between 180 and 183 AD. The rescript of Commodus, and the appeal to which
it was the answer, are recorded in it. The imperial estate to which it
refers is called _saltus Burunitanus_. A single _conductor_ appears to
have been the lessee of the whole estate, and it was against his unlawful
exactions that the _coloni_ appealed. Through the connivance of the
responsible _procurator_ (corruptly obtained, the _coloni_ hint,) this
tyrant had compelled them to pay larger shares of produce than were
rightly due, and also to render services of men and beasts beyond the
amount fixed by statute. This abuse had existed on the estate for some
time, but the proceedings of the present _conductor_ had made it past all
bearing. Evidently there had been some resistance, but official favour
had enabled him to employ military force in suppressing it. Violence
had been freely used: some persons had been arrested and imprisoned or
otherwise maltreated; others had been severely beaten, among them even
Roman citizens. Hence the appeal. It is to be noted that the appellants
in no way dispute their liability to pay shares of produce (_partes
agrarias_) or to render labour-services at the usual seasons of pressure
(_operarum praebitionem iugorumve_). They refer to a clause in a _lex
Hadriana_, regulating these dues. It is against the exaction of more
than this statute allows that they venture to protest. They judiciously
point out to the emperor that such doings are injurious to the financial
interest[1399] of his treasury (_in perniciem rationum tuarum_), that
is, they will end by ruining the estate as a source of steady revenue.
The officials of the central department in Rome were evidently of the
same opinion, for the rescript of Commodus[1400] plainly ordered his
_procuratores_ to follow closely the rules and policy applicable to
the domains, permitting no exactions in transgression of the standing
regulations (_contra perpetuam formam_). In short, he reaffirmed the
statute of Hadrian.
In this document also we hear nothing of tenants’ arrears or of
money-rents. Naturally enough, for the _coloni_ are _partiarii_
whose rent is a share of produce. In connexion with such tenants the
difficulty[1401] of _reliqua_ does not easily arise. They are labouring
peasants, who describe themselves as _homines rustici tenues manuum
nostrarum operis victum tolerantes_. Of course they are posing as
injured innocents. Perhaps they were: at any rate the great officials
in Rome would look kindly on humble peasants who only asked protection
in order to go on unmolested, producing the food which it was their
duty to produce,—food, by the by, of the need of which the Roman mob
was a standing reminder. Of _vilici_ or ordinary slaves this document
says nothing, for it had no need to do so; but the right to _operae_
at certain seasons implies slave labour on the head-tenant’s own farm,
probably attached to the chief _villa_ or _palatium_. In a notable
phrase at the end of their appeal the _coloni_ speak of themselves[1402]
as ‘your peasants, home-bred slaves and foster-children of your
domains’ (_rustici tui vernulae et alumni saltuum tuorum_). Surely this
implies, not only that they are _coloni Caesaris_, standing in a direct
relation to the emperor whose protection[1403] they implore against the
_conductores agrorum fiscalium_; but also that their connexion with
the estate is an old-established one, passing from fathers to sons, a
hereditary tie which they have at present no wish to see broken.
In this case the circumstances that led to the setting-up of the
inscription are clear enough. Evidently the appeal represented a great
effort, both in the way of organizing concerted action on the part of the
peasant farmers, and in overcoming the hindrances to its presentation
which would be created by the interested ingenuity of those whose acts
were thereby called in question. The imperial officials in the Provinces
were often secretly in league with those in authority at Rome, and to
have procured an imperial rescript in favour of the appellants was a
great triumph, perhaps a rare one. The _forma perpetua_ containing the
regulations governing the estate was, we learn, already posted up on
a bronze tablet. It had been disregarded: and now it was an obvious
precaution to record that the emperor had ordered those regulations to be
observed in future. How long the effect of this rescript lasted we are
left to guess. Officials changed, and reaffirmation of principles could
not guarantee permanent reform of practice. Still, the policy of the
central bureau, when not warped by corrupt influence, was consistent and
clear. To keep these imperial ‘peculiars’ on such a footing as to insure
steady returns was an undoubted need: and, after the extreme strain on
the resources of the empire imposed by the calamitous times of Marcus, it
was in the reign of Commodus a greater need than ever.
(3) The Gazr Mezuâr inscription[1404], very fragmentary and in some
points variously interpreted, belongs to the same period (181 AD). A
few details seem sufficiently certain to be of use here. The estate in
question is imperial property, apparently one of the domanial units
revealed to us by these African documents. It seems to record another
case of appeal against unlawful exaction of _operae_, probably by a
_conductor_ or _conductores_. It also was successful. But it is notable
that the lawful amount of _operae_ to be rendered by _coloni_ on this
estate was just double of that fixed in the other cases—four at each
of the seasons of pressure, twelve in all. We can only infer that the
task-scale varied on various estates for reasons unknown to us. One
fragment, if a probable restoration[1405] is to be accepted, conveys
the impression of a despairing threat on the part of the appellants. It
suggests that on failure of redress they may be driven to return to their
homes where they can make their abode in freedom. On the face of it, this
is an assertion of freedom of movement, a valuable piece of evidence, if
it can be trusted. We may safely go so far as to note that it is at least
not inconsistent with other indications pointing to the same conclusion.
We may even remark that the suggestion of going home in search of freedom
agrees better with the notion that these _coloni_ were African natives
than with the supposition of their Italian origin. The Roman citizens
on the Burunitan estate will not support the latter view, for they are
mentioned as exceptional. Seeck (rightly, I think,) urges that Italy was
in sore need of men and had none to spare for populous Africa. I would
add that the emigration of Italians to the Provinces as working farmers
seems to require more proof than has yet been produced. As officials,
as traders, as financiers and petty usurers, as exploiters of other
men’s labour, they abounded in the subject countries; but, so far as I
can learn, not as labourers. Many of them no doubt held landed estates,
for instance in the southern parts of Spain and Gaul. But when we meet
with loose general expressions[1406] such as ‘The Roman is dwelling in
every land that he has conquered,’ we must not let them tempt us into
overestimating the number of Italian settlers taking an active part in
the operations of provincial agriculture.
(4) The inscription of Ain Ouassel[1407] belongs to the end of the
reign of Severus. The text is much broken, but information of no small
importance can be gathered from what remains. Severus was himself a
native of Africa, and may have taken a personal interest in the subject
of this ordinance. In point of form the document chiefly consists of a
quoted communication (_sermo_) from the emperor’s _procuratores_[1408],
one of whom, a freedman, saw to its publication in an inscription on an
_ara legis divi Hadriani_. A copy of the _lex Hadriana_, or at least
the relevant clauses thereof, was included. The matter on which the
emperor’s decision is announced was the question of the right to occupy
and cultivate rough lands (_rudes agri_)[1409], which are defined as
lands either simply waste or such as the _conductores_ have neglected
to cultivate for at least ten years preceding. These lands are included
in no less than five different _saltus_ mentioned by proper names, and
the scope of the ordinance is wider than in the cases referred to above.
It appears that, while it may have contained some modifications or
extensions of the provisions of the _lex Hadriana_, its main bearing was
to reaffirm and apply the privileges granted by that statute. It is not
rash to infer that we have here evidence of a set of regulations for all
or many of the African domains, forming a part of Hadrian’s great work of
reorganization.
If the remaining words of this inscription are rightly interpreted,
as I think they are, it seems that the policy of encouraging the
cultivation of waste and derelict lands was at this time being revived
by the government. We have seen it at work in Trajan’s time, promoted by
guarantee of privileges and temporary exemption from burdens. But the
persons then encouraged to undertake the work of reclamation were to all
appearance only the _coloni_ at the time resident on the estate. In the
case of these five _saltus_, the offer seems to be made more widely,
at least so far as the remaining text may justify such conclusions. It
reads like an attempt to attract enterprising squatters of any kind from
any quarter. They are offered not merely undisturbed occupation and a
heritable tenure of some sort, but actual _possessio_. Now this right,
which fills a whole important chapter in Roman law, was one protected by
special legal remedies, and even on an imperial domain can hardly have
been a matter of indifference. It was quite distinct from mere _possessio
naturalis_[1410], which was all that the ordinary _colonus_ enjoyed on
his own behalf. This new-type squatter is allowed the same privilege of
so many years of grace, free of rent, at the outset of his enterprise,
that we have noted above. The details are somewhat different. For olives
the free term is ten years: for fruit trees (_poma_, here mentioned
without reference to vines) it is seven years. It is expressly provided
that the _divisio_, which implies the partiary system of tenancy, shall
apply only to such _poma_ as are actually brought[1411] to market. This
suggests that in the past attempts to levy the quota as a proportional
share of the gross crop, without regard to the needs of the grower’s
own household, had been found to discourage reclamation. It has been
pointed out that the effect of the new policy would be to create a
sort of perpetual leasehold, similar to that known by the Greek term
_emphyteusis_, which is found fully established in the later empire.
But the land was not all under fruit-crops. The disposal of corn crops
is regulated in a singular clause thus. ‘Any shares of dry[1412] crops
that shall be due are, during the first five years of occupation, to be
delivered to the head-tenant within whose holding[1413] the land occupied
is situate. After the lapse of that time they are to go to the account
(of the Treasury[1414]).’ Why is the _conductor_ to receive these _partes
aridae_? It is reasonably suggested that the intention was to obviate
initial obstruction on the part of the big lessee, and thus to give the
reclamation-project a fair start.
For we have no right to assume that the parcels of land thrown open to
occupation had hitherto been included[1415] in no tenancy. The whole
import of the document shews that they often belonged to this or that
area held by one or other of the big lessees. That there was at least one
_conductor_ to each of the five _saltus_ seems certain. That there was
only one to each, is perhaps probable, but hardly to be gathered from
the text. Now, so long as the _conductor_ regularly paid his fixed rent
(_canon_) and accounted for the taxes (_tributa_) due from the estate,
why should the imperial authority step in to take pieces of land (and
that the poorest land) out of his direct control? The answer to this is
that the Roman law[1416] recognized the right of a private landlord to
require of his tenants that they should not ‘let down’ the land leased to
them: and proof of neglected cultivation might operate to bar a tenant’s
claim for abatement of rent. What was the right of an ordinary landlord
was not likely to be waived by an emperor: though his domains might be
administered in fact by a special set of fiscal regulations, he claimed
a right analogous to that recognized by the ordinary law, and none could
challenge its exercise. A big lessee might often find that parts of his
holding could not be cultivated at a profit under existing conditions.
Slave labour was careless and inefficient; it was in these times also
costly, so costly that it only paid to employ it on generous soils.
The task-work of _coloni_ did not amount to much, and it was no doubt
rendered grudgingly. He was tempted to economize in slaves[1417] and to
employ his reduced staff on the best land only. We need not suppose that
he got an abatement of his fixed rent from the fiscal authorities: he
was most unlikely to attract their attention by making such a claim. He
had made his bargain with eyes presumably open. That he had agreed to
the _canon_ assures us that it must have been low enough to leave him a
comfortable margin for profit. We may be fairly sure that he sat quiet
and did what seemed to pay him best.
In the remaining text of this statute there is no reference to _operae_
due from the new squatters, and nothing is said of _coloni_. This
does not seem to be due to injury of the stone. The persons for whose
benefit the statute is enacted are apparently a new or newly recognized
element[1418] in the population of these domains, not _coloni_. But
the rights offered to them are expressly referred to as rights granted
by the statute of Hadrian. If so, then the _lex Hadriana_ contemplated
the establishment of a new peasant class, not _coloni_, and the present
statute was merely a revival of Hadrian’s scheme. The men are eventually
to pay shares of crops, and Schulten’s[1419] view, that they are on the
way to become _coloni_, is possible, if not probable. When he remarks
that they might find the position of _coloni_ a doubtful boon, we need
not challenge his opinion.
(5) The inscription of Ain el Djemala[1420], a later discovery (1906)
is of special importance as belonging to the same neighbourhood as the
preceding one. It is a document of Hadrian’s time. It refers to the same
group of estates as the above, and deals with the same matter, the right
to cultivate waste or derelict parcels of land. Indeed the connexion of
the two inscriptions is so close that the parts preserved of each can
be safely used to fill gaps in the text of the other. In a few points
this inscription, the earlier in date, supplies further detail. The
most notable is that another estate, a _saltus_ or _fundus Neronianus_,
is mentioned in it, and not in the later one. Thus it would seem that
it referred to six estates, a curious coincidence, when we recall the
six great African landlords made away with by Nero. Another little
addition is that waste lands are defined as marshy or wooded. Also that
the land is spoken of as fit for growing olives vines and corn-crops,
which supplements a mutilated portion of the Ain Ouassel stone. But in
one point the difference between the two is on the face of it difficult
to reconcile. In addressing the imperial _procuratores_ the applicants
base their request on the _lex Manciana_, the benefit of which they
seek to enjoy[1421] as used on the neighbouring _saltus Neronianus_.
Here the broken text is thought to have contained a reference to the
enhanced prosperity of that estate owing to the concession. In any case
we may fairly conclude that the _lex Manciana_ was well known in the
district, and its regulations regarded by the farmers as favourable to
their interests. But the reply to their petition does not refer to it as
the immediate basis of the decision given. The communication (_sermo_)
of Hadrian’s procurators is cited as the ground of the leave granted
for cultivation of waste lands. Yet the broken sentence at the end
of the inscription seems at least to shew that the rules of the _lex
Manciana_ were still recognized as a standard, confirmed and perhaps
incorporated, or referred to by name, in the _lex Hadriana_ itself.
It is ingeniously suggested that the farmers rest their case on the
_Manciana_ because the _Hadriana_ was as yet unknown to them; while the
reply refers to Hadrian’s statute as authority. Whether the _saltus_ or
_fundus Neronianus_, on which the Mancian regulations were in force, is
another estate-unit similar to the five named both here and in the later
inscription, is a point on which I have some doubts, too little connected
with my subject for discussion here. The general scope of the concession
granted by Hadrian is the same as the later one of Severus.
If Hadrian issued a statute or statutes regulating the terms of occupancy
on the African domains, and some attempts to evade it were met by its
reaffirmation under Commodus, it is quite natural that neglect or
evasion of it in some other respects should be met by reaffirmation
under Severus. This consideration will account for the identity of the
concessions granted in these two inscriptions. And it agrees perfectly
with the evidence of later legislation in the Theodosian code. The
normal course of events is, legislation to protect the poorer classes
of cultivators, then evasion of the law by the selfish rich, then
reenactment of evaded laws, generally with increased penalties. That
under the administrative system of the domains much the same phenomena
should occur, is only what we might expect.
XLVIII. DISCUSSION OF THE ABOVE INSCRIPTIONS.
In reviewing the state of things revealed to us by these inscriptions
we must carefully bear in mind that they relate solely to the Province
Africa. Conditions there were in many ways exceptional. When Rome took
over this territory after the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, it was
probably a country divided for the most part into great estates worked
on the Carthaginian system by slave labour. Gradually the land came more
and more into the hands of Roman capitalists, to whose opulence Horace
refers. Pliny tells us that in Nero’s time six[1422] great landlords
possessed half the entire area of the Province, when that emperor found
a pretext for putting them to death and confiscating their estates.
Henceforth the ruling emperor was the predominating landlord[1423] in
a Province of immense importance, in particular as a chief granary of
Rome. We are not to suppose that any change in the system of large units
was ever contemplated. Punic traditions, probably based on experience,
favoured the system; though the Punic language, still spoken, seems to
have been chiefly confined to the seaboard districts. What the change
of lordship effected was not only to the financial advantage of the
imperial treasury: it also put an end to the creation of what were a sort
of little principalities that might some day cause serious trouble. At
this point we are tempted to wonder whether the great landlords, before
the sweeping measure of Nero, had taken any steps towards introducing a
new organization in the management of their estates. Trajan’s statute
refers to a _lex Manciana_ and adopts a number of its regulations. These
regulations clearly contemplate a system of head-tenants and sub-tenants,
of whom the latter seem to be actual working farmers living of the labour
of their own hands, as those who some 65 years later described themselves
in appealing to Commodus. The former have stewards in charge of the
cultivation of the ‘manor farms’ attached to the principal farmsteads,
and evidently employ gangs of slaves: but at special seasons have a
right to a limited amount[1424] of task-labour from the free sub-tenants
of the small farms. That these labour-conditions were devised to meet a
difficulty in procuring enough slaves to carry on the cultivation of the
whole big estate, is an inference hardly to be resisted. That we find it
on more than one estate indicates that for the time it was serving its
purpose. But, in admitting that it probably began under the rule of great
private landlords, we must not lose sight of the fact that it was liable
to grievous abuse, and that even the regulations of Hadrian did not
remove the necessity of pitiful appeals for redress.
An important characteristic of these estates was that they were outside
the municipal[1425] system. Each of the so-called _civitates_ had
its own charter or statute (_lex_) conforming more or less closely
to a common[1426] model, under which the municipal authorities could
regulate the management of lands within its territory. But these great
estates were independent[1427] of such local jurisdictions. And this
independence would seem to date from the times of private ownership,
before the conversion of many of them into imperial domains. Mommsen
thought that this separate treatment of them as ‘peculiars’ began in
Italy under the Republic, and was due to the influence of the landowning
aristocracy, who were bent upon admitting no such concurrent authority
on their _latifundia_. This may have been so, and the extension of
large-scale possessions to the Provinces may have carried the system
abroad. At all events there it was, and it suited the convenience of
a grasping emperor: he had only to get rid of the present possessor
and carry on the administration of the domain as before: his agents
stepped into the place of those employed by the late landlord, and only
slight modification of the current regulations would be required. He
issued a statute for management of ‘crown-property’ as he would for
a municipality. It was in effect a local law, and it does not appear
that the common law administered by the ordinary courts could override
it. The imperial _procurator_ was practically the magistrate charged
with its administration in addition to his financial duties, for
government and extraction of revenue were really two sides of the same
function. Obviously the interests of the emperor, of his agent, of the
head-tenants, and of the peasant cultivators, were not the same. But the
peasant, who wanted to pay as little as possible, and the emperor who
wanted to receive steady returns—as large as possible, but above all
things steady—had a common interest in preventing unlawful exactions, by
which a stable income was imperilled and the prosperity of the cultivator
impaired. On the other hand the _procurator_ and the _conductor_ could
only make illicit profits through combining to rob the emperor by
squeezing his _coloni_. How to accomplish this was no doubt a matter
of delicate calculation. How much oppression would the _coloni_ stand
without resorting to the troublesome and risky process of an appeal? We
only hear of one or two appeals made with success. Of those that were
made and rejected or foiled by various arts, and of those abandoned in
despair at an early stage, we get no record. Yet that such cases did
occur, perhaps not seldom, we may be reasonably sure.
It is well to remember that Columella, in whose treatise letting of
farms to tenants first appears, not as an occasional expedient but as
part of a reasoned scheme of estate-management, makes provision for a
_procurator_[1428] as well as a _vilicus_. One duty of the former is
to keep an eye on the latter. In the management of great estates an
atmosphere of mistrust is perhaps to some extent unavoidable. In an
agricultural system based on slave labour, this mistrust begins at the
very bottom of the structure and reaches to the very top, as is shewn
by all experience ancient and modern. Industry in slaves, diligence
and honesty in agents and stewards, are not to be relied on when these
subordinates have no share in the profit derived from the practice
of such virtues. And mistrust of slaves and freedmen did not imply a
simple trust in free tenants. Columella only advises[1429] letting
to tenants in circumstances that make it impracticable to cultivate
profitably by a slave-staff under a steward. The plan is a sort of last
resort, and it can only work well if the tenants stay on continuously.
Therefore care should be taken to make the position of the _coloni_
permanently attractive. This advice is primarily designed for Italy,
but its principles are of general application, and no doubt justified
by experience. Their extension to _latifundia_ abroad, coupled with
a falling-off in the supply of slaves, led to similar results: great
estates might still be in part worked by slave labour under stewards, but
letting parcels to small tenants became a more and more vital feature of
the system. But to deal directly from a distance with a number of such
peasant farmers would be a troublesome business. We need not wonder that
it became customary to let large blocks of land, even whole _latifundia_,
to big lessees, speculative men who undertook the subletting and
rent-collecting of part of their holdings, while they could work
the central manor-farm by slave labour on their own account, and
generally exploit the situation for their own profit. Thus, as once the
_latifundium_ had absorbed little properties, so now its subdivision was
generating little tenancies, with chief-tenants as a sort of middlemen
between the _dominus_ and the _coloni_. To protect the _colonus_, the
powers of the _conductor_[1430] had to be strictly limited: to ease the
labour-problem and retain the _conductor_, a certain amount of task-work
had to be required of the _colonus_. And this last condition was ominous
of the coming serfdom.