(_vilicus_) under whom the various workers, slave or free, are employed
is himself a slave. So too the _vilica_, usually his consort. Their
position is made quite clear by liability to punishment and by their
disqualification[686] from performance of all save the most ordinary
and trivial religious ceremonies. Their duties are defined by jealous
regulations. But in order to keep the steward up to the mark the master
must often visit the estate. It is significant that he is advised on
arrival to make a round of the place[687] without delay, and not to
question his steward until he has thus formed his own impressions
independently. Then he can audit accounts, check stores, listen to
excuses, give orders, and reprimand failure or neglect. That the master
needed to be a man of knowledge and energy in order to make his estate a
source of profit when in charge of a steward, is evident. It may well
be that Cato insists so strongly on the need of these qualities because
they were becoming rare among the nobles of his day. But, though he
knew that the efficiency of a slave steward could only be maintained by
constant and expert watching, he never suggests the employment of a free
man in that capacity. The truth seems to be that the ‘Manager,’ a man
paid by salary or percentage and kept up to the mark by fear of ‘losing
his place,’ is a comparatively modern figure. In antiquity the employment
of Freedmen in positions of trust was a move in that direction, though
patrons kept a considerable hold, beyond the purely economic one, on
their freedmen. But for charge of a farm Cato does not suggest employment
of a freedman.
The blending of free and slave labour might well have been brought
out more clearly than it is: but to the author writing for his own
contemporaries it would seem needless to enlarge upon a condition which
everyone took for granted. Yet there are passages where it is indicated
plainly enough. Thus in the olive-press room a bed is provided[688]
for two free _custodes_ (apparently foremen) out of three: the third,
a slave, is put to sleep with the _factores_, who seem to be the hands
employed[689] to work the press, probably slaves, whose labour is merely
bodily exertion. The _leguli_ who gather up the olives are probably free,
for they are interested[690] in making the amount so gathered as large as
possible. Strippers, _strictores_, who pluck the olives from the tree,
are also mentioned[691] in the chapter dealing with the harvesting of a
hanging crop by a contractor. As the need of care to avoid damaging the
trees is insisted on, and all the workers are to take a solemn oath[692]
that they have stolen none of the crop, we may fairly infer that they
are freemen. When the process of manufacture is let to a contractor,
his _factores_ are to take a similar oath, and are probably free. So
too when a crop is sold hanging: if the buyer neglects to pay[693] his
_leguli_ and _factores_ (which would cause delay) the landlord may pay
them himself and recover the amount from the buyer. On the other hand in
the grazing department the underlings are slaves. In case of the sale of
winter grazing, provision is made[694] for an arbitration for settlement
of damages done by the _emptor aut pastores aut pecus emptoris_ to the
_dominus_, or by the _dominus aut familia aut pecus_ to the _emptor_.
And, until the compensation awarded is paid, the _pecus aut familia_ on
the ground is to be held in pledge by the party to whom compensation
is due. This would generally be the landlord, and the _familia_ of the
_emptor_ would be his _pastores_. Even so, when a speculator buys the
season’s lambs, he provides a _pastor_ for two months, and the man is
held in pledge[695] by the landlord until the account is finally settled.
There are casual references to other persons employed on the estate
whose condition has to be inferred from various indications with more
or less certainty. Thus the _capulator_, who draws off the oil from
the press into vessels, is connected with the _custos_[696] and is not
clearly distinct from him. He may be a slave, but the call for strict
cleanliness and care at this stage of the operations rather suggests
the free wage-earner. An _epistates_ is mentioned[697] in a chapter
on food-rations (_familiae cibaria_), and grouped with the _vilicus_
and _vilica_ and the _opilio_. They receive less food than the common
hands engaged in rough manual labour. They are probably all slaves, the
_epistates_ being a foreman of some sort, and the _opilio_ the head
shepherd, the _magister pecoris_ of whom we often hear later. In the
estimates[698] of the equipment required for a farm with oliveyard or
vineyard the human staff is included with the other live and dead stock.
The _operarii_ mentioned in this connexion are evidently slave hands, and
the _bubulcus[699] subulcus asinarius opilio_ and _salictarius_ are the
same, only specialized in function. For an oliveyard of 240 _iugera_ the
human staff is put at 13 (_summa homines xiii_), for a vineyard of 100
_iugera_ it is 16, and the _operarii_ in particular are 10 as against
5. The greater amount of digging[700] needed on a farm chiefly devoted
to vines is the reason of the difference. These estimates are for the
permanent staff, the _familia_, owned by the landlords in the same way as
the oxen asses mules sheep goats or pigs. So far as common daily labour
is concerned, this staff should make the farm self-sufficing.
But there were many operations, connected with the life of the farm,
for performing which it was either not desirable or not possible to
rely on the regular staff. It would never have paid to maintain men
skilled in the work of special trades only needed on rare occasions.
Thus for erecting buildings the _faber_[701] is called in: the landlord
finds materials, the builder uses them and is paid for his work. Lime
is needed for various purposes, and it may be worth while[702] to
have a kiln on the estate and do the burning there. But even so it is
well to employ a regular limeburner (_calcarius_) for the job. The
landlord finds limestone and fuel, and a way of payment is to work on
shares (_partiario_) each party taking his share of the lime. The same
share-system (according to Keil’s text) is proposed for the operation
known as _politio_, which seems to include[703] weeding and ‘cleaning’
of the land, at least for cereal crops, and also is prescribed for the
skilled tending of a vineyard. For such works as these it is fairly
certain that the persons employed were assumed to be living in the
neighbourhood. In the case of the blacksmith[704] (_faber ferrarius_)
there can be no doubt, for his forge is spoken of as a fit place for
drying grapes, hung presumably in the smoke of his wood fire. Now all
these skilled men are evidently free, and work on agreed terms. Some of
them are certainly not singlehanded, but whether their underlings are
freemen or slaves or both we are left to guess. In all cases their work
is such as calls not only for skill and industry but also for good faith,
which cannot be expected from slaves. It is in short contract-work,
whether the bargain be made in a formal agreement or not.
The employment of contractors, each with his own staff, at times
of pressure such as the getting in and disposal of crops, has been
referred to above, and it has been remarked that some at least of this
emergency-labour was performed by freemen. We must therefore conclude
that in Cato’s time there was a considerable supply of casual labourers
in country districts, on whose services landlords could rely. The
contractor would seem to have been either a ‘ganger’ who bargained for
terms with the landlord on behalf of his work-party, or a capitalist
owning a gang of slaves. What made the difference would be the nature
of the job in hand, according as skill or mere brute strength was
chiefly required. But that slave labour was the essential factor, on
which Catonian agriculture normally depended, is beyond all doubt. The
slave steward is not only responsible[705] for the control of the slave
staff (_familia_) and their wellbeing and profitable employment. He is
authorized to employ other labour, even free labour, at need; only he
must not keep such persons hanging about the place. He is to pay them
off and discharge them without delay, no doubt in order to prevent them
from unsettling the slaves by their presence. And slaves must never
be idle. When a master calls his steward to account for insufficient
results on the farm, the latter is expected to plead in excuse not only
the weather but shortage of hands; slaves have been sick or have run
away; or they have been employed[706] on state-work (_opus publicum
effecisse_),—probably in mending the roads, for this is recognized below.
XXIV. AGRICULTURE IN THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD.
From the death of Cato in 149 BC to the date of Varro’s book _de re
rustica_ (about 37 BC) is a space of more than a century. The one great
fact of this momentous period in relation to agriculture is the public
recognition of the decay of the small farmers over a large part of
Italy, and the vain attempt to revive a class well known to have been
the backbone of Roman strength. But the absorption of small holdings in
large estates had already gone so far in the affected districts that
there was practically only one direction in which land-reformers could
move. To confiscate private property was forbidden by Roman respect for
legal rights: it appears in Roman history only after the failure of the
Gracchan movement, and as a phenomenon of civil war. There were however
great areas of land of which the state was still in law proprietor,
held by individuals (often in very large blocks) under a system of
recognized occupation known as _possessio_. Tradition alleged that in
Rome’s early days this _ager publicus_ had been a cause of quarrels
between the needy Commons who hungered for land and the rich nobles who
strove to monopolize the land annexed by war and now state-property. It
was known that one of the effects produced by the political equalization
of the Orders in the fourth century BC had been legislation to restrain
land-monopoly. But the Licinian laws of 367 BC had not made an end of the
evil. Soon evaded, they had become in course of time wholly inoperative.
The new Patricio-Plebeian nobility quieted the claims of the poor by
colonial foundations and allotments of land in newly-conquered districts,
while they continued to enrich themselves by ‘possession’ of the public
land. Undisturbed possession gradually obscured the distinction between
such holdings and the estates held in full ownership as _ager privatus_.
Boundaries were confused: mixed estates changed hands by inheritance
or sale without recognition of a legal difference in the tenure of
different portions: where improvements had been carried out, they applied
indistinguishably to lands owned or possessed. The greater part of these
_possessiones_ was probably not arable but pasture, grazed by numerous
flocks and herds in charge of slave herdsmen. Now in Cato’s time the
imports of foreign corn were already rendering the growth of cereal crops
for the market an unremunerative enterprise in the most accessible parts
of Italy. Grazing paid better. It required fewer hands, but considerable
capital and wide areas of pasturage. It could be combined with the
culture of the vine and olive; for the live-stock, brought down to the
farmstead in the winter months, supplied plentiful manure. Moreover, the
wholesale employment of slaves enabled a landlord to rely on a regular
supply of labour. The slave was not liable to military service: so the
master was not liable to have his staff called up at short notice. In
short, economic influences, aided by selfish or corrupt administration of
the laws under the rule of the nobility, gave every advantage to the rich
landlords. No wonder that patriotic reformers viewed the prospect with
alarm, and sought some way of promoting a revival of the peasant farmers.
The story of the Gracchan movement and the causes of its failure are
set forth from various points of view in histories[707] of Rome and
special monographs. What concerns us here is to remark that its remedial
legislation dealt solely with land belonging to the state and occupied
by individuals. Power was taken to ascertain its boundaries, to resume
possession on behalf of the state, and to parcel it out in allotments
among needy citizens. How far success in the aim of restoring a free
citizen population in the denuded districts was ever possible, we cannot
tell. But we know that it did not in fact succeed. By 111 BC whatever had
been achieved[708] was finally annulled. The bulk of the _ager publicus_
had disappeared. The sale of land-allotments, at first forbidden, had
been permitted, and the process of buying out the newly created peasantry
went on freely. But large estates formed under the new conditions were
subject to no defect of title. They were strictly private property,
though the term _possessiones_ still remained in use. Slave-labour on
such estates was normal as before. Indeed rustic slavery was now at its
height. This short period of attempted land-reform comes between the two
great Sicilian slave-wars (135-2 and 103-99 BC), in the events of which
the horrors of contemporary agriculture were most vividly expressed. It
was also a time of great wars abroad, in Gaul, in Africa, and against the
barbarian invaders from the North. Roman armies suffered many defeats,
and the prestige of Roman power was only restored by the military
remodelling under Marius. When Marius finally threw over the principle
that military service was a duty required of propertied citizens, and
raised legions from the poorest classes, volunteering with an eye to
profit, he in effect founded the Empire. We can hardly help asking[709]
from what quarters he was able to draw these recruits. Some no doubt
were idlers already living in Rome attracted by the distributions of
cheap corn provided by the Government in order to keep quiet the city
mob. But these can hardly have been a majority of the recruits of this
class. Probably a number came in from rural districts, hearing that
Marius was calling for volunteers and prepared to disregard altogether
the obsolete rules which had on occasion been evaded by others before
him. It is perhaps not too bold a conjecture to suggest that the casual
wage-earners, the _mercennarii_ referred to by Cato, were an important
element in the New Model army of Marius. This landless class, living from
hand to mouth, may have been declining in numbers, but they were by no
means extinct. We meet them later in Varro and elsewhere. And no man knew
better than Marius the military value of men hardened by field-labour,
particularly when led to volunteer by hopes of earning a higher reward in
a career of more perils and less monotony.
It can hardly be supposed that agriculture throve under the conditions
prevailing in these troubled years. The tendency must have been to
reduce the number of free rustic wage-earners, while each war would
bring captives to the slave-market. We can only guess at these economic
effects. The following period of civil wars, from the Italian rising in
90 BC to the death of Sulla in 78, led to a further and more serious
disturbance of the land-system. The dictator had to reward his soldiery,
and that promptly. The debt was discharged by grants of land, private
land, the owners of which were either ejected for the purpose or had been
put to death. Of the results of this wholesale confiscation and allotment
we have abundant evidence, chiefly from Cicero. Making full allowance for
exaggeration and partisan feeling, it remains sufficient to shew that
Sulla’s military colonists were economically a disastrous failure, while
both they and the men dispossessed to make room for them soon became a
grave political danger. The discharged soldiers desired an easy life as
proprietors, and the excitements of warfare had unfitted them for the
patient economy of farming. They bought slaves; but slaves cost money,
and the profitable direction of slave-labour was an art calling for a
degree of watchfulness and skill that few landlords of any class were
willing or able to exert. So this substitution of new landowners for old
was an unmixed evil: the new men failed as farmers, and we hardly need to
be told that the feeling of insecurity produced by the confiscations was
a check on agricultural improvements for the time. Those of the ‘Sullan
men’ who sold their allotments (evading the law) would certainly not get
a good price, and the money would soon melt away.
It will be seen that the old Roman system, under which the ordinary
citizen was a peasant farmer who served the state as a soldier when
needed, was practically at an end. Compulsory levies were on certain
occasions resorted to, for no abolition of the old liability to
service had taken place: but voluntary enlistment of young men, and
their conversion into professional soldiers by technical training, was
henceforth the normal method of forming Roman armies. Armies were kept on
foot for long campaigns, and the problem of their peaceful disbandment
was one of the most serious difficulties of the revolutionary age. The
treasury had no large income to spend on money-pensions, so the demand
for allotments of land became a regular accompaniment of demobilization.
Meanwhile the desperate condition of landlords in important districts,
and the danger from the slave-gangs, were forcibly illustrated in the
rising under Spartacus (73-1 BC) and the Catilinarian conspiracy. It
is unfortunate that the scope of the land-bill of Rullus[710] in 63,
defeated by Cicero, is uncertain, and the effect of Caesar’s land-law of
59 hardly less so. But one thing seems clear. In default of sufficient
lands suitable for allotment, legislators were driven to propose the
resumption of the rich Campanian domain. This public estate had long
been let to tenants, real farmers, in small holdings; and the rents
therefrom were one of the safest sources of public income. To disturb
good tenants, and give the best land in Italy to untried men as owners,
was surely a bad business. It shews to what straits rulers were driven
to find land for distribution. To enter into the details of the various
land-allotments between the abortive proposal of Rullus and the final
settlement of Octavian would be out of place here. But it is well to note
that the plan of purchasing private land for pension-allotments, proposed
in the bill of Rullus, was actually carried out by the new Emperor and
proudly recorded[711] by him in his famous record of the achievements
of his life. The violent transfer of landed properties from present
holders to discharged soldiers of the triumviral armies had evidently
been both an economic failure and a political evil. To pay for estates
taken for purpose of distribution was a notable step towards restoration
of legality and public confidence. Whether it immediately brought about a
revival of agriculture on a sound footing is a question on which opinions
may justifiably differ. Much will depend on the view taken by this or
that inquirer of the evidence of Varro and the Augustan poets Horace and
Vergil.
NOTE—In Prendergast’s _Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland_
(ed 2, 1870), chapter IV a, much interesting matter may be
found. Cruel expulsions, corrupt influences, and the sale of
their lots by soldiers to officers, their frequent failure
as cultivators, etc, stand out clearly. The analogy to the
Roman cases must of course not be too closely pressed, as the
conditions were not identical.
XXV. VARRO.
=M Terentius Varro= wrote his treatise _de re rustica_ in 37-6 BC at the
age of 80. The subject was only one of an immense number to which he
devoted his talents and wide learning when not actively engaged in public
duties. The last republican rally under Brutus and Cassius had failed at
Philippi in 42, and the Roman world was shared out between the Triumvirs.
In 36 the suppression of Lepidus declared what was already obvious,
that Antony and Octavian were the real holders of power and probable
rivals. Proscriptions, confiscations, land-allotments to soldiers, the
wars with Antony’s brother Lucius and the great Pompey’s son Sextus, had
added to the unsettlement and exhaustion of Italy. If it appeared to
Varro that a treatise on farming would be opportune (and we may fairly
conjecture that it did), there was surely much to justify his opinion in
the distressful state of many parts of the country. But at this point
we are met by a passage[712] in the work itself which seems to prove
that he took a very different view of present agricultural conditions
in Italy. Some of the speakers (the book is in form a dialogue) declare
that no country is better cultivated than Italy, that no other country
is so fully cultivated all through (_tota_), that Italian crops are in
general the best of their several kinds, and in particular that Italy
is one great orchard. Instances in point are given. That Varro, like
Cicero, took great care[713] to avoid anachronisms and improbabilities,
that his characters are real persons, and that he tries hard to fit the
several topics to the several characters, is not to be denied. But it
is perhaps too much to assume that such general remarks as those just
cited are meant to represent the known personal opinions of the speakers.
If we could be sure of the date at which the dialogue is supposed to
be held, we might have a more satisfactory standard for estimating the
significance and historical value of these utterances. Unluckily we
have no convincing evidence as to the intended date. The scene of the
second book can be laid in 67 BC with reasonable certainty, and that of
the third in 54 BC. But no passage occurs in the first book sufficient
to furnish material for a like inference. When Stolo refers[714] to
Varro’s presence with the fleet and army at Corcyra, some have thought
that he has in mind the time of the civil war in 49 BC. It is much more
likely that the reference is to Varro’s service[715] as one of Pompey’s
lieutenants in the pirate war of 67 BC. The dialogue of Book I would then
be placed after the summer of that year, probably not much later. The
boast of the speakers as to the splendid cultivation of Italy in general
would refer to the time when the disturbance caused by the confiscations
and assignations of Sulla was dying down and the rising of Spartacus had
lately been suppressed. It would be placed before the later disturbances
caused by measures designed to satisfy the claims of Pompeian Caesarian
and Triumviral armies. Vergil had not yet been driven from his Cisalpine
farm.