‘Dominium in Solo Provinciali’ and ‘Ager Publicus.’

Tenney Frank

doi:10.2307/296130

‘Dominium in Solo Provinciali’ and ‘Ager Publicus.’

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012

Tenney Frank

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

So far as extant writings go, Gaius is the first to assert that Rome was owner of the soil in the provinces. It seems, however, to be the general belief that the doctrine of state-ownership was invented long before the Empire. Mommsen attributed it to Gaius Gracchus, basing his view upon the Gracchan censoria locatio in Asia. Klingmüller, who has more recently examined the evidence, believes that the theory is even older; that in fact Rome had from the earliest times claimed ownership of conquered territory. Rostovtzeff, rejecting Klingmüller's arguments, asserts that Rome adopted the theory from the Hellenistic practices found embodied in the Hieronic law which Rome used for the collection of tribute in Sicily.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , 1927 , pp. 141 - 161

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/296130 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Tenney Frank 1927. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 141 note 1} Gaius, ii, 7 (cf. 21 and 27), in provinciali solo dominium populi Romani est vel Caesaris; see also Frontinus, p. 36, and Tert. Apol. 13; Mommsen, , Staatsrecht, iii, 728–731Google Scholar; Klingmüller, Philologus, 1910, p. 71Google Scholar; Rostowzew, , Studien zur Gaschichte des römischen KolonateGoogle Scholar; p. 237 ff., Soc. and Econ. Hist., p. 16. Lécrivain, s.v. ‘Tributum,’ in Daremberg-Saglio, 431, finds the theory implied in the agrarian law of III B.C.

^{page 141 note 2} These are well stated in Klingmüller's article.

^{page 142 note 1} Staatsrecht, iii; 728–731Google Scholar.

^{page 142 note 2} Philologus 1910, 79Google Scholar; Cicero, , Verr. ii, 90Google Scholar.

^{page 143 note 1} Studien, 238 ff.; repeated by Kornemann, P.-W. Supp. 4, 106, art. Bauernstand.

^{page 144 note 1} According to Cicero (de leg. agr. ii, 57Google Scholar) there was some dispute about the ownership of the e Reserved. The word is not found elsewhere. If one may assume a mistake in the text, it may refer to Ergetium mentioned by Pliny, iii, 91. The ager Leontinus seems to have belonged to Hiero, see Carcopino, , La loi de Hiéron, p. 243Google Scholar; Murgantia had participated in a revolt.

^{page 144 note 2} If Cicero's statement is correct, as Carcopino thinks (op. cit. p. 228; contra, Rostovtzeff, , Soc. and Econ. Hist. p. 194Google Scholar). Since those who leased from Sicilians had to pay the tithe in addition to rental it is difficult to see why those who leased ager publicus should escape the tithe.

^{page 144 note 3} Soc. and Econ. Hist. 195Google Scholar.

^{page 145 note 1} Cassius Dio, 54, 29; Horace, , Epist. i, 12Google Scholar.

^{page 145 note 2} Hirschfeld, , Kleine Schriften, p. 573Google Scholar.

^{page 145 note 3} The famous decree of Aemilius Paulus of 189 B.C., Dessau, 15.

^{page 146 note 1} Cyretiae, Ditt. Syll. ³ 593 (about 195 B.C.); Thisbe, , ibid. 646, Livy, 42, 46 (170 B.C.)Google Scholar; on Haliartus, Livy 42, 63 and Polyb. 30, 21. These items illustrate Rome's treatment of her enemies in war; they do not prove that Rome asserted claims of ownership after the treaty had been signed and its provisions carried out.

^{page 146 note 2} Livy 45, 18, 3–11.

^{page 146 note 3} Klingmüller finds support for his theory in the provision that the state reserved the right to recover the title to such lands. However, here we have to do with public land sold with reservations, like the trientabula in Italy (Livy, 26, 25 and 31, 13). It is not ordinary provincial land. He is also in error in applying Appian B.C. i, 27, to Africa, for that passage refers to Italian land. Rostovtzeff's description of the situation in Africa, Soc. and Econ. Hist. 278 ff., does not seem to be quite apposite. For the African lands, see the Lex Agraria, in Hardy's Roman Laws and Charters.

^{page 147 note 1} There is no proof that the Senate's objection to colonisation abroad was based upon a theory of inferior property rights. There were several other objections: citizens abroad would be out of reach for military service and other citizens' duties, few actuaUy cared to go so far when land was available in the Po valley, and finally a permanent settlement in the provinces would bind the Senate to a definite foreign policy.

^{page 147 note 2} Am. Jour. phil. 1926, p.55Google Scholar.

^{page 147 note 3} Pliny (iii, and 139) is the first author to mention the term Jus Italicum, see P.-W. x, 1239.

^{page 147 note 4} Staatsrecht, iii, 731.

^{page 148 note 1} Rostovtzeff, , Studien, 240–290Google Scholar; Kornemann, P.-W. art. Supp. iv, 245; Swoboda, ibid. art. κώμη, 967; Oertel, ibid. art. Katoikoi. The hypothesis rests mainly upon a confusion due to late jurists who accepted the theory of state-dominium.

^{page 148 note 2} See the inscription of Sardis published by Buckler and Robinson in A.J.A. 1912, p. 13ff.

^{page 148 note 3} Rostovtzeff, , in Anatolian Studies pres. to Sir William Ramsay, has an excellent description of the landed properties in the Attalid kingdom.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} A part of the Chersonese is called agri Attalici by Cicero (de leg. agr. ii, 50) and classed among the agri regii which became ager publicus (i.e. not tax-paying, but rent-paying). I therefore consider it an estate of the king, not domain-land. Ten years before Rome received Asia, the Thracian barbarians had devastated the Chersonese which was at that time a part of the Attahd kingdom (Diod. 33, 14). Attalus II. had time before his death to win it back (Strabo, 13, 624), and since the old inhabitants were presumably gone, Attalus may have made a part of it a personal estate. This would explain how it became ager publicus under Rome.

^{page 149 note 1} Cf. Ditt. O.G.I. 440 (Ilium); 502 (Aezani); Strabo, 12, 3, 34, et al.

^{page 149 note 2} See above, p. 148, n. 4.

^{page 150 note 1} cf. above (part 1), p. 42.

^{page 150 note 2} Dessau, 897 (Ptolemaiei Cyrenens.), seems to be an early reference to the colon: of these estates.

^{page 150 note 3} Tac. Ann. 14, 18.

^{page 150 note 4} Frank, , Econ. Hist., 2nd ed., p. 153Google Scholar.

^{page 151 note 1} See P.-W., art. Servilius; Ormerod, , Piracy, 213 ff.Google Scholar; Cic. de leg. agr. ii, 60.

^{page 152 note 1} Hardy's, assumption (Jour. Phil. 1913, 228 ff.Google Scholar) that vendere = locare is hardly satisfactory.

^{page 152 note 2} De lege agr. ii, 39 ff.Google Scholar; Cicero hints that the stipend on decuman land may also be raised (de lege agr. i, 10), and that might indicate converting a tax into a rent, but Cicero is suspiciously vague. Perhaps Caesar was only proposing to substitue a fixed money-tax for a tithe in kind.

^{page 153 note 1} Cf. Catullus, 114 and 29: Am. Jour. Phil. 1919, 408.

^{page 153 note 2} von Premerstein, in P.-W., art. Jus Italicum.

^{page 154 note 1} Carcopino, , La lei de Hiéron, 288–9Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 2} Cic. Ad Fam. 7, 3, 3 and 9, 17. After the murder of Caesar, Brutus promised that the state would indemnify those whose property bad been confiscated by Caesar; Appian, B.C. ii, 140.

^{page 155 note 3} Appian. B.C. V, 75.

^{page 155 note 1} Res Gestae, 3 and 16, to be read in the light of Cassius Dio, 51, 4.

^{page 155 note 2} P.-W., art. Jus Italicum.

^{page 156 note 1} See Rostovtzeff, , Studien, p. 288 ff.Google Scholar; Ramsay, , Tekmoreian Guest-Friends, 305 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Schulten, , Röm. Mitt. 1898, p. 221 ff.Google Scholar; Hirschfeld, , Kleine Schriften, 561 ff.Google Scholar; Chapot, , Prov. d' Asie, 148 ff.Google Scholar; Keil-Premerstein, , Denkscbr. Wien. Akad. 1914, p. 37Google Scholar ff.

^{page 156 note 2} See above, p. 148 n. 4. Agrippa possessed the Chersonese for a while. Since the land had been ager publicus, it is difficult to understand how he acquired it. We do not hear of sales of ager publicus at this time or of grants to individuals. Possibly he exchanged some property with the Treasury. It was to the advantage of Augustus to have a watchful man in possession there.

^{page 156 note 3} Hirschfeld, , Kleine Schriften, 562Google Scholar; Keil-Premerstein, loc. cit. on Aga-Bey. It is interesting to find that the tenants at Aga-Bey have freedom of movement (see i, 48) and are not serfs bound to the soil as the λαοἰ βασιλικοί had been.

^{page 157 note 1} Swoboda, in P.-W. art. κώμη, and Oertel, ibid. art. Katoikoi.

^{page 157 note 2} Frank, , Economic History (2nd ed.) 152Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 3} Ramsay, , Cities i, 336Google Scholar; Hirschfeld, , Kleine Scbr. 562 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 4} Strabo, xii 569; xii 577. He had “300 herds” in Lycaonia, Strabo, xii, 568.

^{page 158 note 1} Strabo, xiii, 631.

^{page 158 note 2} See p. 151, n. 1.

^{page 158 note 3} Cic. Ad Att. 5, 21, 9; Ad. Fam. 13, 21. Inscriptions, I.G.R.R. iv, 903, 4, 5, 13, 16–19.

^{page 158 note 4} Tekmoreian Guest-Friends, 309.

^{page 159 note 1} Ditt., O.G.I. 440Google Scholar; Syll. ³ 747; Hiller, Priene, III; Cf. Strabo, xii, 558; and Tac. Ann. iii, 61–3; Corpus Agrim. (Thulin), p. 48.

^{page 159 note 3} Augustus, Res Gestae, 27: Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adjeci. On Egypt see Rostovtzeff, Studien, and Social and Econ. Hist. 255 ff. and 572 ff.

^{page 159 note 3} Cassius Dio, 51, 4. It is significant that many noble women acquired lands in Egypt in Augustus' day; these properties were of course investments and not imperial gifts. Augustus drew large sums from Egypt, but a great part of his wealth came from legacies; Suetonius Aug. 101, says that this part alone amounted to the amazing sum of 1,400,000,000 sesterces during the last twenty years of the Emperor's life.

^{page 160 note 1} The secularisation of temple lands in Egypt is possibly an exception, but here it is usually supposed that Augustus revived the arrangements of the older Ptolemies.

^{page 160 note 2} Bartel, , in B.J. 1911, p. 31Google Scholar, and Frank, , Econ. Hist., 2nd ed., p. 450Google Scholar.

Article contents

‘Dominium in Solo Provinciali’ and ‘Ager Publicus.’

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