Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Mancipes, pecunia, praedes and praedia in the epigraphic Lex agraria of 111 BC

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review

The aim of this article is to shed new light on the history of the Roman ager publicus in Africa as revealed by the epigraphic Lex agraria of 111 BC. According to some recent commentators, this law refers to the leasing out of state-owned land in Africa in return for an annual rent (pequnia) and also to the farming-out of the right to collect this revenue to private tax-farmers. Against this it is argued that throughout the African part of the Lex agraria the term pequnia refers to the price of formerly public land sold off by the state. It is also argued that the enigmatic expression invito eo quei dabit in line 84 is part of a provision concerning the intervention of a third party on the buyer's behalf. The provision in question prescribes that if the buyer does not pay the price immediately and has not yet offered real security in the form of praedia, any third party willing to fulfil either of these obligations will be permitted to do so, even if the buyer does not want the third party to intervene. We are therefore dealing with an early text concerning unsolicited intervention on behalf of a debitor invitus, a topic that is also dealt with in D. 46,3,53 (Gaius) and in D. 17,1,53 (Papinian).

Affiliations: 1: Leiden


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation