[238] In the same way he cites Ælian, V. 9, as saying that the inhabitants of Locri and Rhegium cultivated the land in common. What Ælian says is that “the cities of Locri and Rhegium have made a treaty which permits the inhabitants of the one town to settle on the territory of the other.” Of common cultivation there is not a word. These authorities are given in the article by M. de Laveleye, in _Revue de Belgique_, 1886, pp. 9 _et seq._ of the reprint. [239] _De la propriété et de ses formes primitives_, p. 201. [240] _La propriété collective du sol_, in the _Revue de Belgique_, 1886. He repeats the argument in the _Revue socialiste_, 1888, p. 452, and in the _Revue d’économie politique_, July, 1888. [241] Isaac Taylor, in the _Contemporary Review_, Dec., 1886, referred to by M. de Laveleye. [242] _E.g._, M. P. Viollet in all the latter part of the article already referred to. V. _On community of land amongst the Gauls._ It would be indeed surprising had the supporters of this theory not applied it to the ancient Gauls. So little is known about them, that it is very tempting and not very difficult to introduce community in land into their history. One single fact, however, ought to stand in the way; it is that Cæsar, whose book is the only authority which has historical value, nowhere tells us that land was common amongst the Gauls. His silence on this point is not a thing which can be passed over. It is, indeed, in the eyes of every one accustomed to historical research, a very significant fact. It is true that Cæsar does not expressly state that private property was the custom amongst the Gauls. For a writer who is only speaking in passing of Gallic institutions, to omit to call attention to a law of property which was in conformity with what he was accustomed to, is not the same thing as to omit to mention a communism which would be the opposite of what he was accustomed to, and which would strike him by its very strangeness. It must be noticed that Cæsar is not describing the entire social condition of the Gauls; he contents himself with mentioning those customs which have struck him as being very different from those he saw in Italy. We have only to read the ten paragraphs which he devotes to this subject, to recognise this. After describing in three paragraphs what was peculiar in their political organisation, and in three more what was peculiar in their religion, he passes on to what was peculiar in their private life, and he begins as follows--“As to the institutions of private life, the following are those wherein they differ from other nations.” By “other nations” Cæsar clearly means the nations that he knew that is, primarily, the Italians and Greeks. This opening sentence makes it plain that Cæsar intended only to tell us of characteristics which were peculiar to the Gauls. He is going to mention differences, not resemblances. If private property is the custom there as it is in Rome,