Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/421



AGRARIAN LAWS (Lat. ager, land). Under this heading we deal with the disposal of the public land (ager publicus) of ancient Rome. It was a principle of the Republican constitution that no gratuitous disposition of state property should be made without the consent of the people. Hence many of the ordinances affecting the public land were laws (leges) in the strictest sense of that word. It is, however, both justifiable and convenient to consider in this article all the regulations that were made for the administration of the public land by the executive authorities, as well as by the people during the Republic, and by the commands of the emperor, which had the force of law during the Principate.

The existence of public land, first in Italy, and then in the Mediterranean world, was the outcome of two ideas which are very familiar to students of antiquity. This land was the prize of conquest and was one of the means of defraying the current expenses of state-administration. For the latter purpose land is often leased or allowed to be occupied on the condition of the payment of dues. But it may be made to fulfil another purpose as well—this purpose being the satisfaction of the individual needs of poorer citizens. To meet this object the land is usually assigned, and on assignment generally ceases to be the property of the state. But it often happens that the state is not wholly disinterested in undertaking such acts of assignment. It gains security and territorial control by planting garrisons in conquered country, and it relieves itself of the necessity of providing for its poorer classes whether by state-aid or by a hazardous tampering with the rights of private property. In this use to which public land could be turned we see at once the connexion between agrarian legislation and colonization—a connexion which was so close that when a Roman spoke of an agrarian law he seems generally to have understood by it a law establishing a colony—and also the two aspects of colonization, the military and the social. These two objects were indissolubly connected throughout the whole of the earlier period of Roman agrarian assignation. They only became separated in the period subsequent to the Gracchi in so far as social motives still continued to be operative when military precautions had ceased to be necessary. It is probable that one of the chief motives which prompted infant Rome to war with her neighbours was the land-hunger of her citizens. This hunger she satisfied after conquest by annexing a portion of the enemy’s territory. The amount thus confiscated varied from time to time. It was usually a third, but sometimes a half or even two-thirds, and after the fall of Capua in the Second Punic War the whole territory of the state was annexed. It is possible that by the close of the 2nd century one-half of the land of Italy belonged to Rome whether in private ownership or as the property of the state. Annexation was carried on in the provinces on a relatively smaller scale: but Rome retained as domain-land much of the territory of communities which had been destroyed, such as Carthage and Corinth, and the estates of former kings, such as the lands of the Attalids in the Chersonese. Other domains in Sicily and Greece, such as the territory of Leontini in the former, or Oropus in the latter case, are also found. This peculiar property of the Roman state in the provinces must be carefully distinguished from the general overlordship which Rome was supposed to hold over all provincial soil, expressed in the statement that provincials had only possession or usufruct of their land (Gaius ii. 7; Gromatici, p. 36, Lachmann). This overlordship was probably merely a legal fiction by which the juristic mind assigned a reason for the fact that the provincials paid a land tax from which Italians were exempt.

Such portions of the territories of conquered cities as were not claimed by Rome were as a matter of course left in the undisturbed possession of these cities. If the city was a federate state (civitas foederata), his possession was guaranteed by a treaty; if it was a free city, the guarantee was made by charter; if it was neither federate nor free, the abandonment of the territory by Rome must have been taken as a sufficient guarantee of the city’s right to possess, although statements relative to the surrender may have been contained in the charter of the province (lex provinciae) to which the city belonged. But, whether the states were federate, free or stipendiary, there was only one case in which it was important to specify precisely that land had been restored (redditus) to its former occupants. This was the case where Rome had marked out a territory for assignment to her own citizens, but where in or near the limits of the assignment some of the land had been left in the hands of its former proprietors. Such land was noted in the state registers as redditus veteri possessori. Sometimes it was found that such an ancient possessor owned pieces of land separated from one another. In such cases an exchange might be effected between him and some other possessor, so that his possessions might be continuous. The fact of such an exchange was symbolized in the registers by the entry of land redditus et commutatus pro suo.

When the claims of earlier owners had been satisfied, the state proceeded to deal with such land as it retained. It dealt with it in two ways. It either alienated it, whether in exchange for a price or gratuitously; or it kept it as a source of revenue, whether on a system of lease or on some system of remunerative occupation. We may first consider the cases in which the state decided to alienate. The land might be sold for the benefit of the treasury. Typical instances of this treatment are furnished by the sale of some Campanian land during the Second Punic War (Livy xxviii. 46, xxxii. 7). The censors may have directed the sale, but it was executed by the quaestors as the regular officials of the treasury. Hence such land was described as ager quaestorius. The land was sold in definitely marked out plots, and we must suppose that, as a rule, when this sale had been effected, the lots fell under the absolute ownership of their purchasers. Yet there was some period of Roman history when this ownership was (at least in certain cases) conditioned. The Roman writers on agriculture speak of conditions and their neglect (Gromatici, p. 115). The conditions were probably those of military service or frontier defence. The epoch of history at which this conditioned ownership was recognized cannot be determined. It is a form of tenure that would be equally appropriate to the needs of the earliest period of Roman history and to those of imperial times.

The second mode of alienation was that by assignation. Lands thus assigned were known as agri dati assignati. The gift on the part of the state was gratuitous, and ownership passed wholly to the assignee. The land so given was definitely surveyed, marked out and registered. Such an assignment might take one of two possible forms. It might be the means of establishing a new “plantation” (colonia), with some independent political organization of its own, however slight—a settlement, therefore, which could be thought of as an entity separate from the city of Rome and from any other municipality. Or it might be the means of providing allotments for individuals who remained domiciled at Rome or continued to be members of some already existing municipality. It has been frequently held in modern times that this latter method of assignment is the one which our ancient authorities describe as assignment to individuals (viritim), and that the antithesis lies between the “colonial” and the “viritane” method of distribution. It is true that the passages which speak of the latter mode of assignation need not, and perhaps cannot, be interpreted as presenting the antithesis (Varro, de Re Rustica, i. 2. 7, i. 10. 2; Livy iv. 48, v. 24; Festus, p. 373; Gromatici, pp. 154, 160); yet it is not improbable that the antithesis is latent in this specific use of the term. It seems clear that the idea of assignation to, and, therefore, of ownership by, individuals must originally have been developed in contrast to the idea of ownership by some larger group (see ). When the stage of individual ownership was reached, all assignation was “viritane,” but only some assignation was “colonial.” “Viritane” was, therefore, the wider term which would cover, and may sometimes have been used