 49. tit. 15.
only be maintained by the Jus Praetoriune, was a, s. 14), " two kinds of Postliminium, for a man
Iossessio ususfructns as opposed to Dominium may either return himself or recover something.'";
ususfructus. The expressions Hereditatis or bo- Postliminium is further defined by Paulus (Dig.'
norum possessio do not mean the actual possession 49. tit. 15. s. 19) to be the "right of recovering a.
of the things, but the peculiar character, of the lost thing from an extraneus and of its being rePraetoria herelditas: for this B-onorum possessio: stored to its former status, which right has been
ihas the same relation to the Hereditas that Boni- established between us (the Romans) and free peo-:
tarian has to Quiritarian ownership. [DOMINIeI; pIe and kings by usage and laws (eeoribus ac.
H aEs.] Now there is a clear analogy in all legibus); for what we have lost in war or even out.
these instances to the Possessio of the Ager of w-ar, if we lecoder it, we said to recover
Publicus, which consists in this, that in both, cases postliminio-; and this usage has been introduced
als actual exclusive enjoyment of a particulariper- by natural equity, in order that he who was
son to a particular thing is recognized. This will wrongfully detained by stringers, should recover.
also explain how property in provincial ground his former rights on returning into his own terricame to be called Possessio: sech property was tories (in fzlzes suos)." Again Paulus says, "a
inot Quiritarian ownership, but it was a right to man seenis to have returned Postliminio, when he
the exclusive enjoyment of the land, a right which has entered our territory (isn fines nostros intrathe word Possessio sufficiently expressed.'Thus erit); as a foundation is laid for a Postliminium
the name Possessio was transferred from the Right (sicuti adseittitusr:') (2) wlien he has gone beyond our,
to its Object; and Ager iand Possessio were thus territories (ueifioes nostros excessit). But if a man.
opposed: Ager was a piece of land which was ahas come into a state in alliance (socia) or friendthe object of Quiritarian ownership, and Possessio ship with Rome, or has come to a King in alliance
a piece of land which was either accidentally an cr friendship with Rome, he appears to have forth..
object only of Bonitarian ownershilp as a fundus with returned by Postliminiumi because he then
Italicus of which there had been merely tradition; first begins to be safe under the name of the Roman.
or it was land that could not be the object of Quiri- state." These extracts sire made for the purposetariaIn ownership, such as Provincial land (Javo- of clearing up the Etymology of this word, as to:
lenus, Dig. 50. tit. 16. s. 1 15), and the old Ager whichl there was a differeace of opinion. (Cic.
Publicus. Top. 8.) The explanation of Scaevola, as givenl
Other matters relating to Possessio appear to be by Cicero, has reference to the etymology of the.
explained by this view of its historical origin. The word, post and liuen "what has been lest by us
Interdictum reeuperandae possessionis relates only and has come to an enemy and as it were has gone
to Iand, a circumstance which is consistent wVith from its own limen, and then has afterwards (post)
the hypothesis of the origin of Possessio. The returned to the samne limen, seems to have returned
nature of the Precarium also is explained, when by Postliminium." According to this explanation,
we know that it expressed originally the relation the limen was the boundary or limit within whichl
between the Patronus and the Cliens who occupied the thing was under the authority of Rome andt
the Possessio of the Patronus as a tenant at will an object of Romninl law. A recent writer (Goetand could be ejected by the Interdictum de pre- tling, GescAiclste des RMinz. Staatsverfetssung, p. 117)
cario, if he did not quit on notice. Further, we suggests that Postliminium must be viewed in a
may thus explain the apparent inconsistency in the sense analogous to Pomeerium. There is a fanciful
case of a lessee of Ager Vectigis, who though lie explanation of the matter by Plutarch (Quaest.
had only a jus in re, had yet juristical Possessio: Rose. 5) in his answer to the question, Why are
the Ager Vectigal!is was in -fact fiashioned according to the analogy of the old Ager Publicus,3 and it * " Siruti amittitur," Flor., Geb. et Sp1mg.
303