THECOLONATE INTHEROMANEMPIRE
BOUDEWIJNSIRKS
UniversityofOxford
ShaftesburyRoad,Cambridge cb 28 ea ,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza, 20thFloor,NewYork, ny 10006 ,USA
477 WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne, vic 3207 ,Australia
314 – 321 , 3 rdFloor,Plot 3 ,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi – 110025 ,India
103 PenangRoad,# 05 – 06 / 07 ,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore 238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartofCa mbridgeUniversityPress&Assessment, adepartmentoftheUniversityofCambridge.
WesharetheUniversity ’ smissiontocontributetosocietythroughthepursuitof education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle: www.cambridge.org/9781009172608
doi: 10 .1017 / 9781009172585
©BoudewijnSirks 2024
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisions ofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytake placewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment.
Firstpublished 2024
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData names: Sirks,AdriaanJohanBoudewijn,author. title: TheColonateintheRomanEmpire/BoudewijnSirks,UniversityofOxford. description: Cambridge,UnitedKingdom;NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2023.|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
identifiers:lccn 2023026047 | isbn 9781009172608 (hardback)| isbn 9781009172592 (paperback)| isbn 9781009172585 (ebook)
subjects:lcsh: Colonate.|Colonate – Socialaspects.|Colonate – Economicaspects.| Colonatus(Romanlaw)|Landtenure(Romanlaw)|Farmtenancy(Romanlaw)|Peasants –Rome.|Agriculturallawsandlegislation(Romanlaw)|Serfdom(Romanlaw) classification:lcckja 2202 s 572023 | ddc 340 5/4–dc23/eng/20230609 LCrecordavailableat https://lccn.loc.gov/2023026047 isbn 978 - 1 - 009 - 17260- 8 Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPress&Assessmenthasnoresponsibilityforthepersistence oraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-p artyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhis publicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwill remain,accurateorappropriate.
438–527
38 EnactmentsbytheEmperorsin 438–527
38.1 TheodosiusII(402–455)
38.2 NoConstitutionson Coloni byMarcianus(455–457) HaveBeenTransmitted
38 3 Leo(457–473)
38 4 Zeno(474–491)
38.5
491–518)
TheSituationintheWest, 438–ca. 506
–
, andRemigiusofReims
TheColonateintheBreviariumAlaricianumAliastheLexRomana Visigothorumof 506 (SouthernGaul,Septimania, andVisigothicSpain):Status
Archive,AD 249–
Introduction
Thepurposeofthisbookistwofold.Ontheonehanditintendstoprovide asurveyandanalysisofthecolonateintheRomanEmpirefromthelegal pointofview,embeddedasmuchasnecessaryinthesocialandeconomic contextofRomansociety.Ontheotherhand,itismeanttoshowhowto approachthesourcesinacaselikethisand,ingeneral,howtoworkwith thecodesofTheodosiusandJustinian,inawaythatdoesjusticetothe placeofthetextsinthewholeofthesecodifications,thatis,takingaccount oftheirfunctionwithinacodification.Theindividualtextshavetheir valueashistoricalsources,yetonemustbeawarehowtheyhavecometo us,inwhichcontextandtowhichpurposetheywereselectedandedited,or elsetheirhistoricalvaluemightdiminishorevendisappear.
Thisisinthe firstplacealegal-historicalwork.Itmeansthatits firstaim istolookforlegalrules.Legalrulesaremeanttoarrangelifeandare imposedifnotfollowed.Inordertogetasoundnotionofalegalphenomenon,herethecolonate,itisnecessarytocollectallrulesandtocheckthem againsteachotheruntilasystematicsurveyisachieved.Thismayseemabit overdonetonon-jurists,buttheoldByzantinescholiatoJustinian’ s compilationprovethatsystematisationwasall-importanttothe ByzantinejuristsandJustinian’scompilationisaproductofthisdrive forsystematisation.Thesejuristsdidnotinventthis.Theywerepupilsand successorstoalineofjurists,teachinginConstantinople,Beyrouth,and otherplacesthesamesystematisation.Weknowonlytwooftheirnames: DomninosandPatroklos,calledthe heroes.Andtheyintheirturnwere continuingthesamedrivewhichexistedintheclassicalperiodofRoman law,asthesurvivingremnantsinJustinian’scompilationprove.Also,the impositionofrulesrequiredconsistency.Itisthushelpful,ifnotnecessary, tohaveagoodgraspofRomanlawandoftheexegesisoflegaltexts.It seemsexaggerated,yetitisthewarningthatcounts:searchforthesystem behindit,becausethosewhoformulatedthelawworkedinthatsystem. Forthesereasonsitisnecessarytocheckallpossiblesourcesandsee
whethersuchaconsistencyispresentandmakesitpossibletospeakof arule.Moreover,thecodesareembeddedinabroaderbodyoflawwhich oneshouldalsokeepinmind.1 Myresearchmaybeboringbecauseofthis atsomemoments,butitisabsolutelynecessary.Ihaverelegatedto footnoteswhatshouldbepresentbutwasnotdirectlynecessaryforthe mainargument.Textscanbefoundthroughtheindex.
Still,sincelawismeanttoregistertherulesfollowedandtoimposethese ifnotfollowed,itisconnectedwiththewayhumansinteractandsociety functions.Inoneway,itfollowswhatpeopledoandwhatthingsthey thinkshouldbedone;inanotherway,itregulatesbehaviour,bothwhen thatbehaviourisdeviantandhastobecorrected,andwhenbehaviouror circumstancesarisewhichwerenotyetforeseen.Inthatcasenewrulesare issuedtoaddresssuchproblems.Lawisembeddedinsocietyandthereis nosocietywithoutlaw.2 Andalthoughingeneralsocietywasrather conservativeandlegislationconsequentlymorereactiveandconservative, innovationshappenedtoo.Ancientmanwasnotafraidoforaversetonew things(likeacceptingdebtacknowledgementsintheformofchirographs asnegotiablepapers).Still,thosestructuressetuptocontinueforalong timewerenotchangedrashly.Forexample,theadministrativestructuresof theoverseastransportationofgrainfromAfricaandEgypttoRomeand Constantinopleremainedbasicallyunchangedfortwoorthreecenturies, onlytobeadaptedintheeastin 409.Thesamegoesfortaxation,which underDiocletianwasprobablymorestraightenedandhomogenisedthan setonacompletelynewfootingandremainedsountiltheJustinianic reforms.
Weshallseethesamewiththecolonate:notfallenfromthesky,itwas incorporatedinpubliclawtocontinuewiththenecessaryadaptationsfor morethanthreecenturies.Itspredecessorwasananswertoparticular economicneeds,itrequiredcertaineconomicconditions,itmayhave competedwithothersolutionstothesameorsimilarproblems,itevolved underthepressureofchangingcircumstances,anditwasadaptedto counterundesirableuses.
Whereverpossible,thecauseofchangesorintroductionofnewrules willbediscussed,butapartfromthata finalchapterisdestinedtoputthe entirehistoryofthecolonateinamorehistoricalperspective.Itwillnot
1 Seeforanexamplethetablein Sirks 2007,§ 24
2 IdonotrefertotheNaturalLawyerslikeGrotius,butputmerelythequestionwhetherwecanspeak ofasocietyifthereisnominimumoflaw,andsecond,moreempirically,Ireferto Kramer 1956, From thetabletsofSumer,Twenty-five firstsinman’srecordedhistory.AsHesiodsaid,lawdistinguishesman fromanimal.
alwaysbepossibletomakequantitativestatementsaboutthe fieldof application,forexamplewhetherthecolonatecoveredtheentirefarming populationoftheEmpire(bytheway,farfromlikely).Rulesaremadeor issuedwhensomethingissimplynecessary,suchasorganisingcarefor insanepeople,orwhensomethingturnsupwhichissizeableorimportant enoughthatitrequiresregulation.Nobodywillassumefromtheextentof theregulationsaboutthe curafuriosi thatalargepartofthepopulationis insane.Withtheft,itisthesame:itisconsideredsuchanoutrageto propertythatitcannotbetolerated,regardlessofthefrequency. However,inthepunishmentwecanalsoseethevalueasociety(through itscourts)attachestothis:thedeathpenaltyinarchaictimes,thedeath penaltyforgrandlarcenyintheBloodyCodeintheUKofthelate eighteenthcentury,afewyearsofimprisonmentnowadays.Thesame applieswhenweresearchotherancientlaws.The lexPompeiadeparricidis expressesthesocietalhorroroverparricidebyitsspecialpunishment (death),butwedonot findanyapplicationofthis.
1 The StatusQuaestionis :GeneralApproaches
Thecolonateispartoftheantiqueagriculturalexploitation.Perhapsinthe archaicMediterraneanworldallfarmerswereworkingontheirown individualplotsoflandwithoutanyassistance(althoughitseemsthat, consideringthedominantroleofthecommunity,anybodywouldhave reliedonthecommunityandthecommunityonhim);butasearlyasthere existedsomedivisionbetweenmoreandlessrichmembersof acommunity,thereexistedalsosomerelationdeterminedbydependency betweenthesericherandpoorermembers.ForRomansocietythephenomenonofthe clientela isknown.Wecanleaveasidethequestionsof wheninRepublicanRomethelargeestatescameintoexistenceandwhen andtowhatextentthereexistedfarmerswhonolongertilledtheirown landbutrentedlandandtilleditinexchangeforrentinmoneyorsharecropping.3 ItsufficesforthepresenttostatethataroundAD 200 agricultureintheRomanEmpirewasdoneaccordingtovariouslegaland economicmodels.Thereexistedthefarmerwhoworkedhisownland, beitalone(with,undoubtedly,theassistanceofhisfamily)orwithsome farmhands(slavesorfreepersons).Thereexistedthelessee,whopaidrent inmoney(andwhomightbeassistedbyaremissioninyearsofdearth)or inkind.Ifthemeasureoftherentwasexpressedasafractionoftheharvest,
3 See,forexample, Scheideletal. 2007;morespecialisedis DeNeeve 1985
itwasshare-cropping.Therewerethelargeestates(latifundia)whichwere tilledbyslavesoftheestateownerifnotissuedinplotsonlease,sometimes underthesupervisionofaheadslave(vilicus).Thesecouldbeattachedto thelandas instrumentum andlivequasiasafamilywithwifeandchildren. AsweknowfromtheHeroninosarchive,largelandownershipdidnot necessarilymeananextendedestatesuchasaCommunistkolkhozoran EastGerman Kombinat :itwillratherhaveconsistedofallkindsofplotsof land,whichwereindividuallyadministeredwithinacentralisedaccountingandmanagementsystem.Theguidingeconomicandmanagerial principlewastoreducelossasmuchaspossiblebyreducingcostsand usingwhatwasavailable.4 Investmentsweremade,forexample,inimprovinglandandsettingupirrigation,5 butwhetherthiswaspossiblewillhave dependedontheavailabilityoftimeandcapital.Richerpeoplewillhave beeninabetterpositionhere,butadependencyrelationmayhavebeen advantageousinthisrespect.Assomebodywhowasafreedmanofarich familywillhavehadeasieraccesstoinvestmentcapitalthroughhis dependenceonhispatron,soafarmerwhowasa cliens ofarichpatron willhavehadeasieraccesstoresourcestoo.Inbothcasestheypaidapriceas well,namelyinindependence,butthebalancemayhavebeenadvantageousforbothsides.
Citiesandtemplespossessedagriculturallandandissuedthisintheform oflongleasesagainsta fixedrent(vectigal ).Theselesseesenjoyedarightof leasewhichresembledthatofanowner,itbeinghereditaryandtheybeing protectedagainstdisturbancesbyapossessoryinterdict.6 Theemperor possessedlandwhichheissuedindiverseforms.Itcouldbeasanormal leasetoanindividuallessee,ortoaheadlessee(conductor)whowould subletparcelsto(under)lessees.Itcouldbedoneonamorepermanent basisthroughanimperial conductor withleaseconditions fixedforall,as the lexManciana ofAfricashows.IntheLaterEmpirewe findanother formoflandissue,wheretheselandsarecalled fundipatrimoniales.Here theemperordonatedTreasurylandtosomebodyundercertainconditions, usuallythatayearlyrent(canon)hadtobepaid.Thedoneecouldnot disposeofthelandbysaleorgift,buthisrightwashereditary.Failureto paythe canon resultedinwithdrawalofthegift.Assuch,itresembledthe longleasefora vectigal,whichwasalsoahereditarytenure.Butitcould happenthattheissuewasdone sinecanone,or iureprivato.Inthe firstcase, thedoneedidnothavetopaya canon ;inthelattercase,thedoneecould
4 Rathbone 1991, 396.Hisreflectionontheresponsetohisbookisin Rathbone 2005
5 Cf.CJ 3 34 7, 11 43 4, 11 63 1 forlegalevidence. 6 Kaser 1975, 374, 388
freelydisposeoftheland.Oftenthelatterwasdone salvocanone andinthat caseitmusthavebeenalmostindistinguishablefromprivateproperty, albeitthatayearlycanonhadtobepaid – whichmayhavelookedlike aservitudeontheland.7 AnotherformofissuewasthatTreasurylandwas issuedin emphyteusis underconditionslikeacanon.Inthiscasethedonee hadtoamelioratethelandorkeepitingoodcondition;non-compliance could,likenon-paymentofthe canon,leadtoarecallofthegift.Herealso itwaspossibletoalienateland,evenmanumittheslavesattachedtoit.As withthe fundipatrimonialesprivatoiure itmusthavebeenalmostlike privateproperty,exceptforthecanon.Inallthesecasesthedoneehadto exploitthelandandneeded,consequently,farmers.Hecoulduseoneor moreoftheformsofexploitationsasdescribedabove.TheemperorLeo (468–484)extendedintheeasttheapplicationofthelegalconstructionof emphyteusis tolandinprivateproperty(CJ 4.66.1).Inthewesttheformof a locatioconductioinperpetuum wasused.
Inalltheseexploitationformsthebasicassumptionisthatwearedealing withcontractsbetweenlegallyindependentpersonswhomayenterand endthecontractualrelationship,evenunilaterallyiftheyseeareasonfor thisandaslongastheycomplywiththelegalrulesgoverningthis.In practice,manypersons,bothlandlordsandlessees,willofcourserather havewantedtocontinuethecontract,beingbothdependentonthereturns ofthelandfortheirincomeandlifesubsistence.Butthisdidnotchange theirpersonalfreestatusanddidnotinfringeontheirlegalautonomyas such.
Itisthereforerathersurprisingtoseeemergeinlegalandothertextsof thefourthandlatercenturiesthephenomenonofpeoplelegallyboundto anestate,apparentlyinanagriculturalcontext.Fromthefourthcentury onwardswedisposeofimperialconstitutionswhichwereissuedwiththe purposeoftyingagriculturalworkers(coloni )totheland.Preciselywhen thisbegan,wedonotknow,neitherdoweknowpreciselywhy,butit clearlyhadtodowithguaranteeingthecultivationoflandandpaymentof taxes.Thissystemofbindingthosepeopletoanestateorplotoflandis calledthe(Roman)colonate.
Ancienthistorianslookatthisfromtheperspectiveoftheancient economyandtheagrarianexploitationwhichisofcourseanindispensable aspectofthecolonate,sinceitfunctionsinthiscontext,asthetexts demonstrate.Itisonlylater,thecolonatebeingastatus,that coloni are
7 Onewonderswhetherthereremainedadistinction:perhapsthegiftcouldberevoked?Thetextsdo notgiveacluetothis.
foundinotheroccupations(andcanberecalled).Thustheconnection withtheagrariansettingmustbetakenintoaccount.
Thecolonatehasgeneratedmuchliteratureandmanytheories,already byGothofredusandlaterbySavigny,whoseessay ‘Überdemrömischen Kolonat’ includesareactiontoGothofredus’ views,andbyotherauthors.8 Duetotheneedtotakeasmanyfactorsaspossibleintoaccount,the theoriesarenotsharplyseparatedfromeachother.Wecandistinguish severalapproaches.
Oneviewisconnectedwithashiftinthemodeofagrarianexploitation. Thecolonateisseenwithinthecontextofagriculturalexploitation,asthe successortothetenancyoftheLateRepublic(whena colonus wouldhave beenalessee).Thecauseofthisdevelopmentwouldhavebeenanincreasingimpoverishmentofthelessees,makingthemincreasinglydependenton thelandowners.9 TheRepublicanwayofmanyindividuallesseesand individualfarmers-ownersmadewayforaslave-basedexploitationon largerestates.BytheendofthesecondcenturyAD,thesupplyofslaves dwindledandlandlordswereforcedto findnewsuppliesofworkers.These theyfoundbysublettingtheirgreatestatesand fixingthesublesseestotheir land.ThefactthatthegreatimperialestatesinNorthAfrica(andelsewhere?)wereadministeredby conductores,whointheirturnsubletparcels, underageneralregulationforall(the DecretumCommodidesaltu Burunitano,foundin 1879,andthe lexcolonisfundiVillaeMagnaedatae adexemplumlegisMancianae,foundin 1896)seemedonlytosustainthis view.Itledtoachangeinproductionmethod.Thefarmers/lesseesonthese graduallycameintoastateofdependencywhichneededlittletobecome
8 AlreadyintheMiddleAgesthetextsonthe coloni attractedinterest:see Conte 2000; Savigny 1825–50, 1–16.OneshouldbeawarethatserfdomwasabolishedinPrussiain 1811,inMecklenburgin 1822 andinSaxoniain 1832:thecolonatewasanactualquestion.Forasurveyofothernineteenth-century authors,see Heisterbergk 1876, 7–21 and Marcone 1988;further Marcone 1997b ontheItalian literatureinthenineteenthcenturyonthecolonate.Aprevioussummaryofthe statusquaestionis is providedby Jones 1974; CraccoRuggini 1990; Sirks 1993a, n. 1; Whittaker&Garnsey 1998, 287–294; Ward-Perkins 2000, 343–344; Demandt 2007, 398–401 (Seeck 1901 isratherold). Scheideletal. 2007 doesnotenterintothesubjectofthecolonate. Johnson 2012 hasachapterbyJ.Harries, ‘Romanlawandlegalculture’ (789–807),whichhardlydealswiththe(private)lawassuchandhas nothingaboutthecolonate,astheentire ‘handbook’ doesnotpayspecialattentiontothe phenomenon.Banajithinks coloni wereboundtenants(2001, 615), Mathisenthinkstheywere tenant farmers(2012, 752);seealso Liebs 2005, 1957–1960.Forfurtherliteratureinadditiontowhat iscitedhere,seethefollowing: Sirks 1993a, 331 n. 1 andthebibliographyinTerre 1997.See,more recently Amarelli 2017 andfurther Carrié 2017 inthecontextofasurveyontheproblemsconnected withlandinLateAntiquity.
9 Anexampleofthisviewis Johne 1993.EarliercontributionsbyJohneinthisrespectare Johneetal. 1983; Johne 1985, 1986 and 1987
thecolonateinthefollowingcenturies.10 Thisviewwas firstputforwardby FusteldeCoulangesin 1885. 11 Clausing,followingFusteldeCoulanges, thoughtthefarmersgotgraduallyindebted.Togetherwithatendencyto continuetenancies,adiminishingfertilityofthelandand,withit,diminishingtaxrevenuesledtoalegalattachmenttotheland.12 Saumagne,in arathercomplicatedanalysis,sawthecolonateasa quasi-servilitéjuridique, originatinginthe fiscalitybecausethe tributum madehimsubjectedtothe landowner.ThereisanechoofFusteldeCoulangeshere,andSaumagne extendsitbyattributingtothelandownertherighttolevythetaxowedby his censibusadscripti. 13 Butthesesuggestionsarenotwellbased,asshall becomeclearlater.Pallassediscernedinthe lexManciana andthecontracts intheTablettesAlbertinitracesofemphyteusisandthusofleasein perpetuity.14 Weßelassumesthatthese conductores ofimperiallandof thesecondcenturyhadinLateAntiquitybecome emhyteuticarii and,as theparalleltothis,theleaseoftheirlessee-coloni hadturnedintoaproperty rightwhichallowedthemtosellit.However,ashehimselfadmits,ithasno relationtoproperty.15 Kolendohasresumedthequestionofcontinuityof thecolonateinAfrica,albeitwithsomereservation.16 Santillithoughtthe sameandcombinedthiswithashortageinslavelabour.17 Mirković rejects anintroductionthroughDiocletian’ s fiscalreformsbecausethecolonate existedbefore:landownerscouldalreadyforcetheir coloni toremainonthe land.Sheassumesindebtednessforcedthe coloni bywayoftheirlease contracttotheland.18
10 CIL VIII 10570, 11–13: nonampliusannuasquambinasaratoriasbinassatoriasbinasmessoriasoperas debe[a]mus ; CIL VIII 25902,IV.24–27: quodannisinhominibussingulisinarationesoperasn(umero) iietinmessemn(umero).etinsarritionescuiusquegenerissingulasoperasbinas.Butthatcouldstillbe partofthetenancyagreement.Soalso Lenski 2017, 121
11 FusteldeCoulanges 1885.Severalpublicationsfollowed: Wiart 1894; His 1896; Schulten 1896; Beaudouin 1897–98,andtheauthorsmentionedbythem.
12 Clausing 1925, 262–280, 284–296.ClausingmentionsantiqueviewsthatItaly’ssoilwasexhausted (271–272).Itwouldbeinterestingtocheckthisagainstmoderndata.
13 Saumagne 1937. 14 Courtoisetal. 1952; Pallasse 1955.
15 Weßel 2003, 109–116 onthelegalpositionoflandownerand colonus,whoisforhima ‘Kleinpächter’ ; here 112–113, dominium meansmorethanownership,cf.Augustine DecivitateDei 10.1.2,where coloni are subdominiopossessorum.Thereitconcernscertainly colonioriginales.
16 Kolendo 1991, 1997, 158–161. 17 Santilli 1975;repeatedin Santilli 1999.
18 Mirković 1997, 15–26.Seethecriticalreviewby Kränzlein 1999.Also Mirković 1986 and Mirković 1994.Theargumentsputforwardarehardtofollow.TheassumptionthatunderVerreslandowners, liableforthelandtax,devolvedthisburdenbytransferringthistotheirtenantsbytheleasecontracts butremainedliableincasethetenant fled(Mirković 1997, 20)isperhapsmeanttoexplainwhy landownersgottheauthoritytokeepthemontheland,butitisnotconfirmedbycontemporary sources.ThelinkwithUlpian(D. 50 15 4 8)isdubious(thetextismuchlateranditdoesnotfollow fromthisthattenantsandlandtaxwereconnected),whileothertextsarefromthelaterEmpire. Mirković 1997 citeson 24 P.Oxy.XLVII 3364 (in J.D.Thomas,ApetitiontothePrefectofEgypt,JEA 61 (1975) 102–221)asproofthatunderCaracallathepersonwhohadshelteredafugitive tributarius
Anotherviewisthatthecolonateoriginatedinthe fiscalreorganisations whichDiocletian(r. 285–305)carriedout.Ataratherearlymomentinhis reign,Diocletianbegantoreformthetaxationsystembecause,duetothe doublingofthenumberofprovinces19 andincreasingthetroops,20 he neededmorerevenues.21 Thisreformbuiltontheprevioussystems;probablyitwasmoreauniformisationwhichextendedovertheEmpire.All landwastaxedaccordingtoitspotentialyield,resultinginapotentialtotal revenue,afterwhichtheexpectedexpenditurewasrepartitionedproportionallyovertheseassessments.InthisprocessDiocletianwouldhavemade landownersresponsibleforthecollectionofthetaxestheirlesseesowed, whichwouldalleviatethetaskoftheauthoritiesconsiderablyand,sincethe landownersweremoreabletocarrythe fiscalburden,wouldgivethe emperormorestablerevenues.IncompensationDiocletianintroduced thebondtotheestatefortheirfarmerssothatthelandownercouldrelyon havingenoughlabour.22 Theselessees,the coloni,declinedbythissubjugationand fixationtotheland,whichresultedinthecolonateofthe latefourthand fifthcentury.23 UnderJustinian,acategoryof coloni
waspenalised.Unfortunately,shecitesSerenusaspetitioner,whereasitwasHerakleides,Serenus beingthelawbreaker,andtheeditorwarnsagainstequalising ὑπόφορος with tributarius andtaking thetermastechnical.Also,althoughthetextconfirmsthattaxpayersshouldresideintheir idia, eithertheirvillageor nomē,itdoesnotsaythatlandownershadtheauthoritytorecalltheirtenants. And,asamatteroffact,regardingthelandtaxtheedictspertainedtolandowners,nottenants.There aremoreoccasionswhereitisdifficulttofollowMirković’ sarguments.
19 CAH XII, 179–181,introductionofthediocesespresumablyin 297 20 CAH XII, 120–124
21 CAH XII, 172–176 Bott 1928 isaninterestingpublication,butnowoutdated.
22 Giliberti 1999, 86:topreventmigrationandtherebyashortageinfarmers.Gilibertiopposestheidea ofa ‘genealogy’ ofthecolonate,namelythatitevolvedoutofaclassofhalf-freefarmers,or barbarianssettledontheland,orofslavesfreedwiththeobligationtoremainontheland,orof slave-farmers,oroutofhellenisticpractice.Farmers,whowerelessees,wereorgraduallybecame subjectedtotheirlandowners.Herejectstheideathatthecolonatewasinstitutedbytheimperial governmentinitsown,andnotthelandowners’ interest.UnderDiocletian,lesseesunderwentthe samefateasothergroupslikethecurialsandthe navicularii,whosefunctionwasconsideredessential forlifeintheEmpire:theirfunctionbecamehereditaryandtheybecame obnoxii.Tothatcamehis taxreform.Butisthereevidenceforsuchatyingtothelandandwork?Lactantius(ca. 250–ca. 320) Demortibuspersecutorum 23.1–2 isusuallycitedforthis,buttheword homo,usedhere(2 Agri glebatimmetiebantur,vitesetarboresnumerabantur,animaliaomnisgenerisscribebantur,hominum capitanotabantur ...),usuallymeansslaves,andslaveswereindeedputonthecensus.Itcannotbe proofthatitconcernedfreefarmers.Alsoadheringtothis fiscalistview: Schipp 2009, 40. 23 Forexample, Faure 1961, 127–133,mentioning 305 and 306 asthemomentsofintroduction.Also Marcone 1993, 825–826.Ireferfurtherforanoverviewwithliteratureto Carrié 1993, 292–301 forhis fiscalreforms.FikhmanrejectsCarrié’ s fiscalcauseofthecolonateandstressesthatgreatlandlords hadaninterestintyinglabourtotheirlands: Fikhman 1990, 171, 172, 175 = Fikhman 2006, 270, 271, 274 Harper 2011, 153–155,seemstoadheretothe fiscalcause,subjectinglong-termtenants,and assumesadifferentdevelopmentinthewestandeast(buthissubjectisslavery,notthecolonate). Similarly Vera 2012 = Vera 2019, 369 doesnotexcludesuchadevelopment,assumingthatit concernedprivatelandowners/farmers.Thepropositionof Panitschek 1990,toexplaintheorigin byassumingthatthehalf-freestatusinperegrinelegalsystemsbythebeginningofthefourth
(the adscripticii )isevencomparedtoslaves.Theirnumberwouldhave beenconsiderablebutthereisnoinformationabouttheiractualsize.There iscertainlyevidenceoffreelabouralsointhistime.24 Thisviewdiffersfrom thepreviousonesinthatitsupposesanactivelegalchange,initiatedbythe emperor.
Tosomeextentconnectedwiththisistheideathatahereditarytyingto theirprofessionledtothesituationthatthelandlordstreatedtheirtenants defactoastheirproperty,whichledtotheirbeingconsidered personae alieniiuris.Itisbasedontheviewaccordingtowhichallfunctionsand professionsbecamefromDiocletianonwardshereditaryinordertoensure thefunctioningoftheadministrationandstate.The coloni madeno exception.Inthatcontexttheyweretiedtotheirlandbywayofthetax registration.Assuchthecolonatewouldbebutoneillustrationofthe declineoftheRomanEmpirefromthisemperoronwardsbyitssocial petrificationandbureaucracy.Thistheorylackstheproofofalegaltransition,which,however,isdesirable,sinceinAntiquityonewasverykeenon thedifferencebetweenfreedomandslavery.25 Connectedwiththisisthe supposedemergenceinLateAntiquityofthegreatdomainsassemi-public institutions,whichhadtherightof autopragia,thatis,tocollecttaxes themselves.26
Anotherquestioniswhetherthecolonatewastheprecursorofmedieval servage,villeinageand Hörigkeit.Ishalldealbrieflywiththisquestionin Sections 17 and 49,butitrequiresfurtherresearch.Wearehereonly concernedwiththecolonateasestablishedintheRomanEmpire. Finally,thereisthestimulatingopinionofCarriéthatthecolonateis nothingmorethananineteenth-centuryconstruct.27 Ithasencountered criticism.28 Yet,thequestion,istheresomethinglike ‘thecolonate’?,is agoodquestion.Alltooquicklyaninterpretationbecomesabsolute,and centurywereromanisedintheformofthecolonate,inthecourseofhis fiscalreforms,isvery speculative.Therewereindeedsituationswhichlookedlikethehalf-freestatuswhichhementions (dominus–libertus, patronus–cliens),butstillthesepeoplewerelegallyfree – andRoman.Didsimilar dependenciesexistelsewhere?Whatdoweknowofperegrinehalf-freestatuses?Panitschekdoesnot nameone.Icouldunfortunatelynotconsult PerelmanFajardo 2019.
24 SoCJ 11.48.21.1; Whittaker&Garnsey 1998.
25 Munzinger 1998.Seemyreview, Sirks 2003.See Sirks 1993b forarefutation.
26 Theideaofthegreatdomainsassemi-publicinstitutions,anideasetoutbeforeby Gascou 1985,is regardedwithscepticismby Banaji 2001, 94–100 (ontherentspaid),andby Sarris 2006, 150–154, andn. 85
27 Carrié 1982.Seebelow.
28 Marcone 1993,inhissurvey Illavoronellecampagne.AstothequestionwhetherinAfricaalreadyin thethirdcenturyemphyteusisexistedandwasfundamentalforthedevelopmentofthecolonate (Marcone 1993, 828–830),onwhich Vera 1987,Imustrefrainfromenteringintothis,sinceitwould requireastudydifferentfromthepresentone.
thedangerofprojectingone’sownviewsisalwaysaroundthecorner,asthe workofWaltzingshows.SimilarquestionswereposedbyScheidel:Might theapparentriseofthe ‘colonate’ beafunctionofthechangeinevidence ratherthanofchangesinrurallabourrelations?Andifcoercionand dependencewerethenormintheserelations,whatisthensoextraordinary aboutthe ‘colonate’?29
Whatisstrikingisthatintheaboveviewsageneralshiftisassumed,that is,thatthesupposedchangesaffectedtheentireEmpireandallfarmers. SuchaviewhasfoundfavourwithMarxists.Yetithasrecentlymet resistancefromsomeancienthistoriansspecialisedinagrarianhistory. Marconeemphasisesthattherewereregionaldifferenceswhichmakeit difficulttospeakofgeneraldevelopmentsorauniformcolonate.30 He leavesthequestionopen,yetinanycaseisnotconvincedthattherewas acontinuumasFusteldeCoulanges firstproposed,namelythatthelease turnedslowlyintoabondage.31 Similarly,Giardinahasraisedthequestion ofcontinuity.32 Verahasputforwardthatvariousmodesofexploitation co-existedduringtheentireEmpire,whichreducesthecolonateto aphenomenonamongstotherexploitationmodes.Accordingtohimthe relationbetweenlandandworkshouldbethefocus:landownerswanttheir landscultivatedandneedfarmers,who,intheirturn,arebecauseofthis notsohelplessasitseems.AllduringtheEmpirethecontractualrelationshipofleaseexisted,whiletheformwaspredominantlythatofmétayage (share-cropping).Nexttothis,otherformsofexploitationexisted.33 Such anapproachisveryusefulbecausetheeconomicfoundationnotonlyofthe colonatebutofantiquesocietyingeneralwasagrarianexploitation. Rathbone’sresearchontheAppianusestatehasshownhowapluralityof smallestatescouldbeunifiedbyclevermanagementoftheavailablemanandanimal-powerandinstruments.Usefulinthiscontextwasthecontinuedpresenceofmanpower,availableondemand.Tohavelessees indebtedwasabettermethodthanforcetokeepthemontheland. Finally,Banajihasdrawnattentiontoevidencewhichindicatesthat therewasaveryvariedsupplyoflabourforces,whichdoesnotallowfor monolithicdescriptions.34
Noneoftheaboveviewshasbeenadheredtocompletelymonolithically; itismoreaquestionofwheretoputtheemphasis.Thebackgroundofthe
29 Scheidel 2000
30 Abroadsurveyby Marcone 1988.Also Marcone 1993:anexcellentandbalancedsurvey.
31 Marcone 1997a, 233 32 Giardina 1997 33 Vera 2010, 15–16
34 Banaji 2001,alsoin 2009, 76: ‘amixedservilelabourforce’.Seealso Grey 2007b, 363–367 onthe varietyinexploitationoftheland;further Grey 2012 forasurvey.
theoriesofFusteldeCoulanges,Clausing,Saumagne,andPallasse,partly alsoSantilli,isacombinationofeconomicdevelopmentswithlegalconstraints,beforeallbasedonthegreatimperialestatesinNorthAfrica, where,forexample,the lexManciana testifiestoasystemofsublettingand continuationofthelease.Difficultieswith findingnewlesseesledtothe introductionofcoercion.Inthesamelinewe findDeMartino,35 Santilli andGiliberti,36 Heather,37 andRosafio38 withamoreorlessarather economisticview,whereasGiardinaholdsanintermediateposition.39 OntheotherhandCarriéandVeraadheretoa fiscalistview,namely thatDiocletianintroducedthecolonatebyhis fiscalreforms.40
Allpositionsareveryvaluableindrawingourattentiontotheway agriculturewasdoneinAntiquityandhowashiftinsizeofpossessions demandedadifferentmanagement(orviceversa?thatanewwayof managementallowedforashiftinexploitation?).Thecolonateis aphenomenonembeddedinaruralsociety,basedonagricultureandthe variousmodesofexploitinglabourandexploitingland.Marcone,Vera, andBanajiarerightthatthisshouldbeourfocus.Theyunderlinethatwe cannotassumegenerallinesbutmustconcentrateontheparticularitiesof regions,smallandlarge,anddistinguishalsoperiods.Inthatkaleidoscope
35 DeMartino 1985, 445–460,rejectingtheMarxistexplanationandunderliningtheinterestthe landownershadinlabourbeingavailable(455); DeMartino 1993, 798–822,givesabalancedsurvey andpaysmuchattentiontoeconomicaspects,suchasacomparisonoftherentabilityof coloni and tenants.
36 Giliberti 1998
37 Heather 2000, 465 referstothemasformerlyfreetenantswhodidnotownthelandtheyworked, butHeatheralsopointstotheriseofthelandlordclass.
38 Rosafio 2002,acollectionofpaperswithworked-outthemesofhisCambridgePhDthesisof 1991 (previouslyalso Rosafio 1991);hepresentsahistoryofthecolonateonimperiallands. Rosafio 1991a, 157, 177–178 concurswithHarmand’sopinion(Harmand 1957)thatthecolonatewasnotalegal constructioninonepiece,butafactualresultofimperialstatutesand fiscaladvantagesduringalong evolution;andbesidesthatitwasnotauniformresult.Thecolonateonprivatelandwasdifferent, exclusivelyintroducedfor fiscalreasonsbecauseonthese coloni pressedthe capitatio,whichRosafio seemstointerpretasthelandtax.UnderValentinianandValensthingschanged,bothforthe coloni onimperiallandandonprivateland,andthedifferencebetweenthemdiminishedconsiderably. Theybecamehereditarilyboundtotheirfunction.
39 See Giardina 2007.Giardinapointsoutthattherepetitionofalawindicatesacontinuinginterestof thelawgiver.Heseesthecolonateinthecontextofthecentralgovernment’sintentiontoinfluence theeconomyandrelationsofproduction.Thecolonatewasbasedonanunequalrelationship betweenindividuals(landlord–tenant).Asaconsequencethe coloni werelegallyreducedtoastateof dependency.Howmanytherewerecannotbeestablished.But coloni andslavestogetherwere accordingtoGiardinathedominantmodeofproduction.Howthetransitiontothismodetook placeislargelyobscure.
40 Carrié 2017, 28–31; Vera 2005 = Vera 2019, 319,and Vera 2010, 19,wherehedefinesthe colonus as, ‘metaforicamente, “schiavo” dellatassazionedelstato’ Segrè 1947 alsocombinedincreasingindebtednesswith fiscalreforms,andwithadistributionof agerpublicus ;hisviewsarehardlytenable.See thecriticismof Banaji 1999, 204–205
theruralindividualstands,withhisfamily,andtheyhavetoscratchtheir livingtogether,asSarrissovividlysketchesforthesixthcentury.41 Itwill nothavebeenmuchdifferentforthepeasantofthepreviouscenturies.Out ofthevariouspossibilitiesthecolonatewasonelifeline.
Apartfromthesetheoriesandexplanations,fromtheperspectiveofthe colonatetherearetwoessentialrequirements:theestateownermust disposeofsufficientcapitaltosustainhis financialguarantee(forthepoll tax)andofsufficientlandnearbytomakethepresenceoflabourcosteffective.The coloni donothavetoworkeverydayoftheyear;theyhaveto bepresentwhenneeded.Thesetworequirementsimplythatthesingle farmerwillnoteasilyhavehada colonus.Indeed,estatecomplexeslikethat oftheApionesasdescribedbySarriswillhavebeentheoneswherethe colonatecouldberemunerative.Wheresuchcomplexeslayisopen.We shouldlendaneartowhattheemperorhimselfsaidinCTh 11.1.26: earum scilicetprovinciarum, ... inquibushaecretinendaeplebisratioadscriptioque servatur, ‘ofthoseprovinces ... wherethissystemofbindingandregisteringofthecommonpeopleisinuse’ .
2 SourcesandWorkingMethod
Thepresentworkisaboveallareconstructionofthelegalsideofthe colonate.Thismeansthatthelegalrulesasknownarechartedand interpreted.Theserulessettheboundariesofthecolonate.Itdoesnot implythatthisisasocialoreconomichistoryofthecolonate,althoughthe legaltextswillasmuchaspossiblebesetintheirsocietalcontext.Therehas alwaysbeenarelationofdependencybetweenownersoflandwhodidor couldnottillitthemselvesandfarmerswhoneededlandtofeedthemselves andtheirfamilies.Suchdependencymayhavebeenorganisedinarchaic daysalonglinesofstatus,asMainemaintained,butinthelateRepublic andEmpireitwasdonebycontract.Theoreticallythiswasaconsensual contract,engagedbyfreewill,butitwillhavedependedonsupplyand demandhowfreepartieswere.CatoandPlinywereconcernedto findthe fewgoodfarmers.Butabadharvestcouldputthefarmerindistressandat themercyofhiscreditorsandlandlord,whomightneedtoremitthelease sum.Law’sfunctionisnottoregulateeveryaspectanddetailoflife,butto setstandardsofandlimitstobehaviour.Itdoesnotmeanthatpeople followedtheserules.Iftheydid(sociologically:hadinternalisedthem), therewouldbenoneedforlaw.Butlawenforceswhatshouldbedone.
Hencesocialandeconomicrealitywasandisalwaysmuchwiderthanlegal reality.Ontheotherhand,thecolonatepresentstoacertainextent areversal,fromcontracttostatusinasfarasenteringthecolonateinthe laterperiodimpliedashiftinstatus,whichwasseenasthegroundforthe requiredservices.
2.1 Sources
Thesourcesonthecolonatearediverse.Manyarelegaltexts,preservedin eitherTheodosius’ orJustinian’sCode.Someofthesetextsfeatureinboth codifications.Therearepapyrifromthe fifthandsixthcenturyreferring directlytothecolonate,butsomethird-centurypapyrimayalsorefertothe colonateoraprecursorofit.Afewliterarysourcescontainreferencestothe colonate.Therearefurthertextswithreferencetotheinquilinate,astatus whichmusthavebeenquiteclosetothecolonate.But,asusual,wedonot haveasmanydataaswewouldlike.
ThelegalsourcesinTheodosius’ andJustinian’sCodeconsistoffragmentsofimperialconstitutions,usuallyenteredintotheCodewith addressee,dateandissuingemperor.Itisverytemptingtoconsiderthem asfragmentsperse,asunrelatedhistoricalfactswhichareoftenbutfeeble imagesoftheoriginal.Yetthatwoulddisregardthattheyarepartofalegal systemtheRomansdevelopedovercenturies.42 Theorderofthepraetorian edictmayhavebeenmerelyhistoricallygrown;itneverthelessservedfor centuriesasastructureforcommentaries,andtheGregorianand HermogenianCodes,aswellasthetwoabove-mentionedCodes,partly followeditsstructure.Butwitheachcodealsoaneffortwasmadeto organisethematerialsystematically.Moreover,twootherstructureswere usedinlegalwritings:thatofSabinus’ treatmentofthecivillaw,andthe institutionalsystem,ofwhichGaius’ versiongainedgreatpopularity(there weremore).ThecommentariesontheedictandSabinus’ treatise,aswellas theinstitutionalworks,areevidenceofthefactthatRomanlawwasan intellectualsystem.Thisisallthemoretruewiththecompilationsof Romanlawwehaveandwhichforthatreasonarecalledcodifications: theCodexJustinianusandtheCodexTheodosianus.AsJustinianhimself
42 EvenforalawcollectionasearlyasHammurabi’sCodeithasbeenarguedthatitistosomeextent structuredandthatcautionisnecessary:see Westbrook 1988, 74ff.,whostronglyarguesthatvarious sanctionsinHammurabi’sCodemustbereadastheoreticaldiscursions.ButalotofEuropean medievaltownstatutesareindeedmerecompilationsofenforceablesocialruleswithoutmuchor anycoherence.
saidfortheDigest, situnaconcordiaunaconsequentiaadversarionemine constituto (CJ 1.17.1.8).43
2.1.1
Justinian’sCode
Bothcodifications44 werebuiltaroundastructure.ForJustinian’sCode, thestructureofTheodosius’ Code45 firstservedasanexample,butifnot alreadychanged,itwascertainlyoverhauledforthesecondeditionofAD 534.Hiscompilersputthetextstheyconsideredrelevantattheplaceinthe structuretheyconsideredappropriate.Thishadimportantconsequences. Firstofall,thefactthatatacertainmomentintimealldataconsidered particulartoasubjectarecollectedisalreadyastatementaboutwhat peopleatthatmomentconsideredrelevanttothatsubject.Thesedata mayvaryinageandtheymaycertainlyalsobejudgedupontheirvalueat theirdateofissue,buttheyhaveanindependentandperhapsdifferent valueforthemomenttheywerecollectedandselected.Withinthatlatter contexttheymay and shouldbeconsidered.Itdependsonthedesignofthe codificationwhatvaluemaybeattachedtothiscontext.Justinianwasvery explicitabouthisCode:allconstitutionscollectedintheGregorian, HermogenianandTheodosianCodesandallconstitutionsissued afterAD 438 shouldbecollectedinonecode,butnotsimplyasthey werefound.Theyhadtobeexamined;whatwassuperfluousshouldbe removed,asshouldwhateverwassimilarorcontradictoryorhadbecome obsolete,andthesamewentforthepreamblestotheNovels.Textscould becombined,shortenedandadapted(interpolated).Theconstitutions shouldbeputunderanappropriatetitleandthereshouldbenodoubt abouttheirgeneralvalidity.46 Itfollowsfromthisthatthetextsof Justinian’sCodepresentinthe firstplacevalidrulesofgeneralforceand thatinanycasewithinatitlerulesonthesamesubject(indicatedbythe title’srubric)havebeengatheredtogether.Thisisnottosaythatsuchatitle
43 Thiswascertainlynotmeantasamereaspiration.BetweenAD 529 and 534 Justiniantookthesocalled ‘QuinquagintaDecisiones’ toresolvelong-standingquestions.IntheDigestthereareindeed stilldifferencesofopinion,buttheseservedtodeepenlegaldiscussionanddoctrine;theCodewas primarilymeantforpractice.Asregardsthesimilaritiesandcontrarietiesmentionedinc.Cordi),see Sirks 1986, 299–300,and 1996, 257–259, 267.Throughoutthisbook,unlessotherwiseexplicitly specified,alltranslationsoftheTheodosianCodeandthePost-TheodosianNovelsaretakenfrom orbasedon Pharr 1952;thoseofJustinian’sCodearetakenfromorbasedon CodexofJustinian 2016;andthoseofJustinian’sNovelsaretakenfromorbasedon Miller&Sarris 2018
44 Assaid,Iusethewordcodificationinthewidesenseofacompilationofrules,broughtintoamore orlesssystematicstructure,andnotinthefarmorerestrictedmodernsenseofacode.
45 OntheTheodosianCode,see Matthews 2000; Millar 2006; Sirks 2007, 2008
46 C.Haec 2;c.Cordi 3
containsalltherulesonthatsubject,becauseitcontainsthemonlyinsofar astherehadbeenconstitutionsissuedaboutit.
Romanlegislationwasusuallyreactive.Thelegislatorwasinthe first placean hommebricoleur,notan hommeingénieur. 47 Whenaproblem aroseandwasreported,theemperorsreactedwithaconstitution.Or,if acaseappearedbeforetheemperorinhighestappeal,theemperormight issueafterhisjudgmentalsoaconstitutiontorulefuturecasesinthesame way.CJ 1.14.2 and 3,bothderivingfromthe lexcitandi of 426,describethis indetail.Theconsequenceisthatthecodesaswehavethemcontain mainlysuchreactivelegislation.Wheretherewasnoproblem,wedonot seedirectreferencestopractice.Inshort,whatwehaveinthecodesis arbitraryinthesensethatitconcernsmainlyreactivelegislation.Butitdoes notmeanthattherewasnot,forexample,alawonthecolonatewhichwas coherent.Itisonlythroughoccasionalmentioninotherlegislation,or becauseoftheconnectionwithaproblem,thatwebecomeawareofother law.Inshort,therearegapsinthelegislationonaspecificsubjectwhich wereinherentinthecodes.
ItisthusinthenatureofRomanlegislationthatproblemswereoften onlydealtwithinageneralwaywhentheyrequiredageneralremedy,that perhapssomepotentialproblemswereincludedtoo,butnotthatthe administrationtriedinaperfectionistwaytothinkupalltheoretical problemsinadvanceanddealwiththeminageneralwayintheconstitution.SuchapproachesdatefromthedaysoftheNaturalLawscholars.But itispossible,andintheprivatelawindeedveryoftenthecase,thatother rulesarecontainedinthewritingsofjurists,inthiscasecollectedin Justinian’sDigest.Furthermore,Justinian’sInstitutesalsogainedthe forceoflaw.Thusto findthelawonaspecificsubjectasvalidinthe yearsAD 530–534,onehastocheckallthesethreeworks,asJustinian himselfindicates(CJ 1.17.1.11, 2.11).48
Also,thestyleofthesecodesisnotthemoderncodificatorystyle.There, thestructureisfromgeneralpropositionstomorespecificpropositions;49 here,astatementonaspecificcasewillcontaininsomewayageneral proposition,orelseitwouldnothavebeenincludedinthecode.Butitis notalwayseasyforthemodernreader,whodoesnothavetheknowledgeof thecontextwhichthecompilerhad,todetachthegeneralrule.
47 AfterClaudeLévy-Strauss’ Lapenséesauvage
48 Foranexampleofthismethod,see Sirks 2007,Nr. 34
49 Pothier 1748–1752 arrangedtheRomanlawintosuchastraitjacket: ThePandectaeJustinianeaein novumordinemdigestae
Itisconsequentlypossiblethattherearesomepointswhichwere governedbycustomary,unwrittenorunrecordedlaw,or,forexample, byedictsofthePraetorianPrefects.50 Asweshallsee,therearegaps.But takingthisintoaccount,normallywemayinthiswayexpectto findallthe lawasitwasvalidandrecordedatthatmomentinconstitutions(ius novum)andonlythen – andnoobsoleterules.ThatwasJustinian’ s intention,andthatwasindeedaccomplished.Ofcourse,thismustbe accompaniedbyaknowledgeoftheintellectualstructureofthelaw(the doctrineoflaw)asprevalentatthattime – afterall,Justinian’sentire codificationhadtoservelegaleducation – orelsewordsandconcepts mightbemisunderstood.Onlythendoesonegetapictureofthelawat thatparticularpointorperiodintime.Whatevertheoriginalreasonfor issuingaconstitutionhadbeennolongermatteredinthecodification process:thetextsdonotpresentunrelatedfragmentsofpreviouslyissued constitutionsbuthavebecome(iftheywerenotalready)piecesofasystem. Thatpicturecanandshouldofcoursebeputintothecontextofthesociety andcultureofthemoment.
2.1.2
Theodosius’ Code
WiththeTheodosianCode,whichcontainsimperialconstitutionsover theperiod 312–437,thesituationislesstransparent.Wedonothavethe entireCode.MuchofBooks 1 to 5 ismissing.Astotheconstitutions,we knowthattheemperororderedtheremovalofthesuperfluoustext,leaving onlytheruleorprescription.ButcontrarytoJustinian,thereisdoubt whethertheoriginalplantoremovetheobsoletewasappliedtothisCode. Opinionsdiffer,butthebalanceisnowinfavourofremovaltheobsoletein theBooks 1 to 15. 51 ItimpliesthatherealsotheCodepresentedthelaw,in asfaraslaiddowninconstitutions,asitwasvalidin 438.
Nexttothecodes,lawisfoundinthelegalwritings(iusvetus).Toknow, forexample,thelawofsaleinthethirdcentury,itwouldgiveadistorted viewtoconsultmerelyJustinian’sCode,andthesamegoesforthelawof saleofthefourthcenturyifonlybasedontheTheodosianCode.One cannotdowithoutthetextsoftheDigest,whichwerealsovalidatthat time.Manytexts,bothinthecodesandtheDigest,testifythatthelawyers ofthosedayssawandappliedasystemofinternalcoherence:notasstrictas latertheGlossatorsorthePandectistsenforcedupontheseworks,butstill
50 Ontheroleoftheseedicts,whichwereoftenmorethanjustedictsexecutingtheordersofthe emperor,see Schiavo 2018
51 See Sirks 2021b
thecoherencewhichtheylearnedfromtheirinstitutionalbooks.Onemust ofcourserealisethattheDigestisaByzantineselectionoftheclassictexts whichareoftenadapted,representingtheByzantinejurists’ viewsonthe stateofthelaw.
Sometimesitissaidthatthelegislationofthelateantiqueemperorswas inefficacious.Forthat,peoplerefertotheTheodosianCodewhere,asthey sustain,oftenaprescriptionisrepeated.Thatwouldimplythatthepreviouslawwasnotfollowed.Itisaprecariousargument.First,theemperorof onepartcouldnotlegislatefortheotherpart.Iftheotheremperorwanted tolegislatethesamehecouldissuehisownruleorreissuethatofhis colleague.TheodosiushimselfreferstothisinNov.Theod. 1.5. Consequently,we findthesameexemptionof angariae, parangariae,and paraveredi grantedtothe silentiarii inCTh 6.23.3 and 4.Butitisnot arepetitionofthesame:c. 3 isissuedforthewestandc. 4 fortheeast.Also, whenweseeaprescriptionrepeateditdoesnotautomaticallymeanthatit wasnotenforcedorcouldnotbeenforced.Itmaybethatforanumberof peopleithadeffectbutthattherepetitionwasmeanttocatchtheremainingnumberbyimposingaharshersanction.Thusyes,itwasnotcompletelyeffective,butno,itwasnotonlyinanumberofcaseseffective.To saythatitwasaltogetherineffectiveisimpossible:wedonotknowenough abouttheefficacyoflaws.Also,repetitionmayhaveservedotherpurposes, likeemphasisingtheauthorityoftheemperor.
2.2 JustificationoftheRetrogradeResearchMethodAppliedHere
Thelegaltextsofthecodescancertainlyberegardedandtreatedas historicalsourcesandbeusedastheywereissuedintheirowntime, convenientlycollectedinchronologicalorderinthecodifications. Withinthatcontextitisalsosensibletotrytojoinfragmentsofthesame originalconstitution.Itisquiteusualtoseeatreatiseonthecolonatestart withtheearliestknowntextonthis,eitherCTh 11.7.2 of 319 orCTh 5.17.1, of 332,tobefollowedbyothersinchronologicalorder.Thathappens usuallywiththeawarenessthattheymayhavebeenedited,butoften withoutregardforthefactthattheywere later selectedandcollected. Theresultisalwaysadistortedrepresentation,evenifslightly.Onehasto realisethatallthishappenedwithregardtotheirlateruse,inanycasethe textsinJustinian’sCode,52 andbeawareofthecontextwithinwhichthese
52 WithTheodosius’ Code,thedebateisstillongoingwhetherthetextspreservedincludeobsolete ones;butsee Sirks 2021b and BassanelliSommariva 2013
textsaretransmitted.Asurveyofaprincipallyphilologicalorhistorical nature53 willnotbeofanyhelp,howeverinterestingitmaybe,sinceit mixesuplegalandnon-legalsourcesandmightusethelegalsourcesas supplementarytextstophilologicalorhistoricalanalysis.Thecontentsof thesetexts,whoseprimarypurposewasnottobeliteraryproducts (althoughtheyverywellmayhavebeenputintothatform)orhistorical statementsbuttoembodylegaldecisionsandrules,willnotberendered justice.Further,thecontextinwhichtheyhavebeentransmittedand whichisasimportantasthesingletext,isoftendisregardedandneglected. Ifwewerestrict,researchonsinglelegaltextsinthetwoCodesshould alwaysbedoneinaretrogradeway: first,themeaningaspartofthecode, thenseeingwhetherthatcouldalsobethemeaningatthemomentofissue, andinbothcasestakingthewiderlegalcontextintoconsideration(i.e.,the compositionofthetitles).Thatisthepalingeneticmethodofthe Romanists,usedwiththeDigest,whichespeciallythelateAlanRodger alwaysapplied.Thismethodhadlostnothingofitsimportanceandshould notbeneglected.Withthiscomesthefactthatonemustreckonwith possibletextualchangesorthecombiningoftwotextsintoonenewtext(as isproventohavebeendoneinJustinian’sCode):theinterpolationcheck. Onlyafterthatoneshouldturntothemeaningthetexthadwhenwritten, usuallyintheclassicalperiod.Nothinghasdiminishedorvoidedthevalue ofthisworkingmethod.
RegardingthetextsfromtheTheodosianCode,itseemstomethathere theideathatthecompilersdidnotchangetheactualruleandincludedalso obsoleteconstitutionsallowsforanuninhibiteduse.Ifthatwerethecase,it wouldberight.Butitispreciselythequestion.Wheretherearefewtexts andthesubjectisratherspecial,suchasthetwoconstitutionson maiuma, CTh 15.6.1 (=CJ 11.46.1)and 2,itisveryunlikelythataretrograde treatmentwillrendermorethanapurelyhistoricalapproach.Thelackof otherrelatedtextswillpreventadeepertreatment.Itwillbethesamein othersimilarcases.Theoretically,themomentofcompilationshouldbe consideredalso,butastocontentsitmayyieldlittle.Withthecolonateitis verydifferent.HeretherearemanytextsinJustinian’sCodewhichallow forathoroughtreatment;similarly,inTheodosius’ Codemanytexts sustainareconstructionforthismomentintime.Bothreconstructions canbecomparedtoprovideasoundbasis.ItisforthesereasonsthatIchose theretrogrademethod.Ithasitsdisadvantagestoo,butatleastitallowsfor aproperanalysisatthemomentsofcompilation.
53 As Carrié 1982 orGrey 2007,whostartfromananalysisoftheword colonatus
TheRetrogradeMethod
Inordertomakeconclusionsonas firmagroundaspossible,Ihavechosen theretrogrademethod,beginningwiththelatestperiodofthecolonatein theeast,namelytheJustinianicandpost-Justinianicperiod(527–642).For thisperiodourlegalsourcesarealmostcompleteasregardstheirtransmissionandthetextisfairlysecure,andwehavealsopapyrologicalmaterial availablewhichgivesusachancetoseewhatactualsituationtheselegal rulesenvisaged.ThegreatadvantagewehaveisthatJustinian’scodification containedonlyvalidrules(duetoJustinian’sorders)andthatitcovers arathershorttimespan,withthebulkofitcodifiedinamere fiveyears (529–534).Thismeansthatthesetextsmusthaveanidenticalterminology andconsistency,whichagainallowsforcomparisonandcombination. Althougholdertextswerealsousedinthiscodification,wemayassume alltexts,includingthese,wereconsistentlyinterpretedinthisperiodasto theiractualuse.54 Itissupplementedasregardsthecolonatewithagood numberofpapyrifrommostlythesixthcenturyAD.Thismeansthatfor Justinian’sreign(527–565)wecanderivefromthesetextsacomplete pictureasregardsthelegalsituation,ofcourseinasfarasthissituation waslaiddowninlegalanddocumentarytexts.Assaidbefore,theRomans usuallydidnotdesignacompletelegalregulationandthenissueit.Their methodwasrathertoenactsomethingorrefineexistingcustomaryor statutorypracticeiftheneedforthiscameup.Itisthereforenotimpossible thatnexttoJustinian’scodificationunwrittencustomaryrulesconcerning thecolonateexisted,whilesomeaspectsofitaremerelyindicated.Still,the pictureweshallgetwillbethebestandmostcompletepicturepossible. Afterthat,wecanturntotheprecedingperiodcoveredbythe TheodosianCode.Wehavetodistinguishtwosituationsinthelegal evidencepresented.Firstaretheconstitutionsastheyarepresentedtous withinthecontextoftheTheodosianCodeaspromulgatedintheyear 438 (andcertainlyshortened,sometimesdividedandprobablyedited),supplementedbyconstitutionsoftheCodeonlytransmittedinJustinian’sCode, byconstitutionsissuedbefore 438 (mostlyfromtheGregorianand HermogenianCodes),andbylegalwritingsfrombefore 438.Second,the constitutionsinthemselvesandtheotherpre-438 textsmaybeconsidered astestimoniesofthesituationintheyeartheywereissued.Thedates providedbyKrügerinhisCodexJustinianusedition(Krüger 1877)andby
54 Wenger 1954, 569–651 onJustinian’scodification.TheoldertextsarefromtheGregorian, Hermogenian,andTheodosianCode,theeasternPosttheodosianNovels,andthelegalwritings asselectedintheDigest.OftheDigestonlyD. 50 15 isofimportance.
