APPENDIX.SOME BYZANTINE AUTHORITIES.
To follow up the history of agricultural labour under the so-called Byzantine empire, after the Roman empire had fallen in the West, is beyond my scope. Yet there are certain matters on which light is thrown by surviving documents that it is hardly possible wholly to ignore. That the position of the agricultural classes did not follow the same lines of development in East and West, is in itself a fact worth noting, though not surprising. It may be said to run parallel with the general fate of the two sections of the once Roman world. In the West[1823]the growth of what we call Feudalism and the rise of new nation-states are the phenomena that in the course of centuries gradually produced our modern Europe. In the East the Empire long preserved its organization, declining in efficiency and power, but rallying again and again, serving as a bulwark of Christian Europe, and not extinguished finally till 1453. It might perhaps have been guessed that the conditions of rustic life would undergo some change, for the system of the later Roman colonate was already shewing signs of coming failure in the time of Arcadius and Honorius. The need of some system more favourable to individual energy and enterprise, more to be trusted for production of food, was surely not to be ignored. Food must have been a need of extreme urgency, with armies constantly engaged in northern or eastern wars, and the mouths of Constantinople ever hungry at home. After the Saracen conquest of Egypt in the seventh century, the food-resources on which the government could rely must have been seriously reduced, and the need greater than ever. Thus we are not to wonder if we find indications of great interest taken in agriculture, and direct evidence of reversion to a better land-system than that of the later Roman colonate.
The curious collection known asGeoponica[1824]comes down to us in a text attributed to the tenth century, which is supposed to be a badly-edited version of an earlier work probably of the sixth or early seventh century. It is in a scrap-book form, consisting of precepts on a vast number of topics, the matter under each heading being professedly drawn from the doctrine of some author or authors whose names are prefixed. Some of these are Byzantine writers, others of much earlier date, including Democritus and Hippocrates, and the Roman Varro. Modern critics consider these citations of names untrustworthy, the collector or editor having dealt very carelessly with the work of his predecessors. I canonly say that an examination of the chapters that are of special interest to me fully bears out this censure. I would add that a reference to the index shews that Cato Columella Pliny (elder) and Palladius are never cited, and express my suspicion that the omission of names is not always a proof that those authors were disregarded as sources. The general character of the work is unscientific and feeble, abounding in quackery and superstition. Technical and dogmatic, it has nevertheless an air of unreality, perhaps due in part to the later editor, but probably in part to the original compiler, whose name is given as Cassianus Bassus, a lawyer (σχολαστικός), apparently a Byzantine.
It has been remarked that the cultivation of corn fills but a small space in the Geoponica, being evidently quite a subordinate department of farm-life as there contemplated. Is this an indication that Constantinople was still drawing plenty of corn from Egypt, and may we infer that this feature is due to the original compiler, writing before the loss of that granary-province? I do not venture to answer the question.
The passages interesting from my point of view occur in the second book, where some reference, scanty and obscure though it be, is made to labour and labourers. A chapter (2) on the classes of labourers suited for various kinds of work is a good specimen of this unsatisfactory treatise. It is labelled Βάρωνος, but we may well hesitate to ascribe the substance to Varro. The rules given are for the most part quite commonplace, and I cannot trace them in Varro’sres rustica. On the other hand some of them correspond to precepts of Columella. Whether this is their real source, or whether they are traditional rules handed down carelessly by previous compilers, perhaps on even earlier authority, I see no sure means of determining. The doctrine that boys (παῖδες) should be employed in field-labour (ἐργασία), to watch and learn from their experienced elders, and the remark that their suppleness fits them better for stooping jobs (weeding etc.), is new to me. Varro[1825]at least puts the minimum age for field-hands at 22. Perhaps this doctrine comes from some later authority, of a time when the old supply of adult field-hands was evidently failing.
Another chapter, labelled as drawn from Florentinus (? first half of third century), deals with the qualifications and duties of the ἐπίτροπος or οἰκονόμος, the Romanvilicus. This chapter (44) is also quite commonplace, and can be copiously illustrated out of many authors, from Xenophon and Cato to Columella and Pliny. The exact meaning of one passage (§ 3) is not clear to me, but its general drift is in agreement with the rest. The notable point about the chapter is that it discusses the steward and his staff as forming the ordinary establishment of a farm. Are we to infer that this system was normal at the time when the compiler put together the precepts under this head? Or is this a case of unintelligent compilation, a mere passing-on of doctrines practically obsolete by a town-bred writer in his study? I cannot tell. The consideration of further details may give some help towards a judgment.
The next chapter (45), with the same label, treats of the steward’s diary and the organization of the hands (ἐργάται). The main doctrine is that every day must have its task, and every plan be punctually carried out, since one delayupsets the whole course (τὴν τῆς ἐργασίας τάξιν) and is bad for both crops and land. This again is stale enough, and may be illustrated from Cato and Columella. The rules for organizing the hands in groups of suitable size, so as to get a maximum of efficiency with a minimum of overseers, agree closely with what we find in Columella. Thus there is a strong probability that the labour intended is that of slaves.
In chapter 46, with same label, the subject is one of scale (περὶ μέτρου ἐργασίας), the expression of several operations in terms of labour-units (ἐργασίαι,operae). This also is an old story, capable of much illustration from earlier writers. The work contemplated is that of a vineyard. The way in which the hands (ἐργάται) are referred to is more suited to a slave-staff than to wage-earners.
So too in chapter 47, with same label. It is περὶ τῆς τῶν γεωργῶν ὑγιείας, enjoining general care of the men’s health and prescribing remedies for various ailments. It seems taken for granted that the hands will submit to the treatment imposed. Remembering the traditional interest of the master in his slaves’ health, we can hardly doubt that slaves are meant here.
Chapter 48, labelled as drawn from Didymus (? fourth or fifth century), is a warning against ill-considered transplantation from better spots to less wholesome ones. The reverse order is the right one. This rule applies not only to plants (φυτά) but to farm-workers (γεωργόι) also. The principle can be traced back to earlier writers. It seems assumed that the men, like the plants, can be removed at the master’s will. Probably slaves are meant, and we may recall the objections of Varro and Columella to risking slave-property in malarious spots.
Chapter 49, labelled Βάρωνος, asserts the necessity of keeping such artisans as smiths carpenters and potters on the farm or near at hand. The tools have to be kept in good order, and visits to the town waste time. That this precept comes from VarroI16 §§ 3, 4, seems more than doubtful: reference will shew that the passages differ considerably.
I would add that the argument prefixed to bookIII, a farmer’s calendar, at least in Beckh’s text, gives a list of the months from January to December, attaching to each Roman name the corresponding Egyptian one. The editor apparently accepts this double list as genuine. If it be so, has the fact any bearing on the relations between Constantinople and Egypt referred to above?
The so-called ‘Farmer’s Law,’ νόμος γεωργικός, is now assigned by the critics to the time of the Iconoclast emperors, say about 740AD. It is an official document of limited scope, not a general regulative code governing agricultural conditions in all parts of the eastern empire. Its text origin arrangement and the bearing of its evidence have been much discussed, and it will suffice here to refer to the articles of Mr Ashburner[1826]on the subject. Whatconcerns me is the position of farmers under the Byzantine empire in the eighth century as compared with that of the fourth or fifth centurycoloni, and the different lines of development followed by country life in East and West. Therefore it is only necessary to consider some of the main features of the picture revealed to us by various details of the Farmer’s Law.
The first point that strikes a reader is that the serf[1827]colonushas apparently disappeared. Land is held by free owners, who either themselves provide for its cultivation or let it to tenants who take over that duty. The normal organization is in districts (χωρία) each of which contains a number of landowners, who either farm their own land or, if short of means (ἄποροι), let it to other better-equipped farmers of the same district. Thus the transactions are locally limited, and the chief object of the law is to prevent misdeeds that might prejudicially affect the prosperity of the local farmers. These are in a sense partners or commoners (κοινωνοί), the ‘commonalty’ (κοινότης) of the district, which is a taxation-unit with its members jointly liable. The district seems to be regarded as originally common and then divided into members’ lots, with a part reserved perhaps as common pasture. Redivision is contemplated, and the lots seem to belong rather to the family than to the individual. To judge from the tone of the rules, it seems certain that the farmers and their families are a class working with their own hands. But there are also wage-earning labourers, and slaves owned or hired for farm work. Tenancy on shares, like the partiary system in Roman Law, appears as an established practice, and in one passage (clause 16) Mr Ashburner detects a farmer employed at a salary, in short amercennarius.
Thus we find existing what are a kind of village communities, the landowning farmers in which are free to let land to each other and also to exchange farms if they see fit to do so. How far they are free to flit from one commune to another remains doubtful. And there is no indication that they are at liberty to dispose of their own land-rights to outsiders. There appears however side by side with these communal units another system of tenancies in which individual farmers hire land from great landlords. Naturally the position of such tenants is different from that of tenants under communal owners: the matter is treated at some length by Mr Ashburner. What proportion the corn crop generally bore to other produce in the agriculture of the Byzantine empire contemplated by these regulations, the document does not enable us to judge. Vineyards and figyards were clearly an important department, and also gardens for vegetables and fruit. Live stock, and damage done to them and by them, are the subject of many clauses, nor is woodland forgotten. But the olive does not appear. So far as one may guess, the farming was probably of a mixed character. The penalties assigned for offences are often barbarous, including not only death by hanging or burning but blinding and other mutilations of oriental use. At the same time the ecclesiastical spirit of the Eastern empire finds expression in the bestowal of a curse on one guilty of cheating, referring I suppose primarily to undiscovered fraud.
The state of things inferred from the provisions of the ‘Farmer’s Law’ is so remarkable in itself, and so different from the course of rustic development in the West, that we are driven to seek an explanation of some kind. Many influences may have contributed to produce so striking a differentiation. But one can hardly help suspecting that there was some one great influence at work in the eastern empire, to which the surprising change noted above was mainly due. In hisHistory of the later Roman Empire[1828]Professor Bury has offered a conjectural solution of the problem. It is to be sought in the changes brought about in the national character and the external history of the Empire. Since the middle of the sixth century north-west Asia Minor and the Balkan country had been filled with Slavonic settlers, and other parts with other new colonists. Now the new settlers, particularly the Slavs, were not used to the colonate system or the rigid bond of hereditary occupations, and emperors busied in imperial defence on the North and East knew better than to force upon them an unwelcome system. Invasions had reduced the populations of frontier provinces and shattered the old state of serfdom. Resettlement on a large scale had to be carried out within the empire, and under new conditions to suit the changed character of the population. Among the new elements that produced this change the most important was the coming of the Slavs.
For the Slavs had themselves no institution corresponding to the Germanlaeti. Slaves indeed they had, but not free cultivators attached to the soil. Therefore they could not, like the Germans in the West, adapt themselves to the Roman colonate; accordingly their intrusion led to its abolition. In support of this view the well-known Slavonic peasant communities are cited as evidence. Nor can it be denied that this consideration has some weight. But, while we may provisionally accept the conclusion that Slavonic influences had something, perhaps much, to do with the new turn given to the conditions of rustic life in the East, we must not press it so far as to infer that the colonate-system was extinct there. In no case could the ‘Farmer’s Law’ fairly be used to prove the negative: and moreover it is apparently the case according to Mr Ashburner that the document is not a complete agricultural code for all agricultural classes within the empire. If it is ‘concerned exclusively with a village community, composed of farmers who cultivate their own lands,’ it cannot prove the non-existence of other rustic conditions different in kind. Colonate seems to have disappeared, while slavery has not. But that is the utmost we can say. The slave at least is still there. As to the important question, whether the farmers contemplated in the Law enjoy a real freedom of movement, as has been thought, it is best to refer a reader to the cautious reserve of Mr Ashburner.
The one general inference that I venture to draw from these two authorities is that, however much or little the conditions of agriculture may have changed in the surviving Eastern part of the Roman empire, the employment of slave labour still remained.
(1)Hume, EssayXI,Of the populousness of antient nations.
We must now consider what disadvantages the antients lay under with regard to populousness, and what checks they received from their political maxims and institutions. There are commonly compensations in every human condition; and tho’ these compensations be not always perfectly equal, yet they serve, at least, to restrain the prevailing principle. To compare them and estimate their influence, is indeed very difficult, even where they take place in the same age, and in neighbouring countries: But where several ages have intervened, and only scattered lights are afforded us by antient authors; what can we do but amuse ourselves by talking,proandcon, on an interesting subject, and thereby correcting all hasty and violent determinations?
(2)Bolton King and Thomas Okey,Italy today.
InItaly today, MessrsBolton King and Thomas Okeyfurnish a most interesting collection of facts relative to Italian rural conditions. The extent to which the phenomena of antiquity reappear in the details of this careful treatise is most striking. Italy being the central land of my inquiry, and convinced as I am that the great variety of local conditions is even now not sufficiently recognized in Roman Histories, this excellent book is of peculiar value. In the course of (say) fifteen centuries Italy and her people have passed through strange vicissitudes, not merely political: a great change has taken place in the range of agricultural products: yet old phenomena of rural life meet the inquirer at every turn. Surely this cannot be dismissed lightly as a casual coincidence. I cannot find room to set out the resemblances in detail, so I append a short table of reference to passages in the book that have impressed me most. Supplementary to this, as a vivid illustration of conditions in a mountain district, the first three chapters ofIn the Abruzzi, byAnne Macdonell, are decidedly helpful. For instance, it appears that the old migratory pasturage still existed in full force down to quite recent times, but the late conversion of much Apulian lowland from pasture to tillage has seriously affected the position of the highland shepherds by reducing the area available for winter grazing. The chapter on brigandage has also some instructive passages.
References toItaly today.
Peasant contrasted with wage-earner, pp 64-6, 72, 74, 126, 166-8, 171-2, 175-6, 200, 312, and Index undermezzaiuoliandpeasants. Agricultural classes, pp 164-6. Partiaries, pp 168, 173. Emphyteusis, p 173. Improvements, p 173. Farming through steward, pp 174-5. Tenancies, pp 168-74, and Index underpeasants. Rents in kind, p 171. Debt of various classes, pp 182-4, 366, 376. Taxes, p 140. Gangs of labourers, pp 166, 376. Wages, pp 126, 128, 168, 174, 366, 369-71. Food in wage, p 370. Emigration, pp 371, 396. Self-help in rural districts, pp 184-6, 376. Charities, pp 220 foll, 379 foll. Socialists and Peasantry, pp 64-6, 170, 172, cf 71-2.
(3)R E Prothero,The pleasant land of France. London 1908.
Chapters (essays)IIandIII,French farmingandTenant-right and agrarian outrage in France, contain much of interest.
pp 91-2 Social advantages of the system of peasant proprietors. A training[1829]to the rural population. Element of stability. The answer to agitators ‘Cela est bien, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin.’ Difficulties which beset its artificial creation.Métayage(under present conditions) has proved the best shelter for tenant-farmers against the agricultural storm. Need of implicit confidence between landlord and working partner.
pp 98-9 Tenant-right in Santerre (Picardy). Tenant considers himself a co-proprietor of the land. Former payment of rent in kind taken to be a sign of joint ownership. Now in money, but calculated upon market price of corn. Landlord’s loss of control. High money value ofdroit de marché.
p 104 Traces of Roman occupation. Roman soldier followed by farmer. ‘Under the empire thecolonuswas not a slave, but the owner of slaves: he held his land in perpetuity; he could not leave it. He paid a fixed rent in kind, which could not be raised. Tenant-right therefore is explained as the recognition by the Frankish conquerors of this hereditary claim to the perpetual occupation of the soil.’ [One of the various explanations offered.]
p 119 Severe legislation failed to get rid of tenant-right, but since 1791 it has been recognized, and so its importance decreased. Under theancien régimeleases were short—9 years—and precarious. They were governed by the Roman law maximemptori fundi necesse non est stare colonum. That is, if property changed hands during the continuance of the lease, the new owner might evict the tenant. TheCode Civilconfirms law of 1791—dispossession only if provision has been made (in lease) for it.
In general, land-tenures vary very greatly in the various provinces.
(4)G G Coulton,Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation. Cambridge 1918.
In SectionVIManor and Cottageare a number of extracts throwing light on the rustic conditions of their times.
1.A model Manorpp 301-6, describing the organization of an estate, with the duties of the several officials and departmental servants. Watchful diligence and economy, strict accountability and honesty are insisted on, that the rights of the Lord may not be impaired.2.The Manorial court, pp 306-8.3.The peasant’s fare, p 308.4.Incidents of the countryside, p 309.7.Decay of yeomanry, pp 310-12. (Latimer.)8.Decay of husbandry, pp 312-14. (Sir T More.)
1.A model Manorpp 301-6, describing the organization of an estate, with the duties of the several officials and departmental servants. Watchful diligence and economy, strict accountability and honesty are insisted on, that the rights of the Lord may not be impaired.
2.The Manorial court, pp 306-8.
3.The peasant’s fare, p 308.
4.Incidents of the countryside, p 309.
7.Decay of yeomanry, pp 310-12. (Latimer.)
8.Decay of husbandry, pp 312-14. (Sir T More.)
All these passages are of great interest as shewing how a number of phenomenaobservable in the case of ancient estates are repeated under medieval conditions. The typical Manor with its elaborate hierarchy and rules, the struggles of the small yeoman, the encroachments of big landlords, the special difficulties of small-scale tillage caused by growth of large-scale pasturage, the increase of wastrels and sturdy beggars, are all notable points, worthy the attention of a student of ancient farm life and labour.
(5)Clifton Johnson,From the St Lawrence to Virginia. New York 1913, p 21. Chapter on the Adirondack winter.
(Conversation in an up-country store.)
‘I worked for Rockefeller most of that season. You know he has a big estate down below here a ways. There used to be farmhouses—yes and villages on it, but he bought the owners all out, or froze ’em out. One feller was determined not to sell, and as a sample of how things was made uncomfortable for him I heard tell that two men came to his house once and made him a present of some venison. They had hardly gone when the game warden dropped in and arrested him for havin’ venison in his house. All such tricks was worked on him, and he spent every cent he was worth fighting lawsuits. People wa’n’t allowed to fish on the property, and the women wa’n’t allowed to pick berries on it. A good deal of hard feeling was stirred up, and Rockefeller would scoot from the train to his house, and pull the curtains down, ’fraid they’d shoot him. Oh! he was awful scairt.’
(6)Marion L Newbigin DSc,Geographical aspects of Balkan problems. London 1915.
Turks—‘not all their virtues, not all their military strength, have saved them from the slow sapping of vitality due to their divorce alike from the actual tilling of the land and from trade and commerce.... He has been within the (Balkan) peninsula a parasite, chiefly upon the ploughing peasant, and the effect has been to implant in the mind of that peasant a passion for agriculture, for the undisturbed possession of a patch of freehold, which is probably as strong here as it has ever been in the world.’ p 137.
Thessaly—‘the landowners are almost always absentees, appearing only at the time of harvest’ (originally Turks, now mostly Greeks) ‘who have taken little personal interest in the land’ (no great improvement in condition of cultivator). (So in Bosnia—better in Serbia and Bulgaria) ‘lands mostly worked by the peasants on the half-shares system.’ p 175.
Albania—(poverty extreme—temporary emigration of the males, frequent in poor regions) ‘young Albˢ often leave their country during the winter, going to work in Greece or elsewhere as field labourers, and returning to their mountains in the spring.’ pp 183-4.
Generally—small holdings mostly in the Balkan states.
This list does not pretend to be complete. Many other works are referred to here and there in the notes on the text. But I feel bound to mention the names of some, particularly those dealing with conditions that did or still do exist in the modern world. Miscellaneous reading of this kind has been to me a great help in the endeavour to understand the full bearing of ancient evidence, and (I hope) to judge it fairly. It is on the presentation and criticism of that evidence that I depend: for the great handbooks of Antiquities do not help me much. The practice of making a statement and giving in support of it a reference or references is on the face of it sound. But, when the witnesses cited are authors writing under widely various conditions of time and place and personal circumstances, it is necessary whenever possible to appraise each one separately. And when the aim is, not to write a technical treatise on ‘scientific’ lines, but to describe what is a highly important background of a great civilization, a separate treatment of witnesses needs no apology. I cannot cite in detail the references to conditions in a number of countries, for instance India and China, but I have given them by page or chapter so as to be consulted with ease.
M Weber,Die Römische Agrargeschichte, Stuttgart 1891.C Daubeny,Lectures on Roman husbandry, Oxford 1857.Ll Storr-Best,Varro on farming, translated with Introduction commentary and excursus, London 1912.E de Laveleye,Primitive Property, English translation 1878.H Blümner, article ‘Landwirtschaft’ in I Müller’sHandbuchVIii 2, ed 3 pp 533 foll.A E Zimmern,The Greek Commonwealth, Oxford 1911.Büchsenschütz,Besitz und Erwerb, Halle 1869.Columella of Husbandry, translation (anonymous), London 1745.
M Weber,Die Römische Agrargeschichte, Stuttgart 1891.
C Daubeny,Lectures on Roman husbandry, Oxford 1857.
Ll Storr-Best,Varro on farming, translated with Introduction commentary and excursus, London 1912.
E de Laveleye,Primitive Property, English translation 1878.
H Blümner, article ‘Landwirtschaft’ in I Müller’sHandbuchVIii 2, ed 3 pp 533 foll.
A E Zimmern,The Greek Commonwealth, Oxford 1911.
Büchsenschütz,Besitz und Erwerb, Halle 1869.
Columella of Husbandry, translation (anonymous), London 1745.
Adam Smith,Wealth of Nations,passim.H Nissen,Italische Landeskunde, Berlin 1883-1902.K W Nitzsch,Geschichte der Römischen Republik, volII, Leipzig 1885.L Bloch,Soziale Kämpfe im alten Röm, edIIIBerlin 1913.David Hume,Essays, ed 1760 (EssayXIof the populousness of antient nations).J Beloch,Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Römischen Welt, Leipzig 1886.H Francotte,L’Industrie dans la Grèce ancienne, Bruxelles 1900-1.O Seeck,Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Berlin 1897-1913.O Seeck, ‘Die Schatzungsordnung Diocletians,’ inZeitschrift für Social- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte, Weimar 1896.H Schiller,Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit, Gotha 1883-7.S Dill,Roman society in the last century of the Western Empire, London 1898.G Gilbert,Handbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterthümer, volII, Leipzig 1885.
Adam Smith,Wealth of Nations,passim.
H Nissen,Italische Landeskunde, Berlin 1883-1902.
K W Nitzsch,Geschichte der Römischen Republik, volII, Leipzig 1885.
L Bloch,Soziale Kämpfe im alten Röm, edIIIBerlin 1913.
David Hume,Essays, ed 1760 (EssayXIof the populousness of antient nations).
J Beloch,Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Römischen Welt, Leipzig 1886.
H Francotte,L’Industrie dans la Grèce ancienne, Bruxelles 1900-1.
O Seeck,Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Berlin 1897-1913.
O Seeck, ‘Die Schatzungsordnung Diocletians,’ inZeitschrift für Social- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte, Weimar 1896.
H Schiller,Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit, Gotha 1883-7.
S Dill,Roman society in the last century of the Western Empire, London 1898.
G Gilbert,Handbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterthümer, volII, Leipzig 1885.
Several of the books named under other heads deal with legal points, for instance Beauchet, Lipsius, Meier and Schömann, Calderini, M Clerc.
The Digest and Codex Justinianus have been used in the text of Mommsen and P Krüger.
The Codex Theodosianusin text of Mommsen and P M Meyer, Berlin 1905 and in Ritter’s edition of Godefroi, Leipzig 1736-45.P Girard,Textes de droit Romain, ed 4 Paris 1913.F Zulueta, ‘De Patrociniis vicorum,’ in Vinogradoff’sOxford Studies, Oxford 1909.M Rostowzew,Studien zur Geschichte des Römischen Colonates, Leipzig and Berlin 1910.B Heisterbergk,Die Entstehung des Colonats, Leipzig 1876.A Esmein,Mélanges d’histoire du Droit, Paris 1886.Fustel de Coulanges, ‘Le Colonat Romain,’ in hisRecherches sur quelques problèmes d’histoire, Paris 1885.H F Pelham,Essays(NoXIII), Oxford 1911.
The Codex Theodosianusin text of Mommsen and P M Meyer, Berlin 1905 and in Ritter’s edition of Godefroi, Leipzig 1736-45.
P Girard,Textes de droit Romain, ed 4 Paris 1913.
F Zulueta, ‘De Patrociniis vicorum,’ in Vinogradoff’sOxford Studies, Oxford 1909.
M Rostowzew,Studien zur Geschichte des Römischen Colonates, Leipzig and Berlin 1910.
B Heisterbergk,Die Entstehung des Colonats, Leipzig 1876.
A Esmein,Mélanges d’histoire du Droit, Paris 1886.
Fustel de Coulanges, ‘Le Colonat Romain,’ in hisRecherches sur quelques problèmes d’histoire, Paris 1885.
H F Pelham,Essays(NoXIII), Oxford 1911.
I am sorry that inability to procure copies has prevented me from consulting the following works:
Beaudouin,Les grands domaines dans l’empire Romain, Paris 1899.Bolkestein,de colonatu Romano eiusque origine, Amsterdam 1906.
Beaudouin,Les grands domaines dans l’empire Romain, Paris 1899.
Bolkestein,de colonatu Romano eiusque origine, Amsterdam 1906.
A Calderini,La manomissione e la condizione dei liberti in Grecia, Milan 1908.M Clerc,Les métèques Athéniens, Paris 1893.L Beauchet,Droit privé de la République Athénienne, Paris 1897.J H Lipsius,Das Attische Recht etc., Leipzig 1905.Meier und Schömann,Der Attische Process, Berlin 1883-7.Mommsen,Römisches Staatsrecht.G Haenel,Corpus legum, Leipzig 1857.C G Bruns,Fontes Iuris Romani antiqui.Dareste, Haussoullier, Th Reinach,Recueil des inscriptions juridiques Grecques, Paris 1904. (Laws of Gortyn.)Wescher et Foucart,Inscriptions de Delphes, Paris 1863.Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, ‘Demotika der Metöken,’ inHermes1887.
A Calderini,La manomissione e la condizione dei liberti in Grecia, Milan 1908.
M Clerc,Les métèques Athéniens, Paris 1893.
L Beauchet,Droit privé de la République Athénienne, Paris 1897.
J H Lipsius,Das Attische Recht etc., Leipzig 1905.
Meier und Schömann,Der Attische Process, Berlin 1883-7.
Mommsen,Römisches Staatsrecht.
G Haenel,Corpus legum, Leipzig 1857.
C G Bruns,Fontes Iuris Romani antiqui.
Dareste, Haussoullier, Th Reinach,Recueil des inscriptions juridiques Grecques, Paris 1904. (Laws of Gortyn.)
Wescher et Foucart,Inscriptions de Delphes, Paris 1863.
Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, ‘Demotika der Metöken,’ inHermes1887.
H Wallon,Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité, ed 2 Paris 1879.J K Ingram,A history of slavery and serfdom, London 1895.E H Minns,Scythians and Greeks, Cambridge 1913 (pages 438, 440, 461, 465, 471, 567).V A Smith,The early history of India, Oxford 1914 (pages 100-1, 177-8, 441).M S Evans,Black and White in the Southern States, London 1915.”Black and White in South-east Africa, ed 2 London 1916.J E Cairnes,The Slave Power, ed 2 London and Cambridge 1863.W W Buckland,The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge 1908.W E Hardenburg,The Putumayo, the Devil’s Paradise, with extracts from Sir R Casement’s report, London and Leipzig 1912.H W Nevinson,A modern Slavery, London and New York 1906.Sidney Low,Egypt in transition(see underMedieval and Modern conditions).Mrs M A Handley,Roughing it in Southern India, London 1911 (pages 193-4).
H Wallon,Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité, ed 2 Paris 1879.
J K Ingram,A history of slavery and serfdom, London 1895.
E H Minns,Scythians and Greeks, Cambridge 1913 (pages 438, 440, 461, 465, 471, 567).
V A Smith,The early history of India, Oxford 1914 (pages 100-1, 177-8, 441).
M S Evans,Black and White in the Southern States, London 1915.
”Black and White in South-east Africa, ed 2 London 1916.
J E Cairnes,The Slave Power, ed 2 London and Cambridge 1863.
W W Buckland,The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge 1908.
W E Hardenburg,The Putumayo, the Devil’s Paradise, with extracts from Sir R Casement’s report, London and Leipzig 1912.
H W Nevinson,A modern Slavery, London and New York 1906.
Sidney Low,Egypt in transition(see underMedieval and Modern conditions).
Mrs M A Handley,Roughing it in Southern India, London 1911 (pages 193-4).
Books illustrating matters of rustic life, peasant proprietorship, agricultural wage-labour, etc.
Bolton King and Thomas Okey,Italy today, new ed London 1909.R E Prothero,The pleasant land of France, London 1908 (EssaysIIandIII).Anne Macdonell,In the Abruzzi, London 1908 (chapters 1-3).G Renwick,Finland today, London 1911 (pages 59, 60).Sir J D Rees,The real India, London 1908.Marion L Newbigin,Geographical aspects of Balkan problems, London 1915.Ralph Butler,The new eastern Europe, London 1919 (chapterVII).John Spargo,Bolshevism, the enemy of political and industrial democracy, London 1919 (pages 69, 156, 275, 278).W H Dawson,The evolution of modern Germany, London 1908 (chaptersXIII,XIV).P Vinogradoff,The growth of the Manor, ed 2 London 1911.G G Coulton,Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation, Cambridge 1918 (SectionVI).Mary Bateson,Medieval England1066-1350, London 1903.Sidney Low,Egypt in transition, London 1914 (pages 60-2, 240-1).Sidney Low,A vision of India, ed 2 London 1907 (chapterXXIII).Sir A Fraser,Among Indian Rajahs and Ryots, ed 3 London 1912 (pages 185, 191-210).J Macgowan,Men and Manners in modern China, London 1912 (pages 17 foll, 189-96, 275-7).M Augé-Laribé,L’évolution de la France agricole, Paris 1912.
Bolton King and Thomas Okey,Italy today, new ed London 1909.
R E Prothero,The pleasant land of France, London 1908 (EssaysIIandIII).
Anne Macdonell,In the Abruzzi, London 1908 (chapters 1-3).
G Renwick,Finland today, London 1911 (pages 59, 60).
Sir J D Rees,The real India, London 1908.
Marion L Newbigin,Geographical aspects of Balkan problems, London 1915.
Ralph Butler,The new eastern Europe, London 1919 (chapterVII).
John Spargo,Bolshevism, the enemy of political and industrial democracy, London 1919 (pages 69, 156, 275, 278).
W H Dawson,The evolution of modern Germany, London 1908 (chaptersXIII,XIV).
P Vinogradoff,The growth of the Manor, ed 2 London 1911.
G G Coulton,Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation, Cambridge 1918 (SectionVI).
Mary Bateson,Medieval England1066-1350, London 1903.
Sidney Low,Egypt in transition, London 1914 (pages 60-2, 240-1).
Sidney Low,A vision of India, ed 2 London 1907 (chapterXXIII).
Sir A Fraser,Among Indian Rajahs and Ryots, ed 3 London 1912 (pages 185, 191-210).
J Macgowan,Men and Manners in modern China, London 1912 (pages 17 foll, 189-96, 275-7).
M Augé-Laribé,L’évolution de la France agricole, Paris 1912.
H Baerlein,Mexico, the land of unrest, London 1914 (chaptersVIII,XI).F L Olmsted,A journey in the seaboard slave States(1853-4), ed 2 New York 1904 (pages 240, 282, volIIpages 155, 198, 237).H R Helper,The impending crisis of the South (economic), New York 1857.B B Munford,Virginia’s attitude towards Slavery and Secession, ed 2 London 1910 (pages 133-4 etc).W Archer,Through Afro-America, an English reading of the Race-problem, London 1910.A H Stone,Studies in the American Race-problem, London 1908 printed in New York.F F Browne,The everyday life of Abraham Lincoln, London 1914 (pages 348-9).G P Fisher,The colonial era in America, London 1892 (pages 254, 259).J Rodway,Guiana, London 1912 (of Indians, pages 224-5).J Creelman,Diaz, Master of Mexico, New York 1911 (pages 401-5).E R Turner,The Negro in Pennsylvania 1639-1861, Washington 1911.Social and economic forces in American history, New York and London 1913 (by several authors).J F Rhodes,History of the United States from 1850, London 1893-1906.C R Enock,The Republics of Central and South America, London and New York 1913.
H Baerlein,Mexico, the land of unrest, London 1914 (chaptersVIII,XI).
F L Olmsted,A journey in the seaboard slave States(1853-4), ed 2 New York 1904 (pages 240, 282, volIIpages 155, 198, 237).
H R Helper,The impending crisis of the South (economic), New York 1857.
B B Munford,Virginia’s attitude towards Slavery and Secession, ed 2 London 1910 (pages 133-4 etc).
W Archer,Through Afro-America, an English reading of the Race-problem, London 1910.
A H Stone,Studies in the American Race-problem, London 1908 printed in New York.
F F Browne,The everyday life of Abraham Lincoln, London 1914 (pages 348-9).
G P Fisher,The colonial era in America, London 1892 (pages 254, 259).
J Rodway,Guiana, London 1912 (of Indians, pages 224-5).
J Creelman,Diaz, Master of Mexico, New York 1911 (pages 401-5).
E R Turner,The Negro in Pennsylvania 1639-1861, Washington 1911.
Social and economic forces in American history, New York and London 1913 (by several authors).
J F Rhodes,History of the United States from 1850, London 1893-1906.
C R Enock,The Republics of Central and South America, London and New York 1913.