work or service (_opus_) that a landlord may require of a tenant, as
distinct from rent, what does Columella precisely mean? It has been
held[983] that he refers to the landlord’s right of insisting that
his land shall be well farmed. This presumably implies a clause in
the lease under which such a right could be enforced. But there are
difficulties. In the case of a distant farm, let to a tenant because
it has ‘to do without the presence[984] of the landlord,’ the right
would surely be inoperative in practice. In the case of a neighbouring
farm, why has the landlord not kept it in hand, putting in a steward
to manage it? This interpretation leaves us with no clear picture of
a practical arrangement. But this objection is perhaps not fatal. The
right to enforce proper cultivation is plainly guaranteed to landlords
in Roman Law, as the jurists constantly assert in discussing tenancies.
And _opus_ is a term employed[985] by them in this connexion. It is
therefore the safer course to take it here in this sense, and to allow
for a certain want of clearness in Columella’s phrase. At the same time
it is tempting to accept another[986] view, namely this, that the writer
has in mind service rendered in the form of a stipulated amount of
auxiliary labour on the landlord’s ‘Home Farm’ at certain seasons. That a
_corvée_ arrangement of this kind existed as a matter of course on some
estates, we have direct evidence[987] in the second century, evidence
that suggests an earlier origin for the custom. True, it implies that
landlords were in practice able to impose the burden of such task-work on
their free tenants, in short that they had the upper hand in the bargain
between the parties. But this is not surprising: for we read[988] of a
great landlord calling up his _coloni_ to serve on his private fleet
in the great civil war, a hundred years before Columella. Still, it is
perhaps rash to see in this passage a direct reference to the custom
of making the supply of auxiliary labour at certain seasons a part of
tenant’s obligations. Granting this, it is nevertheless reasonable to
believe that the first beginnings of the custom may belong to a date at
least as early as the treatise of Columella. For it is quite incredible
that such a practice should spring up and become prevalent suddenly. It
has all the marks of gradual growth.
Another point of interest is the criticism of the town-bred _colonus_. He
prefers to work the farm with a slave staff, rather than undertake the
job himself. I gather from this that he is a man with capital, also that
he means to get a good return on his capital. He fears to make a loss on
a rustic venture, being well aware of his own inexperience. So he will
put in a steward with a staff of slaves. The position of the steward will
in such a case be peculiarly strong. If he is slack and thievish and lets
down the farm, he can stave off his master’s anger by finding fault with
the soil or buildings, and involve the tenant and landlord in a quarrel
over the rent. To devise pretexts would be easy for a rogue, and a
quarrel might end in a lawsuit. That Saserna, writing probably about 100
BC, laid his finger on this possible source of trouble, is significant.
It is evidence that there were tenant-farmers in his time, and bad ones
among them: but not that they were then numerous, or that their general
character was such as to make landlords let their estates in preference
to managing them through their own stewards for their own account. And
this agrees with Columella’s own opinion some 150 years later. If you are
to let farms to tenants, local men who are familiar with local conditions
are to be preferred, but he gives no hint that such tenants could readily
be found. His words seem rather to imply that they were rare.
One point is hardly open to misunderstanding. In Columella’s system the
typical tenant-farmer, the _colonus_ to be desired by a wise landlord, is
a humble person, to whom small perquisites are things of some importance.
He is not a restless or ambitious being, ever on the watch for a chance
of putting his landlord in the wrong or a pretext for going to law. Such
as we see him in the references of Seneca, and later in those of the
younger Pliny and Martial, such he appears in Columella. For the landlord
it is an important object to keep him—when he has got him—and to have his
son ready as successor in the tenancy. From other sources we know[989]
that the value of long undisturbed tenancies are generally recognized.
But we have little or nothing to shew whether the tenant-farmers of
this age usually worked with their own hands or not. That they employed
slave labour is not only _a priori_ probable, but practically certain.
We have evidence that at a somewhat later date it was customary[990]
for the landlord to provide land farmstead (_villa_) and equipment
(_instrumentum_), and we know that under this last head slaves could be
and were concluded. It is evident that the arrangement belongs to the
decisive development of the tenancy system as a regular alternative to
that of farming by a steward for landlord’s own account. The desirable
country-bred tenant would not be a man[991] of substantial capital,
and things had to be made easy for him. It is not clear that a tenant
bringing his own staff of slaves would have been welcomed as lessee: from
the instance of the town-bred _colonus_ just referred to it seems likely
that he would not.
While Columella prescribes letting to tenants as the best way of solving
the difficulties in dealing with outlying farms, he does not say that
this plan should not be adopted in the case of farms near the main
estate or ‘Home Farm.’ I think this silence is intentional. It is hard
to believe that there were no instances of landlords either wholly
non-resident or who so seldom visited their estates that they could not
possibly keep an eye on the doings of stewards. In such cases there would
be strong inducement to adopt the plan by which they could simply draw
rents and have no stewards to look after. That stewards needed to be
carefully watched was as clear to Columella as to Cato or Varro. True,
letting to tenants was a policy liable to bring troubles of its own. We
shall see in the case of the younger Pliny what they were and how he met
them. Meanwhile he may serve as an example of the system. It is also
plain that a large continuous property could be divided[992] into smaller
parcels for convenience of letting to tenants. Whether the later plan of
keeping a considerable Home Farm in hand under a steward, and letting off
the outer parcels of the same estate to tenants, was in vogue already and
contemplated by Columella, is not easy to say. In connexion with this
question it is to be noted that he hardly refers at all to free hired
labour[993] as generally available. The migratory gangs of wage-earners,
still known to Varro, do not appear, nor do the itinerant _medici_. When
he speaks of hiring hands at any price, or of times when labour is cheap,
he may mean hiring somebody’s slaves, and probably does. Slave labour is
undoubtedly the basis of his farm-system, and its elaborate organization
fills an important part of his book. Yet two marked consequences of
the Roman Peace had to be taken into account. Fewer wars meant fewer
slaves in the market, and a rise of prices: peace and law in Italy meant
that big landowners could add field to field more securely than ever,
while great numbers of citizens were settling in the Provinces, taking
advantage of better openings[994] there. To keep some free labour within
call as an occasional resource was an undeniable convenience for a large
owner with a farm in hand. Small tenants[995] under obligation to render
stipulated service at certain seasons would obviously supply the labour
needed. And, if we picture to ourselves a Home Farm round the lord’s
mansion, worked by steward and slave staff, with outlying ‘soccage’
tenants on holdings near, we are already in presence of a rudimentary
Manor. As time went by, and the system got into regular working order,
the landlord had an opportunity of strengthening his hold on the tenants.
By not pressing them too severely for arrears of rent, and occasionally
granting abatements, he could gradually increase their services. What
he thus saved on his own labour-bill might well be more than a set-off
against the loss of money-rents. More and more the tenants would become
dependent on him. Nominally free, they were becoming tied to the soil on
onerous terms, and the foundation was laid of the later relation of Lord
and Serf.
Such I conceive to be the rustic situation the beginnings of which are
probably to be placed as early as Columella’s time, though we do not
find him referring to it. He says nothing of another point, which was
of importance[996] later, namely the admission of slaves or freedmen as
tenants of farms. It has all the appearance of a subsequent step, taken
when the convenience of services rendered by resident tenants had been
demonstrated by experience. It is no great stretch of imagination to
suggest that, as the supply of slaves fell off, it was the policy of
owners to turn their slave-property to the best possible account. When a
steward or a gang-foreman was no longer in his prime, able (as Columella
enjoins) to turn to and shew the common hands how work should be done,
how could he best be utilized? A simple plan was to put him on a small
farm with a few slave labourers. This would secure the presence of a
tenant whose dependence was certain from the first, while a younger man
could be promoted to the arduous duties of the big Home Farm. Be this
as it may, it is certain that problems arising from shortage of slaves
were presenting themselves in the middle of the first century AD. For
slave-breeding, casual in Cato’s day and incidentally mentioned by Varro,
is openly recognized by Columella, who allows for a larger female element
in his farm staff and provides rewards for their realized fertility.
If the system of farm-tenancies was already becoming a part of
land-management so important as the above remarks may seem to imply, why
does the management of a landed estate for landlord’s account under a
steward occupy almost the whole of Columella’s long treatise? I think
there are several reasons. First, it is management of tillage-crops and
gardens and live stock with which he is chiefly concerned, not tenures
and labour-questions: and technical skill in agriculture is of interest
to all connected with it, though the book is primarily addressed to
landlords. Secondly, the desirable tenant was (and is) a man not much in
need of being taught his business: as for an undesirable one, the sooner
he is got rid of the better. Thirdly, the plan of steward-management was
still the normal one: the only pity was that the indolence of owners
led to appointment of bad stewards and left them too much power. Only
sound knowledge can enable landlords to choose good stewards and check
bad management. Seeing agriculture in a bad way, Columella writes to
supply this knowledge, as Cato Varro and others had done before him.
Accordingly he begins with the general organization of the normal large
estate, and first discusses the choice and duties of the _vilicus_,
on whose character and competence everything depends. To this subject
he returns in a later part of the treatise, and the two passages[997]
enforce the same doctrine with very slight variations in detail.
The steward[998] must not be a fancy-slave, a domestic from the master’s
town house, but a well-tried hardy rustic, or at the very least one used
to hard labour. He must not be too old, or he may break down under the
strain; nor too young, or the elder slaves will not respect him. He must
be a skilled farmer (this is most important)[999], or at least thoroughly
painstaking, so as to pick up the business quickly: for the functions
of teaching and giving orders cannot be separated. He need not be able
to read and write, if his memory be very retentive. It is a remark of
Celsus, that a steward of this sort brings his master cash more often
than a book: for he cannot make up false accounts himself, and fears to
trust an accomplice. But, good bad or indifferent, a steward must have
a female partner[1000] allotted him, to be a restraining influence on
him and in some respects a help. Being[1001] his master’s agent, he must
be enjoined not to live on terms of intimacy with any of the staff, and
still less with any outsider. Yet he may now and then invite a deserving
worker to his table on a feast-day. He must not do sacrifice[1002]
without orders, or meddle with divination. He must attend markets
only on strict business, and not gad about, unless it be to pick up
wrinkles[1003] for the farm, and then only if the place visited be close
at hand. He must not allow new pathways to be made on the farm, or admit
as guests any but his master’s intimate friends. He must be instructed
to attend carefully[1004] to the stock of implements and tools, keeping
everything in duplicate and in good repair, so that there need be no
borrowing from neighbours: for the waste of working time thus caused
is a more serious item than the cost of such articles. He is to see to
the clothing[1005] of the staff (_familiam_) in practical garments that
will stand wet and cold: this done, some work in the open is possible in
almost any weather. He should be not only an expert in farm labour, but
a man of the highest mental and moral character[1006] compatible with
a slave-temperament. For his rule should be sympathetic but firm: he
should not be too hard[1007] upon the worse hands, while he encourages
the better ones, but aim at being feared for his strictness rather than
loathed for harshness. The way to achieve this is to watch and prevent,
not to overlook and then punish. Even the most inveterate rogues are
most effectively controlled by insisting on performance[1008] of their
tasks, ensuring them their due rights, and by the steward being always
on the spot. Under these conditions the various foremen[1009] will take
pains to carry out their several duties, while the common hands, tired
out, will be more inclined to go to sleep than to get into mischief. Some
good old usages tending to promote content and good feeling are unhappily
gone beyond recall, for instance[1010] the rule that a steward must not
employ a fellow-slave’s services on any business save that of his master.
But he must not suffer them to stray off the estate unless he sends them
on errands; and this only if absolutely necessary. He must not do any
trading[1011] on his own account, or employ his master’s cash in purchase
of beasts etc. For this distracts a steward’s attention, and prevents the
correct balancing of his accounts at the audit, when he can only produce
goods instead of money. In general, the first[1012] requisite is that he
should be free from conceit and eager to learn. For in farming mistakes
can never be redeemed: time lost is never regained: each thing must be
done right, once for all.
The above is almost a verbal rendering of Columella’s words. At this
point we may fairly pause to ask whether he seriously thought that an
ordinary landlord had much chance of securing such a paragon of virtue
as this pattern steward. That all these high bodily mental and moral
qualities combined in one individual could be bought in one lot at an
auction[1013] must surely have been a chance so rare as to be hardly
worth considering as a means of agricultural development. I take it
that the importance of extreme care in selecting the right man, and
in keeping him to his duties, is insisted on as a protest against the
culpable carelessness of contemporary landlords, of which he has spoken
severely above. If, as I believe, in the great majority of cases a new
steward required much instruction as to the details of his duties and as
to the spirit in which he was both to rule the farm-staff and to serve
his master, surely the part to be played by the master himself[1014] was
of fundamental importance: indeed little less so than in the scheme of
old Cato. To Columella I am convinced that his recommendations stood for
an ideal seldom, if ever, likely to be realized. To say this is not to
blame the good man, but rather to hint that his precepts in general must
not be taken as evidence of a state of things then normally to be found
existing on farms. To express aspirations confesses the shortcomings of
achievement.
To return to our author’s precepts. He goes on to tell us of his own way
of treating[1015] his farm-hands, remarking that he has not regretted
his kindness. He talks to a rustic slave (provided he is a decent
worker) more often, and more as man to man (_familiarius_) than he does
to a town slave. It relieves the round of their toil. He even exchanges
pleasantries with them. He discusses new work-projects with the skilled
hands and so tests their abilities: this flatters them, and they are
more ready to work on a job on which they have been consulted. There
are other points of management on which all prudent masters are agreed,
for instance the inspection[1016] of the slaves in the lock-up. This
is to ascertain whether they are carefully chained, and the chamber
thoroughly secured, and whether the steward has chained or released any
of them without his master’s knowledge. For he must not be permitted
to release the chained on his own responsibility. The _paterfamilias_
should be all the more particular in his inquiries as to slaves of this
class, to see that they are dealt with fairly in matters of clothing
and rations, inasmuch as they are under the control[1017] of several
superiors, stewards foremen and warders. This position exposes them to
unfair treatment, and they are apt to be more dangerous through resenting
harshness and stinginess. So a careful master should question them as
to whether they are getting[1018] their due allowance. He should taste
their food and examine their clothes etc. He should hear and redress
grievances, punish the mutinous, and reward the deserving. Columella then
relates[1019] his own policy in dealing with female slaves. When one of
them had reared three or more children she was rewarded: for 3 she was
granted a holiday, for 4 she was manumitted. This is only fair, and it is
a substantial increment[1020] to your property. In general, a landlord
is enjoined to observe religious duties, and to inspect the whole estate
immediately on his arrival from Town, checking all items carefully. This
done regularly year after year, he will enjoy order and obedience on his
estate in his old age.
Next comes a general statement of the proper classification of the
slave staff according to varieties[1021] of function. For departmental
foremen you should choose steady honest fellows, watchfulness and skill
being needed rather than brute strength. The hind or plowman must be a
big man with a big voice, that the oxen may obey him. And the taller
he is the better will he throw his weight on the plough-tail. The mere
unskilled labourer[1022] only needs to be fit for continuous hard work.
For instance, in a vineyard you want a thickset type of labourer to
stand the digging etc, and if they are rogues it does not matter much,
as they work in a gang under an overseer (_monitore_[1023]). By the by,
a scamp is generally more quick-witted than the average, and vineyard
work calls for intelligence: this is why chained hands[1024] are commonly
employed there. Of course, he adds, an honest man is more efficient than
a rogue, other things being equal: don’t charge me with a preference
for criminals. Another piece of advice is to avoid[1025] mixing up the
various tasks performed by the staff on the plan of making every labourer
do every kind of work. It does not pay in farming. Either what is every
one’s business is felt to be nobody’s duty in particular; or the effort
of the individual is credited to the whole of the gang. This sets him
shirking, and yet you cannot single out the offender; and this sort of
thing is constantly happening. Therefore keep plowmen vineyard-hands and
unskilled labourers apart. Then he passes to numerical[1026] divisions.
Squads (_classes_) should be of not more than ten men each, _decuriae_
as the old name was, that the overseer may keep his eye on all. By
spreading such squads over different parts of a large farm it is possible
to compare results, to detect laziness, and to escape the irritating
unfairness of punishing the wrong men.
The general impression left on a reader’s mind by Columella’s principles
of slave-management is one of strict control tempered by judicious
humanity. It pays not to be harsh and cruel. Whether we can fairly credit
him with disinterested sympathy on grounds of a common human nature, such
as Seneca was preaching, seems to me very doubtful. That he regarded
the slave as a sort of domesticated animal, cannot so far as I know be
gathered from direct statements, but may be inferred by just implication
from his use of the same language in speaking of slaves and other live
stock. Thus we find[1027] the ‘labouring herd,’ and ‘draught-cattle when
they are putting in a good spell of work.’ So too the steward is to drive
home his slave-gang at dusk ‘after the fashion[1028] of a first-rate
herdsman,’ and on arrival first of all to attend to their needs ‘like a
careful shepherd.’ The motive of this care is to keep the staff in good
working order. Both steward and stewardess are required to pay great
attention to the health of the staff. Not only are there prescriptions
given for treatment of ailments and injuries, but the slave really stale
from overwork is to have a rest; of course malingering must be checked.
For the sick there is a special[1029] sick-room, always kept clean and
aired, and the general sanitation of the farmstead is strictly enforced.
This too is dictated by enlightened self-interest, a part of the general
rule[1030] that upkeep is as important as acquisition. The position of
the female staff of the farm has also a bearing on this subject. They do
not appear to be numerous, though perhaps proportionally more so than in
the scheme of Varro. The _vilica_ has a number of maids under her for
doing the various house-work[1031] and spinning and weaving. We have
already noted the rewards of fertility on their part. For the production
of home-bred slaves (_vernae_), always a thing welcomed by proprietors,
is most formally recognized by Columella. Why it needed encouragement
may perhaps receive some illustration from remarks upon the behaviour of
certain birds in the matter of breeding. Thus peafowl do well in places
where they can run at large, and the hens take more pains to rear their
chicks, being so to speak[1032] set free from slavery. And other birds
there are that will not breed in captivity. The analogy of these cases to
that of human slaves can hardly have escaped the notice of the writer.