capitalists in Italy, and therewith to money-lending, landholding, and
slavery, may be gathered from the remarks on these subjects in his
_Germany_. He writes, as Herodotus and others had done before him,
taking particular notice of customs differing from those prevalent in
his own surroundings. Thus he notes[1160] the absence of money-lending
at interest. He describes the system of communal ownership of land by
village-units, and its periodic redistribution among the members of the
community. The wide stretches of open plains[1161] enable the Germans to
put fresh fields under tillage year by year, leaving the rest in fallow
(no doubt as rough pasture). Intensive culture is unknown. To wring the
utmost out of the soil by the sweat of their brow is not their aim:
they have no orchards or gardens or fenced paddocks, but are content
to raise a crop of corn. All this is in marked contrast with Italian
conditions. Even to get rid of fallows was an ambition of agriculturists
in Italy, and a rotation-system[1162] had been devised to this end. And,
whatever may have been the case in prehistoric times, full property in
land had long been established by the Roman Law, and there was in the
Italian land-system no trace of redistribution for short terms of use.
In treating of slavery, the first point made is its connexion[1163] with
the inveterate German habit of gambling. Losers will end by staking their
own freedom on a last throw; if this also fails, they will submit to be
fettered and sold. To the Roman this seems a false notion of honour. He
adds that to take advantage of this sort of slave-winning is not approved
by German sentiment: hence the winner combines[1164] scruples with profit
by selling a slave of this class into foreign lands. Other slaves are
not employed in Roman fashion as an organized staff of domestics. Each
has a lodging and home of his own: his lord requires of him a fixed
rent[1165] of so much corn or live-stock or clothing, as of a tenant: and
he renders no service beyond this. House-work is done by a man’s own wife
and family. Slaves are seldom flogged or chained or put to task-work.
The German may kill his slave, but it will not be as a penalty for
disobedience, but in a fit of rage. Freedmen are of little more account
than slaves, and are only of influence at the courts of the kings who
rule some of the tribes. There they rise above the freeborn and noble:
but in general the inferiority of freedmen serves to mark the superiority
of the freeborn.
Tacitus had held an important official post in Belgic Gaul or one of
the so-called ‘Germanies’ along the Rhine, and had been at pains to
learn all he could of the independent barbarians to the East. The Rhine
frontier was one of the Roman borders that needed most careful watching,
and Roman readers took an uneasy interest in the doings of the warrior
tribes whose numbers, in contrast to their own falling birth-rate, were
ever renewed and increased by alarming fertility. He was not alone in
perceiving the contrasts between Italian and German institutions and
habits, or in reading morals therefrom, expressed or implied. Germans had
been employed as mercenary soldiers by Julius Caesar, and were destined
to become one of the chief elements of the Roman armies. But in Italy
they were perhaps more directly known as slaves. We have just seen that
Tacitus speaks of a regular selling of slaves over the German border, and
another passage[1166] incidentally illustrates this fact in a curious
manner. In the course of his conquest of Britain, Agricola established
military posts on the NW coast over against Ireland. It seems to have
been in one of these that a cohort of Usipi were stationed. They had
been raised in the Roman Germanies, and apparently sent over in a hurry.
Not liking the service, they killed their officer and the old soldiers
set to train them, seized three vessels, and put to sea. After various
adventures and sufferings in a voyage round the north of Britain, they
fell into the hands of some tribes of northern Germany, who took them for
pirates—those that were left of them. Of the fate reserved for some of
these Tacitus remarks ‘Some were sold as slaves[1167] and, passing from
purchaser to purchaser, eventually reached the Roman bank (of the Rhine),
where their extraordinary story aroused much interest.’ Such were the
strange possibilities in the northern seas and lands where the Roman and
the German met.
NOTE ON AN AFRICAN INSCRIPTION.
It may be convenient to notice here an inscription[1168]
relative to irrigation in Africa. In all parts of the empire
subject to drought the supply of water to farmers was a matter
of importance, as it is in most Mediterranean countries today.
Good soils, that would otherwise have lain waste, were thus
turned to account. In the African Provinces much was done to
meet this need, as the remains of works for storage of water
clearly testify. The period 69-180 AD seems to have been marked
by a considerable extension of cultivation in these parts,
and particularly in southern Numidia, which at that time was
included in the Province Africa. In this district, between
Sitifis (Setif) and Trajan’s great city Thamugadi (Timgad),
lay the commune of Lamasba[1169], the members of which appear
to have been mainly engaged in agriculture. There has been
preserved a large portion of a great inscription dealing with
the water-rights of their several farms. There is nothing to
suggest that the holders of these plots were tenants under
great landlords. They seem to be owners, not in the full
sense of Roman civil law, but on the regular provincial[1170]
footing, subject to tribute. To determine the shares of the
several plots in the common water-supply was probably the most
urgent problem of local politics in this community.
The date of the inscription has been placed in the reign of
Elagabalus; but it is obviously based on earlier conditions
and not improbably a revision of an earlier scheme. It deals
with the several plots one by one, fixing the number of
hours[1171] during which the water is to be turned on to each,
and making allowance for variation of the supply according to
the season of the year. A remarkable feature of this elaborate
scheme is the division of the plots into those below the water
level into which the water finds its way by natural flow
(_declives_), and those above water level (_acclives_). To the
latter it is clear that the water must have been raised by
mechanical means, and the scale of hours fixed evidently makes
allowance for the slower delivery accomplished thereby. For
the ‘descendent’ water was to be left flowing for fewer hours
than the ‘ascendent.’ As a specimen of the care taken in such
a community to prevent water-grabbing by unscrupulous members
this record is a document of high interest. That many others of
similar purport existed, and have only been lost to us by the
chances of time, is perhaps no rash guess.
The water-leet is called _aqua Claudiana_. The regulations are
issued by the local senate and people (_decreto ordinis et
colonorum_), for the place had a local[1172] government. Names
of 43 possessors remain on the surviving portion of the stone.
In form they are generally Roman[1173]. It is noted that only
three of them have a _praenomen_. Of the quality of the men
it is not easy to infer anything. Some may perhaps have been
Italians. Whether they, or some of them, were working farmers
must remain doubtful. At all events they do not seem to belong
to the class of _coloni_ of whom we shall have to speak below,
but to be strictly cultivating possessors. What labour they
employed it is hardly possible to guess.
XXXVIII. FRONTINUS.
=Sextus Julius Frontinus=, a good specimen of the competent departmental
officers in the imperial service, was not only a distinguished
military commander but an engineer and a writer of some merit. His
little treatise[1174] on the aqueducts of Rome has for us points of
interest. From it we can form some notion of the importance of the great
water-works, not only to the city but to the country for some miles
in certain directions. For water-stealing by the illicit tapping of
the main channels was practised outside as well as within the walls.
Landowners[1175] did it to irrigate their gardens, and the underlings
of the staff (_aquarii_) connived at the fraud: to prevent this abuse
was one of the troubles of the _curator_. But in certain places water
was delivered by branch supplies from certain aqueducts. This of course
had to be duly licensed, and license was only granted when the flow
of water in the particular aqueduct was normally sufficient to allow
the local privilege without reducing the regular discharge in Rome.
The municipality of Tibur[1176] seems to have had an old right to a
branch of the _Anio vetus_. The _aqua Crabra_ had been a spring serving
Tusculum[1177], but in recent times the Roman _aquarii_ had led off some
of its water into the _Tepula_, and made illicit profit out of the supply
thus increased in volume. Frontinus himself with the emperor’s approval
redressed the grievance, and the full supply of the _Crabra_ again served
the Tusculan landlords. The jealous attention given to the water-works
is illustrated by the decrees[1178] of the Senate in the time of the
Republic and of emperors since, by which grants of water-rights can only
be made to individuals named in the grant, and do not pass to heirs or
assigns: the water must only be drawn from the reservoir named, and used
on the estate for which the license is specifically granted.
The office of _curator aquarum_ was manifestly no sinecure. It was
not merely that constant precautions had to be taken against the
stealing of the water. An immense staff[1179] had to be kept to their
duties, and the cleansing and repair of the channels needed prompt and
continuous attention. And it seems that some of the landowners through
whose estates the aqueducts passed gave much trouble[1180] to the
administration. Either they erected buildings in the strips of land
reserved as legal margin on each side of a channel, or they planted
trees there, thus damaging the fabric; or they drove local roads over
it; or again they blocked the access to working parties engaged in the
duties of upkeep. Frontinus quotes decrees of the Senate dealing with
these abuses and providing penalties for persons guilty of such selfish
and reckless conduct. But to legislate was one thing, to enforce the
law was another. Yet the unaccommodating[1181] landlords had no excuse
for their behaviour. It was not a question of ‘nationalizing’ the side
strips, though that would have been amply justified in the interests
of the state. But the fact is that the old practice of Republican days
was extremely tender of private rights. If a landlord made objection to
selling a part of his estate, they took over the whole block and paid
him for it. Then they marked off the portions required for the service,
and resold the remainder. Thus the state was left unchallenged owner of
the part retained for public use. But the absence of any legal or moral
claim has not availed to stop encroachments: the draining away of the
water still goes on, with or without leave, and even the channels and
pipes themselves are pierced. No wonder that more severe and detailed
legislation was found necessary in the time of Augustus. The writer ends
by recognizing the unfairness of suddenly enforcing a law the long disuse
of which has led many to presume upon continued impunity for breaking it.
He therefore has been reviving it gradually, and hopes that offenders
will not force him to execute it with rigour.
What stands out clearly in this picture of the water-service is the utter
lack of public spirit imputed to the landowners near Rome by a careful
and responsible public servant of good repute. There is none of the
sermonizing of Seneca or the sneers and lamentations of Pliny. Frontinus
takes things as they are, finds them bad, and means to do his best to
improve them, while avoiding the temptations of the new broom. That a
great quantity of water was being, and had long been, diverted from
the public aqueducts to serve suburban villas and gardens, is certain.
What we do not learn is whether much or any of this was used for the
market-gardens of the humble folk who grew[1182] garden-stuff for the
Roman market. It is the old story,—little or nothing about the poor, save
when in the form of a city rabble they achieve distinction as a public
burden and nuisance. It does however seem fairly certain that licenses
to abstract water were only granted as a matter of special favour.
Therefore, so far as licensed abstraction went, it is most probable that
influential owners of _suburbana_ were the only beneficiaries. Theft of
water with connivance[1183] of the staff was only possible for those
who could afford to bribe. There remains the alternative of taking it by
eluding or defying the vigilance of the staff. Is it probable that the
poor market-gardener ventured to do this? Not often, I fancy: we can only
guess, and I doubt whether much of the intercepted water came his way.
There was it is true one aqueduct[1184] the water of which was of poor
quality. It was a work of Augustus, intended to supply the great pond
(_naumachia_) in which sham sea-fights were held to amuse the public.
When not so employed, this water was made available for irrigation of
gardens. This was on the western or Vatican side of the Tiber. Many rich
men had pleasure-gardens in that part, and we cannot be sure that even
this water was in practice serving any economic purpose.
XXXIX. INSCRIPTIONS RELATIVE TO _ALIMENTA_.
It is impossible to leave unnoticed the inscriptions[1185] of this period
relative to _alimenta_, and Mommsen’s interpretation[1186] of the two
chief ones, though their connexion with my present subject is not very
close. In the bronze tablets recording respectively the declarations of
estate-values in the communes of Ligures Baebiani (101 AD) and Veleia
(103 AD), made with the view of ascertaining the securities upon which
the capital endowment was to be advanced, we have interesting details of
this ingenious scheme for perpetuating charity. But neither these, nor
some minor inscribed records of bequests, nor again the experience of
Pliny the younger in a benefaction[1187] of the same kind, give us direct
evidence on labour-questions. It is in connexion with tenure of land and
management of estates that these documents mainly concern us. The fact
that there was felt to be a call for charities to encourage the rearing
of children was assuredly not a sign of social or economic wellbeing; but
this I have remarked above.
The following points stand out clearly in the interpretation of Mommsen.
The growth of large estates as against small is shewn in both the
tablets as having gone far by the time of Trajan: but not so far as
modern writers have imagined. In the case of the Ligures Baebiani there
is record of a considerable number of properties of moderate value,
indeed they are in a majority. At Veleia, though small estates have not
disappeared, there are more large ones, and the process of absorption
has evidently been more active. This was not strange, for the former
case belongs to the Hirpinian hill country of southern Italy, the latter
to the slopes of the Apennine near Placentia, including some of the
rich plain of the Po. The latter would naturally attract capital more
than the former. I have more than once remarked that in the upland
districts agricultural conditions were far less revolutionized than in
the lowlands. This seems to be an instance in point: but the evidence is
not complete. There is nothing to shew that the estates named in these
tablets were the sole landed properties of their several owners. Nor is
it probable. To own estates in different parts of the country was a well
understood policy of landlords. How we are to draw conclusions as to the
prevalence of great estates from a few isolated local instances, without
a statement of the entire landed properties of the persons named, I
cannot see. That writers of the Empire, when they speak of _latifundia_,
are seldom thinking of the crude and brutal plantation-system of an
earlier time, is very true. Those vast arable farms with their huge
slave-gangs were now out of fashion, and Mommsen points out that our
records are practically silent as to large-scale arable farming. We are
not to suppose that it was extinct, but it was probably rare.
The most valuable part of this paper is its recognition of the vital
change in Italian agriculture, the transfer of farming from a basis of
ownership to one of tenancy. The yeoman or owner-cultivator of olden
time had been driven out or made a rare figure in the most eligible
parts of Italy. The great plantations, which had largely superseded the
small-scale farms, had in their turn proved economic failures. Both
these systems, in most respects strongly contrasted, had one point in
common: the land was cultivated by or for the owner, and for his own
account. But the failure of the large-scale plantation-system did not so
react as to bring back small ownership. Large ownership still remained,
supported as it was by the social importance attached to landowning, and
occasionally by governmental action directed to encourage investment in
Italian land. Large owners long struggled to keep their estates in hand
under stewards farming for their masters’ account. But this plan was
doomed to failure, because the care and attention necessary to make it
pay were in most cases greater than landlords were willing to bestow. By
Columella’s time this fact was already becoming evident. He could only
advise the landlords to be other than he found them, and meanwhile point
to an alternative, namely application of the tenancy-system. It was this
latter plan that more and more found favour. The landlord could live in
town and draw his rents, himself free to pursue his own occupations.
The tenant-farmer was only bound by the terms of his lease; and, being
resident, was able to exact the full labour of his staff and prevent
waste and robbery. The custom was for the landlord to provide[1188]
the equipment (_instrumentum_) of the farm, or at least most of it,
including slaves. Thus he was in a sense partner of his tenant, finding
most of the working capital. Whether he had a claim to a money rent only,
or to a share of crops also, depended on the terms of letting. It seems
that rents were often in arrear, and that attempts to recover sums due by
selling up tenants’ goods did not always cover the debts.
The typical tenant-farmer was certainly a ‘small man.’ To let the whole
of a large estate to a ‘big man’ with plenty of capital was not the
practice in Italy. Why? I think the main reason was that a big capitalist
who wanted to get the highest return on his money could at this time do
better for himself in other ventures: if set upon a land-enterprise, he
could find far more attractive openings in some of the Provinces. Anyhow,
as Mommsen says, ‘Grosspacht’ never became acclimatized in Italy, though
we find it on Imperial domains, for instance in Africa. In connexion with
this matter I am led to remark that small tenancy ‘Kleinpacht’ seems
to have existed in two forms, perhaps indistinguishable in law, but
different in their practical effect. When a landlord, letting parcels
of a big estate to tenants, kept in hand the chief _villa_ and its
appurtenances as a sort of Manor Farm, and tenants fell into arrear with
their rent, he had a ready means of indemnifying himself without ‘selling
up’ his old tenants and having possibly much difficulty in finding
better new ones. He could commute arrears of rent into obligations of
service[1189] on the Manor Farm. Most tenants would probably be only too
glad to get rid of the immediate burden of debt. It would seem a better
course than to borrow for that purpose money on which interest would have
to be paid, even supposing that anyone would be willing to lend to a poor
tenant confessedly in difficulties. And such an arrangement would furnish
the landlord with a fixed amount of labour (and labour was becoming
scarcer) on very favourable terms—he or his agent would see to that. But
it was not really necessary to reserve a ‘Manor Farm’ at all, and a man
owning land in several districts would hardly do so in every estate,
if in any. Such a landlord could not readily solve the arrears-problem
by commutation. He was almost compelled[1190] to ‘sell up’ a hopeless
defaulter: and, since most of the stock had probably been supplied by
himself, there would not be much for him to sell. That such cases did
occur, we know for certain; the old tenant went, being free to move,
and to find a good new one was no easy matter, particularly as the land
was sure to have been left in a bad state. Arrears of farm-rents had a
regular phrase (_reliqua colonorum_) assigned to them, and there is good
reason to believe that they were a common source of trouble. It has been
well said[1191] that landlords in Italy were often as badly off as their
tenants. The truth is that the whole agricultural interest was going
downhill.
If the tenant-farmer was, as we see, becoming more and more the central
figure of Italian agriculture, we must next inquire how he stood in
relation to labour. It is _a priori_ probable that a man will be more
ready to work with his own hands on a farm of his own than on one
hired: no man is more alive to the difference of _meum_ and _alienum_
than the tiller of the soil. It is therefore not wonderful that we find
tenant-farmers employing slave labour. From the custom of having slaves
as well as other stock supplied by the landlord we may fairly infer that
tenants were, at least generally, not to be had on other terms. Mommsen
remarks[1192] that actual handwork on the land was more and more directed
rather than performed by the small tenants. Thus it came to be more and
more done by unfree persons. This recognizes, no doubt rightly, that the
system of great estates let in portions to tenants was not favourable
to a revival of free rustic labour, but told effectively against it. He
also points out[1193] that under Roman Law it was possible for a landlord
and his slave to stand in the mutual relation of lessor and lessee. Such
a slave lessee is distinct from the free tenant _colonus_. It appears
that there were two forms of this relation. The slave might be farming
on his own[1194] account, paying a rent and taking the farm-profits
as his _peculium_. In this case he is in the eye of the law _quasi
colonus_. Or he might be farming on his master’s account; then he is
_vilicus_. In both cases he is assumed to have under him slave-labourers
supplied[1195] by the landlord, and it seems that the name _vilicus_ was
sometimes loosely applied even in the former case. In the latter case
he cannot have been very different from the steward of a large estate
worked for owner’s account. I can only conclude that he was put in charge
of a smaller farm-unit and left more to his own devices. Probably this
arrangement would be resorted to only when an ordinary free tenant was
not to be had; and satisfactory ones were evidently not common in the
time of the younger Pliny.
So far as I can see, in this period landlords were gradually ceasing to
keep a direct control over the management of their own estates, but the
changes in progress did not tend to a rehabilitation of free labour.
One detail needs a brief special consideration. The landlord’s agent
(_actor_) is often mentioned, and it is clear that the _actor_ was
generally a slave. But there is reference to the possible case[1196] of
an _actor_ living (like his master) in town, not on the farms, and having
a wife[1197] and daughter. This suggests a freedman, not a slave, and
such cases may have been fairly numerous. Another point for notice is the
question of _vincti, alligati, compediti_, in this period. Mommsen[1198]
treats the chaining of field-slaves as being quite exceptional, in fact a
punishment, in Italy under the Empire. Surely it was always in some sense
a punishment. From what Columella[1199] says of the normal employment
of chained labourers in vineyard-work I can not admit that the evidence
justifies Mommsen’s assertion. That there was a growing reluctance to use
such barbarous methods, and that local usage varied in various parts of
the country, is certain.
XL. DION CHRYSOSTOM.