ROMANIZATION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND-SYSTEM
I have dealt with the language and the material civilization of the
province of Britain. I pass to a third and harder question, the
administrative and legal framework of local Romano-British life. Here we
have to discuss the extent to which the Roman town-system of the
_colonia_ and _municipium_, and the Roman land-system of the _villa_
penetrated Britain. And, first, as to the towns. Britain, we know,
contained five municipalities of the privileged Italian type. The
_colonia_ of Camulodunum (Colchester) and the _municipium_ of Verulamium
(St. Albans), both in the south-east of the island, were established
soon after the Claudian conquest. The _colonia_ of Lindum (Lincoln) was
probably founded in the early Flavian period (A.D. 70-80), when the
Ninth Legion, hitherto at Lincoln, was probably pushed forward to York.
The _colonia_ at Glevum (Gloucester) arose in A.D. 96-98, as an
inscription seems definitely to attest. Lastly, the _colonia_ at
Eburacum (York) must have grown up during the second or the early third
century, under the ramparts of the legionary fortress, though separated
from it by the intervening river Ouse.[1] Each of these five towns had,
doubtless, its dependent _ager attributus_, which may have been as large
as an average English county, and each provided the local government
for its territory.[2] That implies a definitely Roman form of local
government for a considerable area--a larger area, certainly, than
received such organization in northern Gaul. Yet it accounts, on the
most liberal estimate, for barely one-eighth of the civilized part of
the province.
[Footnote 1: The fortress was situated on the left or east bank of the
Ouse close to the present cathedral, which stands wholly within its
area. Parts of the Roman walls can still be traced, especially at the
so-called Multangular Tower. The municipality lay on the other (west)
bank of the Ouse, near the railway station, where various mosaics
indicate dwelling-houses. Its outline and plan are, however, not known.
Even its situation has not been generally recognized.]
[Footnote 2: If the evidence of milestones may be pressed, the
'territory' of Eburacum extended southwards at least twenty miles to
Castleford, and that of Lincoln at least fourteen miles to Littleborough
(_Ephemeris Epigraphica_, vii. 1105=ix. 1253, where the last two lines
are AVGG EB|MP XX (or XXII), and vii. 1097). The general size of these
municipal 'territoria' is amply proved by Continental inscriptions.]
Of the rest, some part may have been included in the Imperial Domains,
which covered wide tracts in every province and were administered for
local purposes by special procurators of the Emperor. The lead-mining
districts--Mendip in Somerset, the neighbourhood of Matlock in
Derbyshire, the Shelve Hills west of Wroxeter, the Halkyn region in
Flintshire, the moors of south-west Yorkshire--must have belonged to
these Domains, and for the most part are actually attested by
inscriptions on lead-pigs as Imperial property. Of other domain lands we
meet one early instance at Silchester in the reign of Nero[1]--perhaps
the confiscated estates of some British prince or noble--and though we
have no further direct evidence, the analogy of other provinces suggests
that the area increased as the years went by. Yet it is likely that in
Britain, as indeed in Gaul,[2] the domain lands were comparatively small
in amount. Like the municipalities, they account only for a part of the
province.
[Footnote 1: Tile inscribed NERCLCAEAVGGER, _Nero Claudius Caesar
Augustus Germanicus_ (_Eph._ ix. 1267). It differs markedly from the
ordinary tiles found at Silchester, and plainly belongs to a different
period in the history of the site. Possibly the estate, or whatever it
was, did not remain Imperial after Nero's downfall; compare Plutarch,
_Galba_, 5. The Combe Down _Principia_ (C. vii. 62), which are certainly
not military, may supply another example, of about A.D. 210 (_Vict.
Hist. Somerset_, i. 311; _Eph._ ix. p. 516).]
[Footnote 2: Hirschfeld in Lehmann's _Beiträge zur alten Geschichte_,
ii. 307, 308. Much of the Gaulish domain land appears to date from
confiscations in A.D. 197.]
Throughout all the rest of the British province, or at least of its
civilized area, the local government was probably organized on the same
cantonal system as obtained in northern Gaul. According to this system
the local unit was the former territory of the tribe or canton, and the
local magistrates were the chiefs or nobles of the tribe. That may
appear at first sight to be a native system, wholly out of harmony with
the Roman method of government by municipalities. Yet such was not its
actual effect. The cantonal or tribal magistrates were classified and
arranged just like the magistrates of a municipality. They even used the
same titles. The cantonal _civitas_ had its _duoviri_ and quaestors and
so forth, and its _ordo_ or senate, precisely like any municipal
_colonia_ or _municipium_. So far from wearing a native aspect, this
cantonal system merely became one of the influences which aided the
Romanization of the country. It did not, indeed, involve, like the
municipal system, the substitution of an Italian for a native
institution. Instead, it permitted the complete remodelling of the
native institution by the interpenetration of Italian influences.
We can discern the cantonal system at several points in Britain. But the
British cantons were smaller and less wealthy than those of Gaul, and
therefore they have not left their mark, either in monuments or in
nomenclature, so clearly as we might desire. Many inscriptions record
the working of the system in Gaul. Many modern towns--Paris, Reims,
Chartres, and thirty or forty others--derive their present names from
those of the ancient cantons, and not from those of the ancient towns.
In Britain we find only one such inscription (Fig. 15),[1] only one town
called in antiquity by a tribal name--and that a doubtful
instance[2]--and no single case of a modern town-name which is derived
from the name of a tribe.[3] We have, however, some curious evidence
from another source. There is a late and obscure _Geography of the Roman
Empire_ which was probably written at Ravenna somewhere about A.D. 700,
and which, as its author's name is lost, is generally quoted as the work
of 'Ravennas'. It consists for the most part of mere lists of names,
about which it adds very few details. But in the case of Britain it
notes the municipal rank of the various _coloniae_, and it further
appends tribal names to nine or ten town-names, which are thus
distinguished from all other British place-names. For example, we have
Venta Belgarum (Winchester), not Venta simply; Corinium Dobunorum
(Cirencester), not Corinium simply. The towns thus specially marked out
are just those towns which are also declared by their actual remains to
have been the chief country towns of Roman Britain. This coincidence can
hardly be an accident. We may infer that the towns to which the Ravennas
appends tribal names were the cantonal capitals of the districts of
Roman Britain, and that a list of them, perhaps mutilated and imperfect,
has been preserved by some chance in this late writer. In other words,
the larger part of Roman Britain was divided up into districts
corresponding to the territories of the Celtic tribes; each had its
capital, and presumably its magistrates and senate, as the
above-mentioned inscription shows that the Silures had at Venta Silurum.
We may suppose, indeed, that the district magistrates--the county
council, as it would now be called--were also the magistrates of the
country town. The same cantonal system, then, existed here as in
northern Gaul. Only, it was weaker in Britain. It could not impose
tribal names on the towns, and it went down easily when the Empire fell.
In Gaul, Lutetia Parisiorum became Parisiis and is now Paris, and
Nemetacum Atrebatum became Atrebatis and is now Arras. In Britain,
Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester) remained Calleva, so far as we know, till
it perished altogether in the fifth century.[4]
[Footnote 1: Found at Venta Silurum (Caerwent) in 1903: ... _leg.
legi[i] Aug. proconsul(i) provinc. Narbonensis, leg. Aug. pr. pr. provi.
Lugudunen(sis): ex decreto ordinis respubl(ica) civit(atis) Silurum_--a
monument erected by the cantonal senate of the Silures to some general
of the Second legion at Isca Silurum, twelve miles from
Caerwent--perhaps to Claudius Paulinus, early in third century
(_Athenaeum_, Sept. 26, 1903; _Archaeologia_, lix. 120; _Eph._ ix.
1012). Other inscriptions mention a _civis Cantius_, a _civitas
Catuvellaunorum_ and the like, but their evidence is less distinct.]
[Illustration: FIG. 20. INSCRIPTION FOUND AT CAERWENT (VENTA SILURUM)
MENTIONING A DECREE OF THE SENATE OF THE CANTON OF SILURES.]
[Footnote 2: _Icinos_ in _Itin. Ant._ 474. 6 may well be Venta Icenorum
(_Victoria Hist. of Norfolk_, i. 286, 300).]
[Footnote 3: Canterbury may seem an exception. But its name comes
ultimately from the Early English form of Cantium, not from the Cantii.
In the south-west and in Wales, tribal names like Dumnonii (Devonshire),
Demetae, Ordovices, have lingered on in one form or another, and,
according to Professor Rhys, Bernicia is derivable from Brigantes. But
these cases differ widely from the Gaulish instances.]
[Footnote 4: Ravennas (ed. Parthey and Pinder), pp. 425 foll. I have
given a list of the towns in my Appendix to Mommsen's _Provinces of the
Empire_ (English trans., 1909), ii. 352.]
Of the smaller local organizations, little can be said. Towns existed,
but many of them were the tribal capitals mentioned in the last
paragraph, and these, as I have said, were doubtless ruled by the
magistrates of the tribes. It is idle to guess who administered the
towns that were not such capitals or who controlled the various villages
scattered through the country. Nor can we pretend to know much more
about the size and character of the estates which corresponded to the
country-houses and farms of which remains survive. The 'villa' system of
demesne farms and serfs or _coloni_[1] which obtained elsewhere was
doubtless familiar in Britain; indeed, the Theodosian Code definitely
refers to British _coloni_.[2] But whether it was the only rural system
in Britain is beyond proof, and previous attempts to work out the
problem have done little more than demonstrate the fact.[3] It is quite
possible that here, or indeed in any province, other forms of estates
and of land tenure may have existed beside the predominant villa.[4]
The one thing needed is evidence. And in any case the net result appears
fairly certain. The bulk of British local government must have been
carried on through Roman municipalities, through imperial estates, and
still more through tribal _civitates_ using a Romanized constitution.
The bulk of the landed estates must have conformed in their legal
aspects to the 'villas' of other provinces. Whatever room there may be
for survival of native customs or institutions, we have no evidence that
they survived, within the Romanized area, either in great amount or in
any form which contrasted with the general Roman character of the
country.
[Footnote 1: The term 'villa' is generally used to denote Romano-British
country-houses and farms, irrespective of their legal classification.
The use is so firmly established, both in England and abroad, that it
would be idle to attempt to alter it. But for clearness I have thought
it better in this paper to employ the term 'villa' only where I refer to
the definite 'villa' system.]
[Footnote 2: Cod. Theod. xi. 7.2.]
[Footnote 3: For instance, Mr. Seebohm (_English Village Community_, pp.
254 foll.) connects the suffix 'ham' with the Roman 'villa' and
apparently argues that the occurrence of the suffix indicates in general
the former existence of a 'villa'. But his map showing the percentage of
local names ending in 'ham' in various counties disproves his view
completely. For the distribution of the suffix 'ham' and the frequency
of Roman country-houses and farms do not coincide. In Norfolk, for
instance, 'ham' is common, but there is hardly a trace of a Roman
country-house or farm in the whole county (_Victoria Hist. of Norfolk_,
i. 294-8). Somerset, on the other hand, is crowded with Roman
country-houses, and has hardly any 'hams'.]
[Footnote 4: Professor Vinogradoff, _Growth of the Manor_ (chap. ii),
argues strongly for the existence of Celtic land-tenures besides the
Roman 'villa' system. 'There was room (he suggests) for all sorts of
conditions, from almost exact copies of Roman municipal corporations and
Italian country-houses to tribal arrangements scarcely coloured by a
thin sprinkling of imperial administration' (p. 83). As will be seen,
this is not improbable. But I can find no definite proof of it. If
northern Gaul were better known to us, it might provide a decisive
analogy. But the Gaulish evidence itself seems at present disputable.]