Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/145

On the Roman ColmiL 135 encourage and to uphold them as a class ; and this was also one of the motives why the landlord was prohibited from arbitrarily severing the colomis from his estate. Indeed several expressions might lead one to believe that the erection of the whole class had proceeded originally from the distri- bution of the multitude who were without property 5 among the landowners, purely for the sake of the revenue ^^ : this however from other grounds is very improbable, and at the utmost can only have been the case in certain countries and at particular times. It remains for me to speak of the way in which a colonus ceast to be one. The practice with regard to slaves might at first induce us to expect that he might be set free by the will of his landlord, acting either at his own absolute discretion, or at all events with the consent of the colonus himself. Yet nothing of the sort is anywhere mentioned ^^ : and this may easily be accounted for from the abovementioned prohibition against separating a colonus from the estate. For the same motives which stood in the way of the sale of a colo7ius^ would likewise oppose his being set free ; nor was there anything like the same urgent reasons for liberating him, as for the slaves. On the other hand we find mention of two cases in which the bond of a colonus might be dis- solved by prescription, when he had lived for a certain time either as a free man, or under another master. The term assigned in both cases was originally thirty years for men, twenty for women : and with regard to the second case a more specific provision was added, that, if a man had lived with several landlords in succession^ the one under whom he had ^^ L. 26. C. Theod. de annona (xi. 1) : Nullum gratia relevet : nullum iniquae partitionis vexet incommodum, sed pari omnes sorte teneantur : ita tamen, ut, si ad alterius personam transferatur praedium, cui certus plebis numerus fuerit adscriptuSy venditi onera novellus possessor compellatur agnoscere. 9^ Indeed the expression used in L. 21. C. J. de agric. (xi. 47) seems to point out pretty clearly that it was inadmissible : et possit {dominies) servum cum peculio manu- mittere, et adscriptitium cum terra dominio suo expellere. So that he could not do it sine terra. In the whole passage there is a design to bring out the resemblance between the coloni and the slaves : this is the reason why the manumission of the slaves cum peculio is mentioned, because this could certainly be in some measure com- pared to the disposing of the colonus along with his farm, whereas there was nothing connected with the coloni analogous to the manumissio sine peculio^ which unquestion- ably was equally admissible.