Scanned text contains errors.
sum of money to the state (ot to> 8r7/-io<r/<jfj otyei-aoj/tfs) were registered by the practores (Trpa/c-ropes), upon tablets kept for that purpose in the temple of Athena, on the Acropolis (Dem. c.Aristog. i. p. 791; Harpocr. and Suidas, s. v. "VevSeyypa.^) • and hence the expression of being registered on the Acropolis (eyyeypa/j.fAzvos Iv yAKpoir6\€t) always means being indebted to the state. (Dem. c. Theocr. p. 1337.) Whoever paid his fine after registration -was erased, either wholly or in part, according to the amount paid ; but if a person's name was improperly erased, he was subject to the action for non-registration (aypcupiov ypatyfy, which was under the jurisdiction of the thesmothetae. If an individual was not registered, he could only be proceeded against by e^Se^s, and was not liable to the aypatyiov ypaty'fj. (Dem.-in Theocr. p. 1338.) Hesychius, whose account has been followed by Hemsterhuis and Wesseling, appears to have been mistaken in saying that the aypatyiov ypatyij could be instituted against debtors, who had not been registered. (Meier, Ait. Process, pp. 353, 354; Bockh, Putt. Econ. of Athens, pp. 388,389,2nd ed.) ^AGRAPHOU METALLOU GRAPHE' (aypdfyov [j.€Td\Xov ypatyty was an action brought before the thesmothetae at Athens, against an individual, who worked a mine without having previously registered it. The state required that all mines should be registered, because the twenty-fourth part of their, produce was payable to the public treasury. (Bockh, Publ. Econ. of Athens., p. 664, 2nd ed.; Meier, Ait. Process, p. 354.)
AGRARIAE LEGES. " It is not exactly true that the agrarian law of Cassius was the earliest that was so called: every law by which the commonwealth disposed of its public land, bore that name ; as, for instance, that by which the domain of the kings was parcelled out among the commonalty, and those by which colonies were planted. Even in the narrower sense of a law whereby the state exercised its ownership in removing the old possessors from a part of its domain, and making over its right of property therein, such a law existed among those of Servius Tullius." (Niebuhr, Rom. Hist. vol. ii. p. 129. transl.)
The complete history of the enactments called agrarian laws, either, in the larger and more correct sense, or in the narrower sense of the term, as explained in this extract, would be out of place here. The particular objects of each agrarian law must be ascertained from its provisions. But all these numerous enactments had reference to the public land ; and many of them were passed for the purpose of settling Roman colonies in conquered districts, and assigning to the soldiers, who formed a large part of such colonists, their shares in such lands. The true meaning of all or any of these enactments can only be understood when we have formed a correct notion of property in land, as recognised by Roman law. It is not necessary, in order to obtain this correct notion, to ascend to the origin of the Roman state, though if a complete history of Rome could be written, our conception of the real character of property in land, as recognised by Roman law, would be more enlarged and more precise. But the system of Roman law, as it existed under the emperors, contained both the terms and the notions which belonged to those early ages, of which they are the most faithful historical monuments. In an
inquiry of the present kind, we may begin at any point in the historical series which is definite, and we may ascend from .known and intelligible notions which belong to a later age, towards their historical origin, though we may never be able to reach it.
Gaius (ii. 2, &c.), who probably wrote under the Antonines, made two chief divisions of Roman land ; that which was divini juris, and that which was liumani juris. Land which was divini juris was either sacer or religiosus. (Compare Frontinus, De Re Agraria, xiii. or p. 42. ed. Goes.) Land which was sacer was consecrated to the Dii Su-peri; land which was religiosus belonged to the Dii Manes. Land was made sacer by a lex or senatus consultum ; and, as the context shows, such land was land which had belonged to the state (populus Romanus}. An individual could make a portion of his own land religiosus by the interment in it of one of his family : but it was the better opinion that land in the provinces could not thus be made religiosus ; and the reason given is this, that the ownership or property in provincial lands is either in the state (pop- Rom.} or in the Caesar, and that individuals .have only the possession and enjoyment of it (possessio et usus frvc-tiis}. Provincial lands were either stipendiaria or tributaria: the stipendiaria were in those provinces which were considered to belong to the Roman state ; the tributaria were in those provinces which were considered as the property of the Caesar. Land which was liumani juris, was divided into public and private: public land belonged to the state ; private land, to individuals.
It would seem to follow from the legal form observed in making land sacer, that it thereby ceased to be publicus ; for if it still continued publicus, it had not changed its essential quality. Niebuhr (Appendix i. vol. ii.) has stated that " all Roman land was either the property of the state (common land, domain), or private property, — aut publicus aut privatus;" and he adds that " the landed property of the state was either consecrated to the gods (sacer}, or allotted to men to reap its fruits (profanus, liumani juris)." Niebuhr then refers to the view of Gaius, who makes the division into divini juris and humani juris, the primary division ; but he relies on the authority of Frontinus, supported by Livy (viii. 14), as evidence of the correctness of his own division.*
Though the origin of that kind of property
* It is obvious, on comparing two passages in Frontinus (De Re Agraria xi. xiii.), that Niebuhr has mistaken the meaning of the writer, who clearly intends it to be inferred that the sacred land was not public land. Besides, if the meaning of Frontinus was what Niebuhr has supposed it to be, his authority is not equal to that of Gains on a matter which specially belongs to the province of the jurist, and is foreign to that of the agrimensor. The passage of Livy does not prove Niebuhr's assertion. Livy merely states that the temple and' grove of Sospita Juno should be common to the Lanuvini municipes and the Roman people'; and in what other terms could he express the fact that the temple should be used by bbth people ? That does not prove that a temple was considered the same kind of public property as a tract of unconsecrated land was. The form of dedition in Livy (i. 38) may easily be explained.