334 SOME THOUGHTS ON 



Brown's Garden of Cyrus is a good, though perhaps an exag- 

 gerated, example. Niebuhr, on what grounds does not appear, 

 speaks of the pezza as a square. If it was, so no doubt was its 

 fourth part ; and in that case, the actual vine-row being no doubt 

 equal in length to the side of the square, would have been 

 20 stajoli; that is, just double the length of the ordine; for 

 that the width of the latter was one stajolo does not appear to 

 admit of question. It seems therefore to be a strong objection 

 to his view that it would not represent the subdivisions of the 

 pezza. What practical modifications there may have been can- 

 not be ascertained. Every vine-dresser was of course at liberty 

 to alter his standard or stajolo. Probably the modern practice 

 varies less from the ancient in Italy than in France, and a good 

 deal of information about the former may be gathered from the 

 agricultural writers. I have forgotten what Columella says on 

 the subject, and though the book is at hand cannot now refer 

 to it. As Cervantes says in his last preface, " the thread is 

 broken here but some other day I may be able to take it up ;" 

 but the other day did not come. 



8. It is well known that within the boundary of a fun- 

 dus there could be no usucapio for a space of 4 feet, or in 

 other words, that up to that space there was " asterna auctori- 

 tas," a perpetual right of reclamation. It is commonly supposed 

 that it was intended not only to prevent disputes, but to secure 

 the existence of the numerous rights of way which form parts 

 of the necessary evils of small property. Hugo has remarked 

 that it does not follow that the space in question was uncul- 

 tivated, and he must therefore have regarded the law as being 

 merely a matter which concerned the owners of contiguous fundi, 

 for if the space were cultivated at all it must have been by them. 

 That a law leads to absurdly inconvenient consequences is not 

 conclusive against its having existed, but on his view, if my 

 neighbour had encroached in one place 10 feet within the 

 boundary, he might establish a claim by usucapio to a width 

 of six feet, while I could at any time re-establish myself in 

 possession of the outward portion, so that what he required 

 would be enclave within land with which I could do absolutely 

 what I pleased. It would seem therefore that the auctoritas lay 

 with those whose rights of way were interfered with by the 



