1. 1
Julia Muhlnickel
Term Paper
Ancient Slavery
December 12, 2011
The Colonate and Slavery in the Late Roman Empire
“Granted that they seem, in status, to be free men, nevertheless they are
thought to be slaves of the ground for which they have been born and they have not
the capacity of departing whither they wish.”1 This imperial decree under Honorius
and Theodosius in the late Roman Empire describes the status of the colonate, a
juridical class of tenant farmers often compared with slaves that was defined in the
fourth century. While no clear legal definition was ever given for coloni, laws and
legal communications defined many parameters of their residency. For example, the
previous quote speaks of the colonate much like they were slaves. They are called
“slaves of the ground” and have no ability to leave. Here is the key difference
between slaves and coloni; where slaves were bound to their masters, coloni were
bound to a piece of land. At first glance the status of the colonate seems to be quite
comparable to the status of slaves, but the intricacies reveal that coloni were very
different from slaves and clearly a separate class.
Who was part of the colonate? Recent debates over terminology question
whether the coloni should be considered tenant farmers or estate workers.2
However, we do know that these individuals were rural farm workers originally
bound to the land they worked through the capitatio, a tax based on the Roman
1 William Linn Westermann, "Between Slavery and Freedom," American Historical Review
50, no. 2: page 223, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1842351.
2 Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), page 153-155.
2. 2
census. The capitatio, enacted by Diocletian, required workers to pay taxes based on
their place of origin.3 In the early stages of the Roman Empire, the coloni were
simply farmers who had legal contracts to work their land called locatio-conductio.
Most scholarly work, however, focuses on the rise of the colonate in the later
empire, when the colonate was seen as comparable to, and debatably replacing, the
institution of slavery. Technically free, a colonus was allowed to marry, have a
family, and live without fear of his landlord. However, the purpose of his life was to
produce harvests and pay taxes to the state and rent to his landlord, not to pursue
his own happiness.4
There were three ways a laborer could become a colonus. Originally, if one
had a single parent who was a colonus, or if both parents were, then the child would
also become part of the colonate. Children were not forced to pay the capitatio tax
from birth, but were instead listed on the census when they were born and began
paying the tax when they came of age. After inheritance, the colonus status was
nearly impossible to remove. From 419 until the reign of Justinian, the rule of thirty
years’ prescription allowed tenants that were freed from their land by their landlord
for thirty years to become free of the colonus bond. Valentinian III adjusted the rule
so that a colonus who left his farm with the approval of his landlord would simply
become a bound tenant of whoever was his new landlord. Justinian finally abolished
3 A.H.M. Jones, "The Roman Colonate," Past and Present Society, no. 13: page 3,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/649865.
4 C.R. Whittaker and Peter Garnsey, "Rural Life in the Later Roman Empire," in The Late
Empire, A.D. 337-427, ed. Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, vol. 13 of Cambridge Histories
Online (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), page 287-292, accessed November
27, 2011, doi:1017/CHOL9780521302005.010.
3. 3
the rule in the entire empire, and the only way one could obtain relief from his
colonus status was by becoming a bishop.5
Anastasius passed another law of thirty years, stating that a tenant who
stayed on a parcel of land for thirty years would become a colonus of the land.6 The
status could also be legally imposed. For example, some immigrants and prisoners
of war were allowed to be residents of the Roman Empire. They were legally tied to
the land in their admission and their landlords were not allowed to exploit them like
slaves. The state could also impose coloni status on beggars, vagrants, and
nonconformist residents.7
The creation of a colonate began with the empire, government, taxes, and
need for revenue. Agriculture and rural lands were a key part of taxation for the
state. Although many taxes were paid in cash, in kind payments were common and
necessary for food supply, particularly in Africa and Egypt. Diocletian imposed an
annona taxation system with guidelines that accounted for the type of crop, the
quality of the land, and the region’s agricultural productivity. Landowners paid the
tax based not on their actual production of goods, but on the classification of the
land they owned. These owners were also then tied to their land, for they could not
escape paying taxes by not growing crops or by leaving. Under the system of the
colonate, the same owners had to pay taxes on the land they owned which was
5 A.H.M. Jones, "The Roman Colonate," Past and Present Society, no. 13: page 8-9,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/649865.
6 Ibid, page 9.
7 C.R. Whittaker and Peter Garnsey, "Rural Life in the Later Roman Empire," in The Late
Empire, A.D. 337-427, ed. Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, vol. 13 of Cambridge Histories
Online (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), page 290-291, accessed November
27, 2011, doi:1017/CHOL9780521302005.010.
4. 4
cultivated by the colonate as well as the capitatio tax for each colonus on their land.
If the coloni frequently moved and deserted their landlords, the owners would not
have any way to pay taxes to the government, producing a domino effect on
government revenues. To ensure stability of revenue, the state prohibited the coloni
from moving away from their farms. They would have to remain there and stay
active in keeping crops productive.8
Gradually in the fourth century, legal texts restricted the coloni themselves to
pieces of land. Individuals became registered as coloni, which meant they would pay
their capitatio taxes themselves. Constantine, in his constitution of 332, outlined the
first restrictions of coloni and landowners. It became illegal to rent land to a tenant
who was a colonus to another landowner, and coloni could not legally leave the land
to which they were bound. The landowner who originally controlled the deserting
colonus had the legal ability to recall him. Although the Roman rulers placed these
restrictions on the fundamental rights of the coloni to decide where they lived, they
also created codes to help the colonate adhere to necessary taxation. These rules
were set primarily to benefit the state in terms of gaining revenue, but they also
benefitted the individuals of the colonate by aiding agricultural productivity.
Farmers were exempt from any supplementary state and liturgical duties if they
were generating crops. Anyone who removed oxen from the property of farmers for
public use was punished. Farmers also did not have to pay import taxes on
agricultural equipment. Constantine in particular emphasized the importance of
agricultural production and in times of harvest and sowing exempted farmers from
8Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 2007), page 163-167.
5. 5
all liturgical duties. An intriguing rule under Honorius involved the debts of coloni; if
such debts existed the coloni were to prioritize agriculture over the debts and were
not allowed to be called away to pay the debts. Loans and grants were even given to
some coloni to purchase domesticated animals or equipment.9
Several scholars argue that the status of the colonate was significantly
diminished in the fourth and fifth centuries. Called “slaves of the land” in 393,10 the
capitatio tax was removed but because coloni were coloni, they still had no right to
move between lands. After this statement, one quote from Justinian asked if there
was a difference between coloni and slaves. Rights the colonate previously enjoyed
were taken away, such as “to dispose of their own property or marry as they
wished.”11 The coloni began to resemble slaves as the landowners became more like
masters. It appears that the restriction of these sorts of freedoms would not impact
the ability of the state to collect taxes, so there had to be another reason for them.
Peter Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker refute the idea that the decline in slavery and
further decline in labor supply was the cause. They propose that the limitations on
colonate rights were an attempt to appease landowners and encourage them to take
on new “emphyteutic” land leases.12 Emphyteutic leases required the landowner to
make improvements to the property,13 which would be a disincentive to maintain
these leases as rents paid by coloni were fixed. Landowners would be more easily
9 Ibid, page 168-173.
10 C.R. Whittaker and Peter Garnsey, "Rural Life in the Later Roman Empire," in The Late
Empire, A.D. 337-427, ed. Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, vol. 13 of Cambridge Histories
Online (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), page 288, accessed November 27,
2011, doi:1017/CHOL9780521302005.010.
11 Ibid, 289.
12 Ibid, 288-290.
13 Merriam-Webster Online, s.v. "Emphyteutic," accessed November 27, 2011.
6. 6
persuaded to adopt the system if they had more control over the lessees.
Additionally, according to Pliny, short-term contracts were becoming overwhelming
and complicated from debt. Legislation restricting coloni was further supported by
the actions of wealthy landowners who took in fugitive coloni. This violation harmed
either the previous landlord of the colonus or the state by tangling the chain of labor
and revenues.14
In Justinian’s codes, clear differences are named between the “free” colonate
and the adscripticii, which was a lower class of coloni with many less rights. The
“free” coloni were obligated to live on their leased land and farm it, paying their own
taxes. They were tied to the land, but had few other restrictions. The adscripticii, in
contrast, were in a position of involuntary servitude, nearly slaves. Besides
performing duties on the estate and remaining on and working the land, an
adscripticius also could not litigate against his landlord or hold a peculium, meaning
that his property was not his own. Rather, it was the property of his estate owner.
He and his family also had to be under the potestas of his landlord.15
The landlord’s power over the coloni was unlimited in that the coloni had to
work the land, but also limited in that he was not their master. If a landowner
wished to sell his estate, he would relinquish control over the coloni, who stayed on
the land. Even when it was not profitable for the landlord, he was required by law to
keep the coloni on his land. In addition, when land was sold, the new owner had to
14 C.R. Whittaker and Peter Garnsey, "Rural Life in the Later Roman Empire," in The Late
Empire, A.D. 337-427, ed. Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, vol. 13 of Cambridge Histories
Online (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), page 288-291, accessed November
27, 2011, doi:1017/CHOL9780521302005.010.
15 A.J.B. Sirks, "The Colonate in Justinian's Reign," Journal of Roman Studies, no. 98: page 134,
accessed November 27, 2011, doi:10.3815/007543508786238987.
7. 7
accept all coloni already residing there. These laws provided a benefit for the
colonate in that they could not be taken away from their land at the owner’s will, as
a slave could be. The rent the coloni had to pay also could not be raised by the
owner, which irritated colonus-landowner relations. Landowners did not see a
reason to improve their properties, as they could not gain more income from doing
so. They tried to force the coloni to work harder, but the coloni would gain nothing
from cooperating and would lose nothing by not cooperating. The coloni could,
essentially, use the land as they saw fit as long as their taxes were paid. The
deteriorated relationship of the colonus and landowner was probably a reason it
was necessary for the state to create a large amount of legislation on what would
happen if coloni left the land to which they were bound. Because the original
landowner could be held responsible for capitatio taxes on the coloni, if these
workers left the land the landowner may have no way of paying the tax. In turn,
whoever the coloni left to work for would not have to pay the tax but would be
gaining laborers, and the entire system would be compromised. With so many faults
in the coordination and enforcement of the colonate, the state had to improve
conditions for all drastically. In 419, for example, the law under Honorius created a
thirty-year statute of limitations for penalties against fugitive coloni and their new
landlords.16 In a pessimistic view, the conditions created by the state, landlord, and
colonate reacted against each other with tension evident of the declining economic
landscape of the Roman Empire.
16Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 2007), page 171-185.
8. 8
If the colonate had certain rights, but were limited in others, how similar
were they to slaves of late antiquity? Several important differences separate the
colonate from slaves, both figuratively and in practice. Kyle Harper calls Roman
society “a society familiar with slavery as a matter not only of commodification, but
also of dishonor and domination.”17 The sale of a slave defines slavery for some; sale
of a slave is taking action that requires the belief that a human body is property.
Originally the rationalization for slavery was that military conquests allowed
masters to “save” slaves instead of killing them, but this façade was not a permanent
justification as masters continued to sell human bodies. In Rome and its empire,
commercial markets were a natural, matter-of-fact place for slavery to take place.
The slave’s body was not his own; it belonged to his master.18
The sale of slaves and the conversion of a human being to property was a
place of dishonor in Roman society. Honor was incredibly important in Roman
culture. Slaves were subject to a position even below dishonor; they were
considered outside the entire hierarchy of honor. The core symbol of identity, a
name, was taken away and replaced. Both genders experienced dishonor, but in
different ways. A male slave was not allowed to be seen as masculine, and a female
slave could not keep her body for herself, the ultimate dishonor.19 Daily life was
saddled with moments of involuntary inferiority, constantly reminding the slave
that he or she had no honor.
17 Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), page 36.
18 Ibid, page 34-36.
19 Ibid, page 36.
9. 9
Domination was a third major part of the identity of a slave. The Roman jurist
Florentinus defined slavery for the law as “an institution of the law of nations, by
which one person is subjected against nature to the dominium of another.”20
Florentinus admitted that slavery was against nature, but accepted it as part of
Roman society. A Roman master had complete and utter control over his slave’s life,
peculium, family relationships, and work duties. The slave, in a master’s eye, solely
served the purposes of the master. Whether the slave was an important figure in
working the land, running a master’s business, or simply as a symbol of wealth, the
slave was dominated. Rome and its empire became a total slave society, with
complete control over slaves’ lives.21
There is often debate over the status of helots as a category of slaves. This is
not the case for the colonate. Coloni have attributes very distinct from the
characteristics of slaves. Taking into consideration the three traits of
commodification, dishonor, and domination, the only one that may be borderline for
coloni is domination. The colonate was certainly not viewed as a commodity in itself.
While coloni had restricted mobility for the reason of raising revenue for the state,
unlike slaves they could not be bought or sold. The “master” of a colonus, the land,
was even permanently attached to the colonus; land to which a colonus was bound
could not be sold away from the colonus. The colonate was also not innately
dishonorable, as slaves were. Coloni could definitely commit acts that would make
them dishonorable, but legislators speak of them of as a class completely above
slaves. Except for the later antiquity adscripticii, there was a significant gap between
20 Ibid, page 34.
21 Ibid, page 34-38.
10. 10
the honor of slaves and the colonate. Much of the dishonor of slaves also had to do
with their inability to control their sale; again, the colonate was not subject to that
commodification. In terms of domination, the coloni did have to adhere to some
limitations. They were restricted to the land, and they had to pay taxes to the state
as well as paying rent to the landlord, whether this was in cash or in kind. However,
the few kinds of control the landlord did have are compared to those of a creditor
over a debtor.22 The landowner did not have the right to physically punish the
colonus as he could a slave, could not separate the colonus from his family, and
ultimately did not have the absolute control masters had over slaves. The only
master a colonus may have had was the land, but the land is unable to dominate a
human laborer both mentally and physically as a master could a slave.
Another characteristic worth considering is the origo of a coloni. The origo
was a binding region for all Romans, not simply the colonate. Although modern
scholars may interpret “bound to the land” as a harsh restriction on the freedom of
the colonate, the term is relatively understood. Romans of every class were
considered part of their hometown, or patria, for public tasks. The local government
could call Romans back to their origo for certain duties or for the legal system. Even
wealthy landowners had a specific place of registration.23 So although in the
contemporary world such a constraint appears overly severe for someone not a
slave, it was simply a part of the world of Rome.
22Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 2007), page 171.
23 A.J.B. Sirks, "The Colonate in Justinian's Reign," Journal of Roman Studies, no. 98: page
126, accessed November 27, 2011, doi:10.3815/007543508786238987.
11. 11
Therefore the colonate was a group distinct from slaves, but what was their
interaction with slavery? Several historians see the colonate as a type of
replacement for slavery as slavery in the empire declined in late antiquity. However,
the evidence does not show that the absolute number of slaves decreased. Slavery
on farms, where the colonate worked, was most prevalent in Italy itself, but not very
common in the surrounding Roman Empire. Frequently slaves were used as
business managers for the wealthy and as domestic workers in more urban areas. In
Italy, slaves did perform farm labor. Sources such as Symmachus’s letters and the
Edict of Theodoric imply that the prevalence of slavery in Italy was still strong in the
later empire, without hint of decline at all, much less a decline due to the rise of the
colonate. However, slaves were beginning to be used in different ways. They became
more like the colonate in that many were used as tenants. Some had families and
lived in their own homes, paying rent instead of being worked as hard as the master
desired. The slaveowners with the largest holdings, such as Melania and Pinarius,
had enormous amounts of slaves spread over many different villulae. In an extreme
view, Palladius is thought to have believed that slaves and coloni performed the
same kind of work and were treated in the same way as tenants. Whittaker and
Garnsey do believe, however, that the centralized villa system of working slaves as
existed in earlier Rome still had many participants in the late empire. They cede that
the general tendencies shifted to a more tenant-focused structure of slavery.24
24C.R. Whittaker and Peter Garnsey, "Rural Life in the Later Roman Empire," in The Late
Empire, A.D. 337-427, ed. Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, vol. 13 of Cambridge Histories
Online (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), page 294-296, accessed November
27, 2011, doi:1017/CHOL9780521302005.010.
12. 12
The existence of the colonate in the late empire necessarily brought about
changes in how landowners sought to work their land. Harper distinguishes the
three kinds of labor available: slavery, tenancy (including the colonate), and wage
labor. While slavery allowed intense control over the labor force, it was costly for
owners to buy the slaves and maintain the kind of control needed. Tenancy did not
afford some owners enough control, while wage labor was also expensive.25 . Harper
believes that many estate owners found slavery the most beneficial, leading to a
peak of agricultural slavery in the fourth century.26 His desire to leave the colonate
out of his argument (due to its supposed overexposure in academia) left gaping
holes in his model for the rural labor force.
How did the Roman Empire’s creation of the colonate as a juridical class
affect the empire as a whole, then? Numerous theories have been proposed and
subsequently discarded. We have already seen how Harper refutes the hypothesis
that the colonate grew as slavery declined, forming a replacement in labor for the
institution of slavery. Other scholars believed that the colonate represented a
transition to medieval serfdom, caught between the slave society of Rome and the
feudal systems of the Middle Ages. Today, however, nearly all agree that Jean-Michel
Carrie significantly undermined these concepts.27 Whether one takes a pessimistic
or optimistic view of the colonate’s role in late antiquity is now vital. On the surface,
the colonate can certainly be seen as just one way in which Rome over-governed its
citizens. Too frequent restrictions may have led to increasing tension that the
25 Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), page 153-155.
26 Ibid, page 178-9.
27 Ibid, page 154.
13. 13
empire simply could not overcome. However, the way Dennis Kehoe explains the
state’s actions portrays Rome in a much better light. If the restrictions on the
colonate did not exist, the taxation system would be compromised. In order for the
government to run smoothly, the requirement that landlords pay taxes for their
tenants must be feasible. In a period of decline, the state had to create new ways of
maintaining government. If it had not, the empire may have imploded much more
quickly. The Roman emperors, in binding coloni to the land, were not entangling the
empire in red tape, but smartly adapting legislation to very real changes in the rural
system.28
28 Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 2007), page 180-181.