_Mommsen’s theory as to community of land amongst the Romans._
One never for a moment expected to find agrarian communism amongst
the Romans; in the first place because Rome was one of the youngest
of the cities of the ancient world, and, at the date of its birth,
private property had long held sway in Italy; and, in the second
place, because it is well known that the Romans had a very precise
and very firm conception of the right of private property, and did as
much as any other ancient people to define and protect it. And yet
Professor Mommsen states that with the Romans “land was originally
held in common;” that “community in land is closely bound up with the
constitution of the city;” that “it was only in later times that the
land was divided amongst the citizens as private property.”[224] In
support of this assertion, the learned and able historian gives three
references--to Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Plutarch. But on
examining these three references it seems to me that none of them says
exactly what Professor Mommsen makes them say.
The first is from Cicero in the _De Republica_, II., 14. _Numa agros
quos bello Romulus ceperat divisit viritim civibus._ The meaning of
this passage is that the lands which had been conquered by Romulus
in his wars with the neighbouring cities had not been divided by him
amongst the citizens. But it does not prove, as we shall presently
see, that the small Roman territory occupied prior to these conquests
was not divided when the city was founded. The quotation from Cicero
applies to a certain area of land; it does not apply to all land. It
does not imply that no division had taken place before this time;
and Cicero does not say a single word which can refer to a period of
community.
The second reference is to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II., 74; and
the following is a literal translation: “Numa enacted laws concerning
the boundaries of estates; he laid down that each man should surround
his land with a boundary and set up landmarks of stone; he dedicated
these landmarks to the god Terminus, and ordained that sacrifices
should be offered up to him every year; he appointed the festival of
the Terminalia.” That the second king of Rome drew up regulations for
the worship of boundaries cannot be regarded as distinctly proving that
before his time there were no boundaries; and certainly it is not clear
evidence that till then private property did not exist. The historian
does not say that in the preceding generation the Romans lived under a
system of common ownership of land. On the contrary, he says a little
earlier that the founder of the city did divide the territory as other
founders were wont to do. In so doing he had paid attention to the
social divisions already existing; and as the people were divided into
thirty curiæ, he apportioned the territory into thirty lots in such a
manner that the members of each curia might remain together. Dionysius
adds that the founder, when dividing the land, reserved a part to form
the _ager publicus_, _i.e._, the property of the State. This piece
of information proves beyond doubt that in the mind of the historian
the whole territory was not _ager publicus_, as M. Mommsen thinks.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus indicates distinctly that the distinction
between _ager publicus_ and _ager privatus_ dates from the earliest
days of the Roman city.
The third authority quoted is Plutarch, _Life of Numa_, 16: “The Roman
city had in the beginning only a small territory; Romulus gained for
it by conquest an additional territory larger than its old one; and
the whole of this was divided by Numa amongst the poor citizens.” This
passage, like the one from Cicero, states that a division was effected
by the second king; but at the same time it draws a distinction
between the two territories; and it is not possible to draw from it
the conclusion that the district first occupied had not been already
divided.
Thus not one of three passages quoted by M. Mommsen seems to me to have
the meaning he attributes to it. Not one of the three implies that the
Romans held their land in common even for a single generation. Other
authorities also, which must not be passed over, expressly tell us of
this earlier partition, the recollection of which was preserved, as
was that of everything else connected with the founding of the city.
Besides Dionysius of Halicarnassus whom we have already referred to
(II. 7), Varro, who was as learned as a man could well be at that time,
declares that Romulus divided the territory into hereditary portions,
each consisting of but two _jugera_[225] (about an acre and a quarter).
The elder Pliny, Nonius and Festus give us the same information.[226]
But this first partition, which is contemporaneous with the very
foundation of the city, did not follow upon a period of non-division.
No Roman historian makes any such statement as that the land remained
for a period undivided.
M. Mommsen tries to dispose of these statements, and argues as follows:
Two _jugera_ are too little to support a family; therefore we cannot
consider that this was a real partition of the territory; and it
necessarily follows that the families must have lived under some kind
of communistic system, with a common use of the public lands. An
ingenious process of reasoning, but nothing more; mere guess-work.
The question is not as M. Mommsen thinks, whether two _jugera_ are
enough for the support of a family; but rather whether the founder,
who had only a very small extent of territory at his disposal, with a
population already numerous, could grant more. The lots were too small,
as it would appear, because the territory also was too small; but we
cannot deduce from this, as M. Mommsen does, that the Romans followed
some system of communism. The insufficiency of the land, besides, gives
a reason for the conquests which were soon afterwards effected under
Romulus.
In conclusion, it appears to me exceedingly rash to maintain that
the Romans had at first a system of common ownership of land. Such a
statement is not supported by any ancient authority. On the contrary,
the early writers describe a partition of land which takes place at
the very time when the city is founded; and the land thus divided
becomes complete and hereditary property. Some years later the city
conquers fresh territory; and again, with but little delay, it is
divided into private property. This is all that we are told.
We are, however, able to gather that these two successive partitions
were not in every respect alike. The first related only to the
_ager Romanus_, _i.e._, to that part of the territory which was in
primitive times attached to the _Urbs_; the second related to conquered
territory. In the first, the ground was distributed amongst the
_curiæ_, each curia then distributing it amongst its _gentes_, whence
it came about that these lots for a long time retained the name of the
several Roman _gentes_; in the second partition, which followed the
first but did not annul it, the land was divided according to heads,
_viritim_. This innovation will be seen to be of deep importance by any
one who is acquainted with the ideas of the ancients and with ancient
law. At the time of the first division, property still belonged to the
family; at the second, it belonged to the individual. Thus, then, the
two kinds of proprietary right that the ancient world successively
recognised are seen, one after the other, with an interval of but forty
years between. The Roman nation was one of the first to substitute
individual for family property. They made use of bequest and sale
from an early date. Roman law did indeed retain some traces of the
early rights of the family; but what really characterises it is that it
brought about the triumph of the system of individual ownership.
[224] Mommsen, _Roman History_, Engl. trans., vol. i., p. 194.
This theory has been copied and reproduced word for word, without
verification, by M. Viollet and M. de Laveleye.
[225] Varro, _De re rustica_, I. 10: “Bina jugera, quod a Romulo primum
divisa viritim, quæ heredem sequerentur.”
[226] Pliny, XVIII. 2, 7: “Romulus in primis instituit.... Bina tunc
jugera populo Romano satis erant nullique majorem modum attribuit.”
Nonius, edit. Quicherat, p. 61. Festus, v. centuriatus ager.