Interdicts. Servitudes 373 



interdicta issued by the praetor, to forbid it, or to reinstate a claimant 

 dislodged by his rival, or simply to state the exact issue raised in a 

 particular case. On conformity or disobedience to the praetor's order 

 the case was formally tried in court: the question of law mainly turned 

 on questions of fact. What concerns us is that force was solemnly 

 classified under two heads, vis and vis arntata. Each of these had its 

 own proper interdict at least as early as the time of Cicero, and they 

 occupy a whole title 1 in the Digest. Clearly the use of force was no 

 negligible matter. That it was a danger or at least a nuisance to 

 owners or claimants of property, is not less clear. But how did it touch 

 the colonust He was, as such, neither owner nor claimant of the property 

 of his farm. He had in his own capacity 2 no possession either. But, as 

 tenant of a particular owner, his presence operated 3 to secure the pos- 

 session of his landlord. Hence to oust him by force broke the landlord's 

 possession; whether rightly or wrongly, the law had to decide. Now 

 it is obvious that, in cases where serious affrays resulted from intrusion, 

 a tenant might suffer grave damage to his goods and person. The 

 intruders (often a gang of slaves) would seldom be so punctiliously 

 gentle as to do no harm at all. Therefore, having regard to the amount 

 of interest in this subject shewn by the lawyers, we cannot omit the 

 use of force in matters of possession from the list of rustic embarrass- 

 ments. 



Another cause of annoyance was connected with servitudes, such 

 as rights of way and water, which were frequent subjects of dispute in 

 country districts. Whether regarded as rights or as burdens, the prin- 

 ciples governing them were a topic that engaged the minute and 

 laborious attention 4 of the lawyers. Now it is evident that. a right of 

 way or water through an estate, though a material advantage to a 

 neighbouring estate served by the convenience, might be a material 

 disadvantage to the one over which the right extended. Also that the 

 annoyance might be indefinitely increased or lessened by the cantan- 

 kerous or considerate user of the right by the person or persons enjoying 

 it. When we consider that servitudes were already an important de- 

 partment of jurisprudence in Republican days, and see how great a 

 space they occupy in the Digest, we can hardly resist the conclusion 

 that country proprietors found in them a fertile subject of quarrels. 

 But surely the quarrels of landlords over a matter of this kind could 

 not be carried on without occasional and perhaps frequent disturbances 

 and injury to the tenants on the land. Even if the law provided means 



1 XLin 16, de vi et de vi armata. 



2 XLI 3 33! etc. 3 XLI 2 3 8 , 25*, etc. 



4 vin 3 de servitutibus praediorum rusticorum. Specimens of inscribed notices of servi- 

 tudes, Girard textes part in ch 3 i. 



