THE LAND 95early modern period, with its millions of sheep, drove- trails ( tratturi ) of up
to 111 metres in width, handsome revenues for the government and large
export market, operated in a different world.^9
We are left with the supposition that the property of most wealthy men
was not concentrated into vast estates, but made up of a number of scattered
properties of smaller size. But how much smaller? It is time we questioned
the assumption that we are dealing with properties, vast or modest in size,
that were made up of single units and farmed as such. Tarius Rufus is likely
to have farmed not one integrated latifundium but a confi guration of
property in the same general area, especially if he specialized in viticulture:
vineyards were generally of modest dimensions. The father of Cicero’s client
Roscius had 6 million sesterces invested in not one, but thirteen farms, all in
one region but not necessarily contiguous.
In the case of Pliny’s estates, we may distinguish between a stable nucleus
comprising the ancestral properties and, circulating around it, a mobile
band of property, consisting of major inheritances, smaller legacies – for
example, 5/12 of an estate ( Ep. 7.11) – purchases, sales and gifts, including a
small property ( agellus ) worth 100,000 sesterces made over to his nurse.
This is the lowest rated property attested in Pliny’s possession. It is also the
only property clearly represented as one single farm ( Ep. 6.3). Pliny regularly
writes of a plurality of tenants ( coloni, often called simply rustici ) when
referring to both his Transpadane and Umbrian properties, and this makes
one suspect that the operational units were multiple.
The core of Pliny’s properties, and the original basis of his wealth, were
those inherited from his father and mother. Pliny tells us nothing about the
structure of these properties, but we do hear that they were deliberately
exempted from dismemberment during his lifetime ( Ep. 7.11). This means
that unless they were subjected to large- scale internal reorganization, of
which there is no hint in the Letters, they retained essentially the shape they
had had before the family became senatorial. Our hypothesis is that these
estates consisted of numerous farms which were operated, if not managed,
separately, and which, in terms of their individual areas, covered a wide
spectrum, extending both well above and well below the optimum range
recommended by the agricultural writers. This case is based on an excellent
source for the size and distribution of properties among the most prominent
members of a local landowning class, the alimentary inscription from Veleia.
The Veleia inscription prompts six observations. First, property at Veleia
was extremely fragmented. The three sets of proprietors who declared Veleian
land worth around the senatorial census, Mommeius Persicus, Coelius Verus
and the brothers Annii, had 35, 26 and 13 properties respectively.^10
Secondly, the bulk of the properties were of small or modest size. Persicus
owned 34 farms in the range of 8,000–85,000 sesterces.
Thirdly, there was commonly one substantial property that overshadowed
the rest. The brothers Annii were unusual in having had three properties
valued in the range 100,000–178,000 sesterces in addition to pasture land