VIII.—On the Centuriation of Roman Britain

Henry Charles Coote Esq.

doi:10.1017/S0261340900004768

^{page 127 note a} “Ut numerus civium, quern multiplicare divus Augustus conabatur, haberet spatia in quse subsistere potuisset.”—Hyginus in Lachman's edition of the Gromatici Veteres, 2 vols. 8vo. Berlin, 1848–1852, p. 113. [My subsequent references to the works of the various agrimensorial writers are to this edition, unless otherwise stated.] The consuls, in expostulating with the Latin colonies, laid down the same principle, “sed Eomanos inde oriundos, inde in colonias atque in bello agrum captum urbis augendæ causa missos.”—Liv. xxvii.c. 9. The colonists also were the advanced guard of Eome, protecting her extended frontier. So Horace says, Sat. lib. ii. 1:—

“Nam Venusinus arat finem sub utrumque colonus,

Missus ad hoc, pulsis (vetus est ut fama) Sabellis,

Quo ne per vacuum Romano incurreret hostis.”

Or, as Tacitus expresses it, “Colonia deducitur in agros captivos, subsidium adversus rebelles, et pro imbuendis sociis ad officia legum.”—Ann. xii. 31.

^{page 128 note a} “Causam autem dividendorum agrorum bella fecerunt. Captus enim ager ex hoste, victori militi veteranoque est assignatus, hostibus pulsis.”—Siculus Flaccus, p. 155.

^{page 128 note b} It is consequently merely an error to suppose that colonies were sent to those cities only which in later days are found in possession of this name. Whenever land (ager) was divisus assignatus (to use the words of Frontinus, lib. i. p. 2), there was by necessity a colony, because that land was territory, and Romans, Latins, or Italians had received assignments of it under the express contract of settling upon them. This was the original meaning of the word colonia. Though in later days a meaning of municipal difference was attached to it, originally it had reference to the body of colonists, not to the city which they were to found, or to the territory which was to be assigned to it. The future city might be municipium, forum, prœfectura, conciliabulum (see LL. Mamilia, Roscia, Peducea, Alliena, Fabia, in Lachman, p. 263, et seqq.) names at one time familiar to the Roman system, and expressing differences in municipal organization, in privileges or obligations relatively to Rome, but all agreeing in the one fact that they were Roman colonies. Afterwards, but much later, the term colonia was applied to the city itself, as expressing a municipal difference and prerogative, and civitas became the general name for all colonial cities which, however they might differ in some points, agreed in the circumstance of having a territory attached to them. “Civitates enim quarum conditiones aliæ sunt coloniæ dicuntur, municipia, quædam præfecturæ.”—Sic. Flace. p. 135. There is an interesting disputation in Aulus Gellius, xvi. 13, upon the differences between coloniœ and municipia. These differences, even in his day, were hard to catch, the historical rights and obligations upon which they had been founded having faded into oblivion. He says, “Sic adeo et municipia quid et quo jure sint, quantumque a colonia differant ignoramus.” He adds that there was a general opinion that a so-called colonia (or municipium having jus coloniœ) was greater or more respectable than an ordinary municipium. “Existimamusque meliore conditione esse colonias quam municipia.” The Emperors granted jus coloniœ to cities which had never been colonies.

^{page 128 note c} c. 1.

^{page 129 note a} Liber Coloniarum, i. p. 242, and Latinus and Mysrontius, p. 348.

^{page 129 note b} See the Itinerarium Antonini cited in Godefroye's Note to the Theod. Code, ii. pp. 353–4.

^{page 129 note c} “Solum autem quodcunque coloniæ est adsignatum id universum pertica appellatur.”—Frontinus, lib. ii. p. 26, and agrimensores passim.

^{page 129 note d} See Livy and the Libb. Colon, passim. “Hi agri leges accipiunt ab his, qui veteranos deducunt, et ita propriam observationem eorum lex data prsestat.”—Hyginus, p. 117.

^{page 129 note e} Liv. xxxiv. 53.

^{page 129 note f} Pp. 244, 253.

^{page 129 note g} LL. Mamilia, Roscia, &c. pp. 263—266.

^{page 129 note h} Hyg. p. 118.

^{page 129 note i} Hyg. pp. 111, 169, 175, 194.

Also Lib. Colon, p. 212.

^{page 129 note k} “In agris centuriatis excipitur limitum latitudo causâ itineris.”—Frontinus, ii. 58. “In quibusdam regionibus cum limites late patere juberent, modus eorum limitum in adsignationem non venit. Ssepe enim et viarum publicarum per centurias modus exceptus.”—Hyginus, p. 120. “Limitum quoque modus in quibusdam regionibus per amplum spatium exceptus est, in quibusdam vero modo adsignationis cessit.”—Sic. Flaccus, p. 158. When the roads and lanes were made out of the centuriœ which abutted upon them they were not public property, however much the public might use them. This is conveyed by the words “iter populo non debetur” used by the agrimensores in these cases.—See Libb. Colon. Lachman, passim.

^{page 130 note a} Lib. Coloniar. passim.

^{page 130 note b} Hyginus, pp. 170, 210. Frontinus, p. 30. M. J. Nipsus, p. 293, and Libb. Coloniar. passim.

^{page 130 note c} Hyg. p. 110. Lib. Colon, i. p. 213.

^{page 130 note d} Front, ii. pp. 46, 47.

^{page 130 note e} Hyginus, pp. 46, 47. “Aliquando integras plenasque centurias binas, pluresve continuas, uni nomini redditas invenimus; ex quo intelligitur redditum suum, lati fundi. Hi per continuationem servantur centuriis.”—Sic. Flacc. p. 157. This is the only passage in antiquity which gives the exact and technical meaning of lati fundi or latifundia.

^{page 130 note f} Lib. Colon, i. p. 211. Ibid. ii. p. 262. Sic. Flacc. p. 158. Porphyrion, the annotator of Horace, ii. 569, Hauthal's edition, explains saltus thus, “latis fundis porrectis per plurimos montes.” See also an interesting passage in Frontinus, p. 53, which gives us a large notion of the Roman proprietor : “præcipue in Africa ubi saltus non minores habent privati quam respublicæ (i.e. cities) territoria; quin immo multis saltus longe majores sunt territoriis. Habent autem in saltibus privati non exiguum populum plebeium (i.e. coloni) et vicos circa villam in modum munitionum.”

^{page 131 note a} “Non enim omnibus æqualiter datus, sed et secundum gradum militia et modus est datus,“&c.— Sic. Flacc. p. 156. “Nam cum signis et aquila et primis ordinibus ac tribunis deducebantur, modus agri pro portione officii dabatur.”—Hyginus, p. 176.

^{page 131 note b} Hyg. pp. 170, 171. Lib. Colon, ii. p. 262.

^{page 131 note c} These two kinds of property in land may be thus defined :—The one was in law an estate of absolute property, held by the proprietor of no person, freely alienable, devisable, and hereditary as a right; also it could not be charged with the tributum or direct land tax. The other (possessio) was an estate held of the Government, and neither alienable nor hereditary in the strict sense of right, but in the theory of law resumable at will by the State. It was subject to the tributum. As its defects of tenure were only devised to secure the realization of this important impost, the estate was in practice as firm, alienable, and hereditary as the other. The state only interfered with its course of enjoyment when the tax was in arrear. Then, and then only, it resumed possession. See p. 24 et seqq. of A neglected Fact in English History.

^{page 131 note d} The leges colonicœ distinguished the absolute estates as “loca hœreditaria,” (see Cicero pro Cecina, c. 35), while possessio was said by them to be “jure ordinario,” (see post in this note). For instances, where the whole territory is allotted as “terra hœreditaria,” see Lib. Colon, pp. 258, 259. For instances, where both forms of property were constituted, see ibid. p. 226 à propos of the ager Spoletinus, “nam et multa loca hæreditaria accepit ejus populus …. ager qui a fundo suo tertio vel quarto vicino situs est in jugeribus jure ordinario possidetur: sicut est Interamnse Flaminise et Interamnee Palentino-Piceni,”see also Lib. Colon, p. 259.

^{page 131 note e} Hyg. p. 133.

^{page 131 note f} Sic. Flace. p. 157, “Excepta, quæ aut sibi reservavit auctor divisionis et assignationis,“&c.

^{page 131 note g} Libb. Coloniar. passim. Sic. Flace. p. 157 et post.

^{page 131 note h} Hyg. p. 118. Lib. Colon, ii. p. 164.

^{page 131 note i} Front, ii. pp. 52, 53.

^{page 132 note a} I have no direct authority for this; but it is inferible. The lex colonica was regarded as a final settlement of all that concerned the territorium and its internal affairs.

^{page 132 note b} See post.

^{page 132 note c} Lib. Colon, i. p. 212. “Scriptos ita ut jusserit.” See also post.

^{page 132 note d} LL. Mamilia, &c, p. 263, et seqq.

^{page 132 note e} Libb. Coloniar. passim.

^{page 132 note f} Cod. 11, 60, c. 2. “Quicumque castellorum loca quocunque titulo possident, cedant ac deserant, quia his tantum fas est possidere castellorum territoria, quibus adscripta sunt, et de quibus judicavit antiquitas.” See the same law in the Theodosian Code, 7, 15, c. 2. There is also an interesting passage in reference to these castles in the Anonymus Scriptor subditus Notitiœ Imperii. (Gothofredus's edition of the Theodosian Code, vol. ii. p. 393), viz. “Est inter commoda reipubliæ utilis limitum cura ambientium ubique latus Imperii, quorum tutela assidua, castella melius prospicient, ita ut millenis interjectis passibus, stabilissimis et firmissimis turribus erigantur, quas quidem munitiones possessorum distributa sollicitudo sine publico sumptu constituat, vigiliis in his et agrariis exercendis.” See also ibid. 7, 14, c. 1, de Burgariis. Frontinus also (ii. p. 35, Lachman) speaks of the territory of a castellum.

^{page 133 note a} P. 118.

^{page 133 note b} Cicero de lege agraria, Oratio 2^da. cc. 12, 13.

^{page 133 note c} i. p. 22.

^{page 133 note d} P. 114.

^{page 133 note e} P. 163.

^{page 133 note f} Pp. 164,165.

^{page 133 note g} It is to be regretted that the agrimensores have said nothing about what was done with the area of the city itself, and how it was allotted amongst the municipalité and the colonists. Vitruvius (lib. i. c. 5,6,7,) tells us what the architect did.

^{page 133 note h} Hyg. p. 203.

^{page 134 note a} Hyg. p. 166. Frontinus, ii. pp. 27, 28, and passim in the agrimensorial books.

^{page 134 note b} Hyg. pp. 178—180, and see diagrams.

^{page 134 note c} Hyg. p. 194.

^{page 134 note d} Hyg. p. 180. This agrimensor gives Admedera in Africa as an example. I do not find this modern city in the classical geographies. It is, however, the same as that which is called Ammedera by Antoninus. It is now Haïdra in French Africa. See “Mémoire Historique et Archéologique sur Tebessa (Theveste) et ses environs,” by Capt. Moll, in the “Annuaire de la Société Archéologique de la province de Constantine, 1858, 1859.”

^{page 134 note e} Ibid. p. 191.

^{page 135 note a} Ibid. p. 180.

^{page 135 note b} See the agrimensorial books passim. Frontinus, i. p. 24, says “Omnes enim limites secundum legem colonicam itineri publico servire debent.”

^{page 135 note c} This sort of reckoning was purely Roman. It runs throughout the Digest in the numbering of the capita.

^{page 135 note d} Sic. Flace. pp. 111 and 158. Hyg. pp. 120, 166, 167, 175, 191. Front, i. p. 29.

^{page 135 note e} Ante.

^{page 135 note f} Hyg. p. 194.

^{page 135 note g} Lib. Colon, i. p. 212.

^{page 135 note h} Pp. 111, 158.

^{page 136 note a} Sic Flace. p. 153. See Libb. Colon, passim.

^{page 136 note b} See Hyginus, p. 169. “Velut hi qui sunt per viam publicam militarem acti.” See also the same author (p. 179), where an example is given of a decumanus maximus of a colony being taken along the Via Appia. The words used in the Lib. Coloniar. p. 241, “per certa loca vise militares finem faciunt,” show the same thing.

^{page 136 note c} Dig. 43, tit. 7, c. 3.

^{page 137 note a} Ulpian, Dig. 43, tit. 8, c. 2, s. 22, has another definition of vicinal ways, “Vicinales sunt vise, quæ in vicis sunt, aut quse in vias ducunt.”

^{page 137 note b} The centuria of 200 jugera was the more normal and usual quantity. See the Libb. Colon, and the agrimensorial books passim. The later text writers also preserved a tradition of its being so. Isidore, p. 369, Lachman, defines the centuria as “ducenta jugera;” and so says another writer at p. 372. Festus (sub voce Centuria,) gives the same definition.

^{page 137 note c} Front, i. p. 3. Hyg. p. 110 et alibi passim.

^{page 138 note a} P. 196, Lachman.

^{page 138 note b} “Quatuor limitibus clausum.”—Front, ii. p. 30.

^{page 138 note c} This may be illustrated by a passage in the Digest 33, tit. 7, c. 27, § 5, a fundus (i. e. a centuria, see ante), had been devised “cum suis salictis et silvis.” But as these willow grounds and woods, though adjacent and contiguous, were not within the fundus, they did not pass, “id tantum cedere legato quod verbis comprehendisset.” It is elsewhere said in the Digest (50, tit. 16, c. 60, § 2), “sed fundus quidem suos habet fines; locus vero latere potest quatenus determinetur et definiatur.”

^{page 138 note d} These are the technical phrases of the agrimensores, pp. 172, 196, 217, 222, Lachman.

^{page 139 note a} Hyginus, pp. 111, 112, 194, 195, 196.

^{page 139 note b} Ibid.

^{page 140 note a} Hyginus, pp. 195, 196. D and S, it is scarcely necessary to say, stand for Dextra and Sinistra; D and K, for Decumanus and Cardo, or an oblique case of those nouns; K and V, for Citra and Ultra respectively.

^{page 140 note b} Ibid. p. 173.

^{page 140 note c} Diagr. 145, A.

^{page 140 note d} Ibid. p, 309. See also pp. 358, 359.

^{page 140 note e} Ibid.

^{page 140 note f} Hyginus, p. 109.

^{page 140 note g} Latinus V. P. Togatus, p. 309. See also Lib. Colon, p. 213.

^{page 140 note h} P. 194; also at p. 195 he says “His angulis lapides defigamus.”

^{page 140 note i} P. 142.

^{page 140 note k} Ibid.

^{page 141 note a} That this is the meaning of caput see Marcus Junius Nipsus, p. 286, apud Lachman,—“Cum in agro assignato veneris et lapides duo contra aliis alios in capitibus centuriæ in decumano sive in cardine inveneris,” &c.

^{page 141 note b} Sic. Flaccus, p. 159. “Tot enim actus numerum per decumanum ac per cardinem datos inter se multiplicatos,” &c.

^{page 141 note c} Sic. Flaccus, p. 142, “in mediis spatiis plures interpositos.”

^{page 141 note d} P. 127, Lachman.

^{page 141 note e} Ante, and Sic. Flacc. p. 159.

^{page 141 note f} Sic. Flaccus, p. 159.

^{page 141 note g} Of this we shall see examples post.

^{page 141 note h} This is meant by the words “ager ejus in nominibus villarum et possessorum,“&c.—Lib. Colon, p. 239. Villa is here used for fundus, as the latter is legally employed for the collective villa and estate. “Ager cum ædificio fundus dicitur.” Dig. 50, 16, c. 211.

^{page 141 note i} Dig. 50, tit. 15, c. 4 and passim.

^{page 142 note a} Hyg. pp. 171,194.

^{page 142 note b} Hyg. p. 172.

^{page 142 note c} Hyg. 173; see also Hyginus, p. 194.

^{page 142 note d} P. 172.

^{page 142 note e} “Ad rationem vel recturas limitum pertinent.”—Lib. Colon, pp. 213.

^{page 142 note f} For the shape of the trifinial stones, see pp. 305, 306, 307, 361, of Lachman's Collection, and the diagrams.

^{page 142 note g} “Nam in supradictis locis, ubi limitem opere manuum hominum ordinavimus, terminos non necesse habuimus ponere, nisi in certâ ratione in trifinio aut in quadrifinio.”—Ex libris Magonis et Vegoiæ auctorum, p. 349. Lachman.

^{page 142 note h} In the Theodosiani et Valentiniani Constitutiones, p. 273, Lachman, a trifinium is defined to be “convenientia trium centuriarum.” “Trifinium dictum eo quod trium possessionum fines attingit. Hinc et quadrifinium quod quatuor,” p. 367, Lachman. “In trifinium, id est, in eum locum quern tres possessores adstringebant.”—Sic. Flaccus, p. 141.

^{page 142 note i} Sic. Flaccus, pp. 142, 143.

^{page 143 note a} “Quidam et signa defodiunt pro terminis.”—Hyg. p. 127. “Nam et variis regionibus signa defocliunt pro terminis.”—Sic. Flacc. p. 139, and see also p. 349. See also post, the passage quoted from St. Augustine.

^{page 143 note b} P. 341, Lachman.

^{page 143 note c} P. 308, Lachman; and see diagram of a botontinus, No. 290. “Etiam monticelli sunt in finibus constituti.”—P. 306, Lachman. The author goes on to say that ignorant persons took sepulchral barrows, which of course resembled these monticelli, for them.

^{page 143 note d} “Et intra ipsis (the botontini) carbones et cinus et testa tusa cooperuimus. Trifinium quam maxime quando constituimus cum signis, id est cinus aut carbones et calce ibidem construximus, et super duximus et super toxam monticillum constituimus.”—Faustus et Valerius VVPP. Auctores, p. 308, Lachman. The “Expositio terminorum per diversas provincias positorum” says (p. 361), “collectaculum de carbonibus in calce miscitatos et glerias fluminales ne dispicias : signales constituimus.” The same author continues “palos picatos pro terminis invenies.” These pali picati are shown by Mago and Vegoia (p. 349), to have been deposited underground. “Idem partes Tusciæ Florentiæ quam maxime palos iliceos picatos pro terminibus sub terra defiximus.”

^{page 144 note a} “Ne quis voluntario finem proferat,“says Siculus Flaccus, p. 154, Lachman. Caligula imposed, for each stone that had been moved, a fine of 50 aurei upon those “qui terminos statutos extra suum gradum finesve moverint dolo malo.”—Dig. 47, tit. 21, c 3. A law of Hadrian banished the proprietor, and fined and whipped others “qui terminos finium causâ positos protulerunt.” - Ibid. c. 2, de termino moto. Callistratus, in Dig. 47, tit. 21, c. 3, § 2, says “Hi quoque qui finalium quEestionum, obscurandarum causû faciem locorum convertunt, utputa ex arbore arbustum, aut ex silva novale, aut aliquod ejusmodi faciunt, pœna plectendi sunt.”

^{page 144 note b} See ante. See also Hyginus, p. 113.

^{page 144 note c} Frontinus, ii. p. 40.

^{page 144 note d} Hyginus, p. 172. Lib. Coloniarum passim.

^{page 144 note e} T. Liv. 35, c. 9. Hyginus, p. 201. Sic. Flaccus, p. 163. “Non omnis ager centuriatus in assignationem cecidit, sed et multa vacua relicta sunt.”

^{page 144 note f} Frontinus, ii. pp. 51, 52.

^{page 144 note g} Ibid.

^{page 145 note a} “Subsecivorum genera sunt duo : unum quod in extremis adsignatorum agrorum finibus centuria expleri non potuit.”—Front, i. pp. 6—8. “Unum est, quod a subsecante linea mensura quadratum excedet.”—Sic. Flaccus, p. 155. “Extra clusa loca sunt Eeque juris subsecivorum quse ultra limites et infra finitimam lineam erunt.”—Front, i. pp. 22, 55, 56.

^{page 145 note b} See post.

^{page 145 note c} “Aliud genus subsecivorum, quod in mediis adsignationibus et integris centuriis intervenit.”—Front, i. p. 7. “Alterum est autem quod subsecantis assignationes lineæ, etiam in mediis centuriis relinquetur. Evenit hoc autem ideo, quoniam militi veteranoque cultura assignatur. Siquidem enim amari et incerti soli est, id assignatione non datur.”—Sic. Flace. pp. 155, 156. “Loca autem relicta sunt, quaæ sive locorum iniquitate sive arbitrio conditoris limites non acceperunt.”—Front, i. pp. 21, 22. “Relicta sunt et multa loca quæ veteranis data non sunt. In Etruria communalia, quibusdam provinciis pro indiviso. Hæc fera pascua certis personis data sunt depascenda tune cum agri adsignati sunt.”—Front, ii. p. 48. “Est et pascuorum proprietas pertinens ad fundos, sed in commune; propter quod ea compascua multis locis in Italia communia appellantur.”—Front, i. p. 15. “Compascua, quod est genus quasi subsecivorum, sive loca quæ proximè quique vicini, id est qui ea contingunt …. pascua.”—Sic. Flace. p. 157. There is a hiatus in this passage, but the meaning is plain. “Cum plus terræ quam datum erat superesset proximis possessoribus datum est in commune nomine compascuorum … hæc amplius quam acceptas acceperunt, sed ut in commune haberent. In multis locis quæ in adsignatione sunt concessa ex his compascua fundi acceperunt.”—Hyginus, p. 202.

^{page 145 note d} Sic. Flaccus, pp. 154, 155. Front, ii. p. 16. Hygin. pp. 202, 203. Lib. Colon, p. 223 and passim. Gaius and Theodosius, p. 346.

^{page 146 note a} Vv. 48, 49.

^{page 146 note b} Act iii. s. 3, v. 14, et seqq.

^{page 146 note c} Poem 68, v. 67.

^{page 146 note d} Metam. lib. i. vv. 135, 136.

^{page 146 note e} Thebaïd. lib. 8, vv. 84, 85.

^{page 147 note a} Hist, de Bello Africano, c. 54.

^{page 147 note b} De Civit. Dei. lib. xxi. c. 4. I am indebted to Gough for this reference. He does not, however, quote the words of the original passage.

^{page 147 note c} “Limites:—in agris nunc termini, nunc viæ transversæ.” “Decumanus :—appellatur limes, qui fit ab ortu solis ad occasum. Alter ex transverso currens appellatur cardo.”

^{page 147 note d} See Annali dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, vol. i. N.S., vol. xvi. pp. 93, et seqq.

^{page 147 note e} See Annali iv. 241, a paper by M. Petit Eadel, entitled “Villes de la Sabine.” ”Il ne faut s'étonner qu'une expression aussi latine ait persisté dans le bas age aux environs de Ricti, lorsque parmi les anciens noms des biens fonciers on lisait encore dans les mimes diplomes fundum Quintilianum, Pompeianum, Tullianum, Domitianum, Sallustianum; lorsque enfin plus d'un millier d'années après Varron un fonds de terre etait encore connu dans la Sabine sous le nom de Terentianum, qui était son nom de famille, et que le champ que Caton y avait cultivé de ses propres mains etait encore appelé Catonianum au temps de l'Abbé Hugues, l'an 976.”

^{page 148 note a} Annali, &c., xi. 38.

^{page 148 note b} Cod. Theod. II. tit. i. c. 10, “Omnes qui per Africam opulentas desertasve centurias possident, &c. (a.d. 365, Valentinian and Valens). See also ibid. tit. 28, c. 13, a.d. 422. Justinian refers to the land-tax as being exigible in respect “ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου ἰούγου, ἤ οὐϊλίων (villœ) ἤ κεντουρίων ἤ ἅλλων οἴων δήποτε ὀνόματι ” &c.Nov. 128, c. 1.

^{page 148 note c} See a paper by the celebrated historian Dr. Theodor Mommsen, entitled “Sulla Topografia degli Irpini,” in the “Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, per l'anno 1847.” Roma, p. 165.

^{page 148 note d} Ibid. p. 167.

^{page 149 note a} Ibid.

^{page 149 note b} Ibid.

^{page 149 note c} An opinion expressed by Dr. Mommsen should not be met by a contradiction only. That the stones in question are not decumanal and cardinal will appear by a reference to what I have before stated concerning such inscriptions. It will be seen that Dr. Mommsen's inscriptions are not what he asserts them to be, because they do not contain the two separate numbers which designate the decumanal and cardinal limites upon which the estate was situated, and such numbers (called technically numerus limitum) were not and could never be expressed by sigla, the latter being always of too large a range for such a numeration.—See Lachman, pp. 309 and 358.

^{page 150 note a} Dr. Mommsen's Paper, p. 177.

^{page 150 note b} Dr. Mommsen, in the paper before referred to, speaks of them as being the only examples remaining in Italy. “In questo tratto di paese si sono scoperti i limiti Graccani, i soli che fra tanti e tanti che già esistevano per tutta l'Italia, ci siano rimasti belli e ben conservati.” I cannot, however, persuade myself that this is so in Italy. For termini which have neither the numerus limitum nor the numerus pedaturœ, and are without the centurial sigla, have been noticed by Italian Archsæologists, who have considered them, though I think entirely without reason, to be sepulchral. A paper entitled “Scavi di Palestrina,” by Dr. Henzen in the “Monumenti ed annali publicati dall' Institute di Corrispondenza Archeologica, per l'anno 1855,” fascicolo i. Roma, p. 77, gives twelve inscriptions containing names and patronymics only, “p.gavilllf,” &c. &c. These are engraved upon “colonnette di peperino,“and M. Henzen adds “Altre stele poi sono di forma quadrilatera, superiormente foggiate sia a guisa di tetto aguzzo, un lato del quale viene occupato dallo scritto, sia portanti quest' ultimo semplicemente inciso sullo stretto piano superiore.” These stones were in the garden of Sig. Campana's “Villa Celimontana “at Rome. Dr. Henzen believes that they were brought thither from Tarquinii. If so that fact will account for the omission of the numerus pedaturœ, for in that colony says the Liber Coloniarum, p. 219, Lachman, “Alii juxta loci naturam spissiores sunt siti, id est, sine mensure seu numero.” And again (ibid. p. 239) “ager ejus limitibus Gracchanis in nominibus assignatus.” Some other inscriptions of precisely the same character, upon quadrilateral and round stones, are given at pp. 86 and 87 of Dr. Henzen's paper, e.g. “licinii successi,“&c. The Padre Garrucci, speaking of stelœ found about Præneste (a Roman colony, see Lib. Coloniar. ii. 236, Lachman) says “queste colonette sono oggidi chiamate segnali dai cavatori e dai contadini,“ibid. p. 77. It is at least curious that this word segnali is a term of the agrimensores,—“signales constituimus,” p. 361, Lachman. These stelœ or colonnette are of the shape of the Gracchan and Augustinian termini, pp. 242, 401, Lachman.

^{page 150 note c} These two inscriptions exist at Thysdrus, at the distance of one hundred paces from each other. (See a paper of M. Jules Marchant in the Recueil de la Société Archéologique de la province de Constantine, vol. x. p. 74.) They show the nomen fundi, which, though not so usual as the nomen possessoris, was occasionally employed,—“ager ejus in nominibus villarum,” p. 239, Lachman. The use of villa, in the sense of fundus, has already been noticed.

^{page 151 note a} Gough's Camden, iii. 375. It is superfluous to remind the reader that the mark at the commencement of this inscription (and which will be found in others that follow) is the well known siglum for the word centuria. (My authority for the form siglum is Justinian, Cod. i. tit. 17, c. 2, § 22.) The sigle in both its forms (see post) is the Etruscan C, vide the Etruscan Alphabets, in pi. xl. vol. iii. of L'Etrurie et les Etrusques of Des Vergers.

^{page 152 note a} Ante.

^{page 152 note b} Ante.

^{page 152 note c} Gough's Camden, iii. 109, 117.

^{page 152 note d} Ibid.

^{page 152 note e} Ibid.

^{page 152 note f} Proc. Soc. of Antiq. 2 S. iv., pp. 21 et seqq.

^{page 153 note a} Ante.

^{page 153 note b} Researches instituted by John Clayton, Esq., F.S.A., have, I believe, illustrated this fact.

^{page 153 note c} Archæologia, xiv. 276, and see the engraving of the stone, ibid. pl. x. fig. 2.

^{page 153 note d} Ibid. p. 57. I am indebted for this interesting reference to Albert Way, Esq., F.S.A., whose penetration nothing can escape.

^{page 153 note e} Gough's Camden, iii. 459, 2nd edition.

^{page 153 note f} Ibid. p. 460.

^{page 154 note a} Gough's Camden, iii. 509.

^{page 154 note b} Ibid.

^{page 154 note c} Ibid.

^{page 154 note d} Ibid. p. 503.

^{page 154 note e} Ibid. p. 505.

^{page 154 note f} Ibid.

^{page 154 note g} Ibid.

^{page 154 note h} Ibid.

^{page 154 note i} Archæologia, ix. 67.

^{page 154 note k} Gough's Camden, iii. 109, 117.

^{page 155 note a} Proceedings Soc. Antiq. Soot. 68. For this important reference, which extends centuriation to the western verge of the empire, I have to thank C. S. Perceval, Esq., Dir. S.A.

^{page 155 note b} Gough's Caistor, p. 109.

^{page 155 note c} Vide the diagram 237, and p. 305, Lachman.

^{page 155 note d} I am indebted for this information to George R. Wright, Esq., F.S.A., whose obliging courtesy also furnished me with a sketch of the stone itself. Mr. Wright read, at the last meeting of the British Archæological Association, a very valuable and interesting paper upon the subject of “Thames Head,“in whose vicinity the stone is extant. It is noticeable that it is placed on the borders of the counties of Wilts and Gloucester.

^{page 155 note e} Vide plates in Lachman.

^{page 155 note f} p. 342, Lachman. I have cited all the centurial stones in this country of which I have been able to obtain a knowledge. They are not many, as it will have been seen. But this scarcity is an argument neither against their genuineness nor the exactness of the ascription for which I have contended. One class of them agrees with the two inscribed stones (described above) which have been found in Italy, and all, without exception of any, coincide with the definitions given by the agrimensores. We shall see also that in times much later than the Roman rule they were still in situ, and understood in England and Wales. Their destruction, whensoever it occurred, must have been intentional, and as it did not ensue upon the disruption of the empire, it may fairly be assumed to have been gradually effected from time to time as occasion favoured dishonesty, and would therefore occur most whilst the object of these stones was known and understood. At all events the fact that they are rare in England and Wales can no more be taken as an argument against their being what they pretend to be, than their almost total disappearance in Italy can be held to disprove the evidence of the Libri Coloniarum that in that country they formerly existed in myriads.

^{page 156 note a} Gough's Camden, ii. 271.

^{page 156 note b} Ibid. i. 159.

^{page 156 note c} Ante.

^{page 156 note d} Ibid. ii. 271, and ante.

^{page 156 note e} History and Antiquities of the Hundred of Compton, Berks, by William Hewett, junior, p. 100.

^{page 156 note f} Ibid.

^{page 156 note g} Ante.

^{page 156 note h} Proc. Soc. Antiq. 2 S. iii. 278, 279.

^{page 156 note i} Ante.

^{page 156 note k} Ibid.

^{page 157 note a} I except Gough; see the passage above quoted; but he is the only instance.

^{page 157 note b} Whitaker's History of Manchester, i. 110, 2nd edition. Baines's Lancashire, vol. i. p. 13.

^{page 157 note c} It is no objection to Silchester being what I have suggested it was that it is on the borders of the territorium of another civitas. This occasionally happened; see diagram No. 151, Lachman, which represents a city placed upon the finitima linea.

^{page 157 note d} Proc. Soc. Antiq. 2 S. iii. 496.

^{page 157 note e} Ante.

^{page 157 note f} See Cruttwell's Tours through Great Britain, ii. 199.

^{page 157 note g} Gough's Camden, ii. 269 and 292, 2nd edition.

^{page 158 note a} The presence of a subsecival stone, on the verge of an English county, if it be in its original situs, should prove that the latter, on one side at least, is conterminous with a Roman territorium.

^{page 158 note b} The straight roads of narrow gauge, dividing one township from another in South Yorkshire, were pronounced by that very able antiquary, the Rev. Joseph Hunter, to be Roman, though want of acquaintance with the agrimensura did not allow of his correctly appropriating them.—South Yorkshire, i. 7, General History.

^{page 158 note c} Gough's Camden, iii. 378. Baines's Lancashire, iii. 379.

^{page 158 note d} Ante. This practice is well illustrated by the Roman poets also. In the Trinummus, Act iv. sc. 3, v. 30, et seqq. Stasimus says—

“Mores leges perduxerunt jam in potestatem suam,

Magis quîs sunt obnoxiosæ, quam parentes liberis,

Eæ miseræ etiam ad parietem sunt fixæ clavis ferreis,

Ubi malos mores afligi nimio fuerat æquius.”

Virgil (Æneid, lib. 6) alludes to the custom thus:—

“Fixit leges pretio atque refixit.”

Ovid also (Metam. lib. 1):—

“Pœna metusque aberant, nee verba minacia fixo

Ære legebantur.”

The Tabulœ honestœ missionis generally end in these words: “Descriptum et recognitum ex tabula ænea, quæ fixa est Romæ.”—See J. F. Massman's Libellus Aureus. Lipsiæ, p. 22.

^{page 159 note a} Valentinian (as quoted out of the Cod. Theod. in Lachrnan's collection, p. 269) says “Si veteribus signis limes inclusus finem congruum erudita arte præstiterit.”

^{page 159 note b} The word merestan (boundary stone) occurs passim in Mr. Kemble's Cod. Diplom., e.g. (vol. vi. p. 231) “thanon on mereston: of than stone endlang mereweies to bican trowe.” The language of this passage is not pure, but this probably has been the fault of a later copyist. The passage itself is the more interesting that it recognises the limes (mereweie) as well as the limitary stone. In the same manner these stones, under their original name, “maen tervyn,” i.e. stone terminus, are spoken of passim in the Welsh laws, and the regulations respecting them are many. “Whoever shall remove a public meer-stone between two trefs (i.e. centuriæ) is to be fined,” &c.—Venedotian Code, book ii. c. 25, Aneurin Owen's translation. By “Welsh laws” (ibid. p. 525) the removal of a “maen tervyn” is punishable as theft. The limes is referred to as “a road which may preserve a meer with the side of the road.” (p. 96. See also Gwentian Code, c. 32, par. 5, p. 373, and Welsh Laws, c. 25, par. 4, p. 525). It is further said (Dimetian Code, book 2, c. 23, par. 40, p. 271) “Whoever shall deface a mark upon a meer (here is meant a meer stone) between two lands or two trevs,” shall be fined, and must restore the mark to its former state. The word translated mark is “not” in the original. It is thus curious to find the words terminus and notœ incorporated into the vernacular of Wales, and existing therein long after the severance of the country from the Empire.

^{page 159 note c} Ibid.

^{page 159 note d} Ibid.

^{page 159 note e} “Ager ergo divisus adsignatus est coloniarum.” (Frontinus, p. 2.) To form a judgment of what Roman colonization at all times was, we have only to consider what Trajan did for Dacia. Eutropius says, “Ex toto orbe Eomano infinitas eo copias hominum transtulerat ad agros et urbes colendas.” This colonization of Dacia resulted in the foundation of forty or, as the Peutingerian table says, fifty cities, and the establishment therein, and in their territories, of Latin-speaking settlers. See a very interesting pamphlet, entitled “Coup d'œil sur l'histoire des Roumains, par A. Treb. Lauriani, Bucuresti, 1846.” How rude and undigested in comparison was the way in which the tribe lands of an O'Brian or a Maguire were made shire ground!

Article contents

VIII.—On the Centuriation of Roman Britain

Extract

Access options

References

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

VIII.—On the Centuriation of Roman Britain

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests