Property in Land in Roman Provinces

Abstract

Roman concept of dominium has been fundamental in the formation of concepts of ownership in European legal tradition. It is, however, often considered outside the context of Roman imperial rule and of the multiplicity of legal regimes governing property relations in Roman provinces outside Italy. This chapter starts from the classic passage in the Institutes of Gaius, claiming that the right of dominium did not exist in provincial land, where it belonged to the Roman state. Gaius’ statement is often dismissed in modern historical scholarship as a ‘conveyancer’s fantasy’ (A.H.M. Jones). It is argued here that, on the contrary, this passage and other similar statements in Roman juristic literature and technical literature on land-measurement, show an important facet of Roman ideas of ownership as a socially contingent right, dependent on civic status of the owner, status of the territory within the empire, and Roman recognition of local property regimes.

Gentile Land Ownership in the Land of Israel: The Palestinian Talmud in Light of Biblical Models and Roman Law

“…Thus, individual rights to land (such as security, transfer to other parties, or inheritance) were determined by categories of partial owner ship in the Roman legal system. 71 The best-known source on this topic appears in The Institutes of Gaius (second century c.e. ), where he explic itly uses the term ususfructus to conceptualize the private owner ship of provincial land:…”

Property and ‘publicness’: bishops and lay‐founded churches in post‐Roman Hispania

“…56 In conquered provinces, property could be considered religiosus or sacer, even if it had not been rendered such according to the strict dictates of Roman legal procedure. 57 It seems plausible that this bricolage of Roman notions and practices contributed, albeit unsystematically, to the manner in which religious property was thought about vis-à-vis private property. Yan Thomas has stated, regarding classical Roman law, that property considered res nullius in bonis was in one sense an 'empty place'a property without the possibility of an owning subjectand yet it could be coupled easily with a poetic or rhetorical imaginary in which this vacancy was filled by a divine proprietor.…”