Download Roman Labor in Transition: Slaves, Coloni, and Other Workers The

Roman Labor in Transition: Slaves, Coloni, and Other Workers
The roots of the medieval economy are often seen as originating in the late
Roman period. The economy of the late empire saw a shift from slave labor to citizen
laborers tied to their land or position. While some scholars have been eager to see this
as the transition from slaves to serfs and the beginning of medieval serfdom, the reality
is more complicated. This reading will chart the changes in how the late Roman Empire
controlled its farmers, workers, and citizens of all statuses.
Slavery
In the late Roman period, slaves became rarer and more expensive. While the
reasons for this are not well understood, a partial explanation is that with the end of
Rome’s expansion and conquest of new lands, the empire was no longer taking in large
numbers of enslaved captives. When slaves had been very cheap, they were used
extensively in agricultural work, making up the workforce of the great latinfundiae, or
plantations, of the late republic and early empire. But as slaves became rarer and more
expensive, they tended to be reserved for work that would bestow more prestige on
their owners, such as working within the household. Some great landowners continued
to use slaves to work their land, but most preferred to lease their lands to poor farmers
and collect rent on the produce.
As slaves became more valuable, they enjoyed a modest increase in their rights
and status. Slaves were assigned plots of land and would live off of the produce while
paying their master a certain percentage of that produce. The Roman government
passed a law in the middle of the fourth century that prohibited selling an agricultural
slave apart from his land. Thus, the slaves were tied to their land the same way a tenant
farmer might be. Slaves were allowed to marry free tenants, to acquire property, and to
pass their property on to their children.
Thus, the position of agricultural slaves in the late empire changed and improved.
In many ways they became similar to the serfs of the medieval period: they were tied to
a piece of land but could not be alienated from it, they derived their sustenance from
that land but paid a certain amount back to their master or landlord.
Still, this does not mean that all slaves enjoyed increased benefits or freedoms.
Household slaves and domestic servants saw little change in status, nor did the slaves
who labored in difficult jobs in workshops and factories. And while slaves may have
been rarer than in early imperial times, they were still quite common. Many people were
enslaved from barbarian peoples on Rome’s borders, and on the frontiers slaves seem
to have continued to be cheap. Even humble Roman households would usually have
one or two slaves. All officers in the army had personal slaves, and the wealthy
aristocrats of the empire had large teams of slaves. Even with the fall of the Western
Roman Empire, slavery continued to be an institution in early medieval Europe. Slavery
was not replaced by serfdom, but rather, the two institutions existed side-by-side.
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 1 of 7
The Coloni
The Roman colonus was originally a free citizen who leased farmland from a
landowner, contracting to pay to the owner either a fixed annual sum or, more
commonly, a certain proportion of the farm’s produce. Leases were normally for five
years, and the tenants were free to leave the land once the lease expired. Still, many
stayed on the same land their whole lives, as travel was difficult and it was easier to
remain under a familiar landlord. As tenant farmers, coloni already had little social
mobility and led difficult lives.
The first known law restricting the freedom of coloni was issued in 332 AD by
Emperor Constantine. However, the freedom of the coloni tenants was probably first
restricted in the late third or early fourth century under Diocletian, who established a
new tax system based on the productive capacity of the land. With the breakdown of the
Roman currency, the new system of taxation was levied on the produce of the empire’s
land. Diocletian’s intention was to allow the imperial government to budget and predict
future revenues, and it could only do so if the lands it taxed maintained a fairly fixed
level of production. Thus, the tenants were restricted from leaving the lands they
cultivated, lest these lands be left uncultivated and thus untaxable. Agri deserti, or
deserted land left fallow for lack of anyone available to work it, was a major problem in
the empire, and the emperors were anxious to deal with this problem. Coloni were
restricted from leaving the lands that they worked, and their children were legally
obligated to remain on that same land as tenants. Coloni could only marry daughters of
other coloni, as the government was eager to ensure that tenant farmers were not lost
over successive generations. Small independent farmers working their own land were
also prohibited from leaving that land for the same reasons.
While the coloni were first tied to their land in the interest of the state, it is
possible that the great landowners apparently found this development beneficial to
themselves, as it ensured a constant supply of labor for their lands without the worry of
tenants leaving after their leases expired, and so used their political influence to
increase their power over their tenants. Laws were introduced that allowed landowners
to chain their coloni; coloni could not sell property without approval from their landlords;
coloni were barred from suing their landlords; and the landlords became responsible not
only for collecting rent but also for collecting taxes from their coloni. It is also possible
that the Roman government kept these restrictions in place in order to ensure a steady,
predicable tax base and to ensure that the tenants continued to pay taxes via the
landowners.
Thus, even though the coloni were technically free citizens, they continued to be
restricted and their position compared to those of slaves. Successive generations were
tied to the same land their ancestors had worked when the initial restrictions were put in
place. A late fourth-century law decreed that “though they appear to be freeborn by
condition, [coloni] shall nevertheless be considered as slaves of the land itself to which
they are born, and shall have no right of going off where they like or of changing their
place.” Thus, while slaves acquired greater rights and privileges and rose to a higher
status, coloni tenants, though they had once been free, lost rights and privileges and
sank to a similar position as slaves.
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 2 of 7
The coloni were descended from those men who were the tenants when the
original census was undertaken by Diocletian, and occasionally from men who had
been enrolled as coloni since then. Nonetheless, some people could escape the status.
Because the idea behind legislation restricting the coloni was to maintain a constant
level of production on the cultivated land, one of the sons of a colonus would be
required to follow his father as a tied tenant. But other children were not so required. In
addition, since landowners paid taxes for every colonus they had, it was in their interest
not to report it when they took on a new tenant. If a colonus died and had no son to
replace him, the landowner could either take on a new colonus or else, if none were
available, get a reduction in his taxes based on his hypothetical loss in production.
However, in such cases a landowner would find it profitable to replace the colonus with
a new free tenant, who would not be reported to the government, and thus maintain the
same production while enjoying a tax reduction. Since such new tenants would not be
reported as coloni on the census, they would not be bound by the restrictions on coloni.
Thus, over the course of a few generations the rigid coloni system was eased
considerably. In 419 AD, after a number of imperial officials were found to be
descendants of runaway coloni, the emperor decreed that if a colonus were away from
his land for over thirty years without being reclaimed, he became free.
In the sixth century the status of coloni was tightened again. At the beginning of
the century, the emperor ruled that just as a colonus was free if he left his land for thirty
years, so a free tenant became a colonus if he leased a farm for thirty years, through
they retained some rights. Emperor Justinian abolished the rule that allowed a colonus
to become free after a thirty-year absence, and decreed that coloni were slaves of the
land. Indeed, the status of coloni and agricultural slaves had become essentially the
same. By the reign of Justinian, three classes of tenant farmers thus emerged: the
coloni descended from those tied to the land by the fourth-century laws, who were little
different from slaves; coloni descended from tenants who had since taken out leases for
thirty years or more, and were tied to the land yet maintained the right to join the army
or church; and free tenants, who took on short term leases and thus maintained their
freedom to move as they liked.
Nevertheless, the manner in which land was worked and the restrictions on
coloni varied from one region of the Roman Empire to another. In addition, as long as a
tenant owned even a small parcel of land, he was registered not under his landlord but
among the citizens of his village or city, thus was not legally bound to his landlord. At
the same time, it seems that many poor peasants willingly entered into the status of a
colonus. It provided stability, and some sources talk of poor independent farmers
crushed by taxation who decided to become tenants for great landowners and take on
the colonus status in order to escape taxation. Others became coloni in order to gain
the protection of great landowners against barbarian attacks. It should also be pointed
out that while the restrictions on coloni stand out as harsh limitations on free Roman
citizens, most coloni were probably descended from conquered peoples who probably
only gained Roman citizenship through the Antoninian Constitution of 212 AD, which
awarded Roman citizenship to all people living within the empire. It is uncertain, but
before the widespread grant of citizenship, many people may have lived in similar
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 3 of 7
circumstances as coloni but went unmentioned because they were not Roman citizens.
The roots of the restrictions on coloni remain a controversial subject among scholars.
Germanic Settlement
Occasionally, conquered barbarians were also made into coloni and distributed
among major landowners. In addition, sometimes the Late Roman Empire settled
barbarians seeking sanctuary in its territory to work the land. Laeti, as they were known,
were permitted to settle on Roman land, farm it, and live off the produce, in exchange
for service in the Roman army. Such a system may have been influenced by Germanic
models of tenancy and seem closer to our modern concept of serfdom.
In the fifth century, as the Western Roman Empire was conquered by Germanic
tribes, the situation reversed. Germanic warlords confiscated the landed properties of
great Roman landowners. Germanic kings held major estates as their personal
fiefdoms, and they granted portions of land to loyal followers. These lesser lords held
their lands in exchange for loyalty. It seems that the farmers were given plots of lands to
live off in exchange for paying a certain percentage back to the lord and for military
service. Since the Germanic successor kingdoms of Rome mostly could not, or did not,
collect monetary taxes, they were dependent on a hierarchy of tribute (wherein a portion
of the peasants’ produce would be passed up to lords, who would pass on a portion to
the king) as well as service to the state in exchange for land. We must be careful,
however, about equating this post-Roman economic situation with the serfdom of the
High Medieval period. Serfdom evolved slowly over the next few centuries, until the
feudal society of the Middle Ages gradually emerged. In addition, we should not forget
that slaves continued to be used in large numbers. The institution of slavery survived
the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and new sources of slaves, such as the Slavs,
allowed the institution to continue into the Middle Ages.
State Workers
Coloni were not the only class of people tied to their livelihoods by the late
Roman state. Certain workers deemed essential to the Roman state, such as soldiers,
blacksmiths, and ship captains were enrolled in their positions, branded on the hand to
mark them for life, and legally prohibited from leaving their positions. Their children
would be required to follow them in their careers. In this way, the Roman state is
sometimes seen as introducing the rigid social system of the Middle Ages, if not a form
of caste system.
Prior to the time of Diocletian, collegia, or guilds, had operated as social or
fraternal organizations of workers. Diocletian required certain guilds to supply some
amount of labor to the state. This was designed to ensure that goods and commodities
deemed essential—such as weapons, armor, bread, clothes, etc.—would be available.
Workers were required to remain in the collegia for life and be succeeded by their sons.
Workers in state-owned factories had even stricter regulations. These factories, which
produced weapons, armor, shields, and clothing for the army, were deemed of great
importance to the state. Workers were given ranks and branded on their hands in case
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 4 of 7
they escaped. They were regarded as essentially slaves, they were required to live in a
barracks, and they could only marry daughters of other workers. Like coloni and
members of collegia, their positions were hereditary. Workers in state-owned marble
quarries and mines, and workers engaged in the production of purple dye (the use of
which was restricted to the emperor and his family) were treated likewise, as the Roman
government deemed these necessary commodities for the smooth running of the state.
Soldiers were also branded and given hereditary status.
While these restrictions were harsh, such soldiers and workers did enjoy
benefits. Soldiers and members of certain collegia were given exemption from curial
status, and soldiers were given plots of land by the state after they were discharged.
Members of the collegia of ship captains who commanded the ships that brought grain
to the major cities enjoyed extensive tax exemptions and were given lands as
supplementary income. Membership in collegia and certain industries were legally
enforced as hereditary, but before Diocletian’s time this was already the de facto norm.
Fathers trained their sons in their professions, so it was only natural that most sons
followed in such careers. The late Roman state only required that at least one son
follow his father to make sure that the supply of necessary laborers did not dry up.
Still, military service in particular was unpopular, and soldiers attempted to
escape, as did workers in state factories (though we know little about them). Sons of
soldiers often hid to avoid service. Other people, however, broke the law in order to
enter the military, as it provided good benefits and the opportunity of social
advancement for the lower classes. By the time of Justinian, the Roman army no longer
relied on conscription and the forced levying of sons of soldiers. The army was mostly
comprised of volunteers. State weapons factories also gradually disappeared, and
instead soldiers were given a stipend to buy their weapons, armor, and clothing from
local craftsmen.
The Curial Class
The Roman government’s restrictions and attempts to regulate society and
extract service did not fall only upon farmers and laborers. The curial class was made
up of landowners of medium to large estates and wealthy merchants who made up the
local city governments within the Roman Empire. They gained local political office by
virtue of their wealth in exchange for the fact that, as both prestige projects and as
displays of their local patriotism, they would finance the construction of infrastructure
such as temples and aqueducts, and would pay for local games.
When Diocletian reformed the tax system, he made the curiales responsible for
collecting the taxes within their cities or villages. More precisely, they would pay what
their city or village owed upfront to the government, but they were given the right to
extract this money from their city or village to make up the expense. The Roman
government lacked the tax-collecting powers of modern states, and had to rely on
middlemen such as the curiales to effectively extract revenues from the many cities and
villages in the empire. As the leading representatives and patrons of their cities, with
presumably enough capital to supply the government needs upfront, the curiales were
the best people for the Roman government to operate through. However, the curiales
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 5 of 7
were often incapable of recuperating the full amount of money paid to the government.
Extracting taxes from the locals was often difficult, requiring harsh measures, and in
times of famine or when production was lower than the government expected, there was
not enough goods or money to compensate. Thus, the burden of whatever the city or
village could not pay came directly out of the pocket of the curiales.
Curial duty came to be hated and regarded as a severe burden. Many property
owners were financially ruined by the curial duties. For the very rich, who could easily
afford the burden, it was an undue hassle, as they had to personally take charge not
only of tax collection but the levying of soldiers and the repair of infrastructure. Laws
prohibited curiales from shirking their responsibilities by fleeing or taking certain jobs
that would give them exemptions. The wealthiest competed for positions within the
emperor’s inner circle and for position in the senate, which granted exemption from
curial duties. Those of fewer means would try to get positions in the imperial
bureaucracy, though emperors slowly removed the curial exemptions associated with
these jobs. The poorer curiales, primarily those on the councils of small villages or in
backwater provinces, joined the army or the clergy in search of exemption. Though
military service did bring with it freedom from curial responsibility, it was illegal for those
already holding curial positions to join the army. Still, the successive attempts by the
government to crack down on this shows that curiales were managing to get into the
army and gain exemptions.
Slowly the importance of the curial class faded. As the wealthiest members of the
class gained exemptions and saddled the less wealthy with the financial obligations, the
curial class slowly became less capable of functioning. At the same time, the Roman
government centralized its control over the provinces more and more, which meant that
city governments were increasingly put under the control of an imperial official as
opposed to the local curiales.
Increasingly, bishops came to fund the necessary infrastructure of cities and
towns. This is evident in the lands of the former Western Roman Empire after the
imperial government collapsed. The absence of imperial rule left a power vacuum that
the church filled. As a wealthy institution, the church paid for the construction of city
walls, hospitals, and cared for the poor. The local bishop became the most important
religious and civil official in towns and cities. In the Eastern Roman Empire, where the
imperial government remained intact, similar developments took place. The
government, under severe strain from foreign invasions, recognized the usefulness of
the church, and delegated to bishops important responsibilities in the governing and
maintenance of Roman cities.
Summary


While slavery continued to exist in the late Roman Empire, a smaller supply of
slaves meant that agricultural slaves enjoyed some increase in status and
treatment.
The Roman coloni, originally free citizens who leased farmland from a
landowner, were legally tied to the land they worked in the late Roman period,
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 6 of 7



and were forbidden from leaving. Their status eroded to little better than slaves,
and their status became hereditary.
Coloni continued to be used by the Germanic rulers of the successor kingdoms
of the Western Roman Empire.
Workers in state-controlled industries and soldiers also became hereditary
positions in the late Roman state.
The curial class, though socially superior to tenant farmers, laborers, and
soldiers, was also made into a hereditary class by the late Roman state.
http://www.saylor.org/hist301/#7.3.3
The Saylor Foundation
Saylor.org
Page 7 of 7