The Problem of the Origin of Serfdom in the Roman Empire

Author(s): Michael Rostovtzeff

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1926), pp. 198-207
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3138978 .
Accessed: 26/01/2013 22:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Land &Public Utility Economics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF SERFDOM
IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
By MICHAEL ROSTOVTZEFF
IN devotedto the land over Europe in a not very remote past,
a periodical
question in general, both to the
actual status of the problemand to
its history, nobody would be surprised
to find an article dealing with the prob-
lem of serfdom. The colonatewas the
leading form of land tenure for cen-
turies both in Europe and in the Near
East; and some parts of Europe became
rid of it quite recently. The colonate,
in a form modifiedby socialism, might
come up again. Who knows? We
saw a beginningof it in Bolshevik Rus-
sia, in the period of the militant com-
munism. I have dealt with the question
of the Roman colonate repeatedly: in
many articles, in my German book
Studien zur Geschichte des riimischen
Kolonats, and recently in my Social and
Economic History of the Roman Em-
pire. Sincethe questionhas lately been
taken up again by some American
scholars,' and a solution was sug-
gested which is not based on facts and
does not take into accountthe historical
evolution and which, therefore, I must
reject, I find it appropriatebriefly to
state my views on the question again.
The treatment of the question in this
article is historical,and so it must be in
all the books and articles devoted to
this problem.
I. Serfdom in the Orient and Greece
Serfdom is an institutionof social and
economiclife which was widely spread
' Simkhovitch, in Political Science Quarterly,
i and his pupil, R.
Vol. XXXI, 19x6, pp. 2o f.;
Clausing, The Roman Colonate, 92z5.
This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and still persists both in the Orient and,
in survivals, in some parts of eastern
Europe, especiallyin Russia. It assumes
various forms in various periods and
countries, but its main aspect remains
invariable. By serfdom is meant the
situation of a person who is personally
and legally free but is tied to his place
of residenceand to his work, a bondage
which is recognized and protected by
the state. In agriculturallife the serf
is not the owner of his land, and though
bound to the parcel of land which he is
tilling and to his place of residence,he
might be deprivedof this parcel by the
will of his landlord, whoever he might
be. In industry,serfdom appearsmore
rarely but has the same peculiar fea-
tures. The serf does not own his
implementsand his house, and is bound
to his work.
From the earliest times of which we
have historical records, that is, since
the beginningsof historicallife, we meet
serfdom as a recognized institution all
over the civilized world. It is the base
of the economicand political structure
of many an Oriental monarchy (the
best known is Egypt); it appearsas an
institution familiar to the Oriental and
Greek city-state (Carthage, Sparta,
Thessaly, the cities of the island of
Crete, some Greek cities of Asia
Minor); and it is not unknownto some
tribal states, for instance,the Celtic and
the Illyrian states. Of the origin of
these various forms of serfdom we
know very little, and what we are sup-
posed to know and what is generally
 ORIGIN OF SERFDOM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE 199

taughtis mereguesswork. It seemsas Russia. However,some scholarsdeny

if serfdomin the Orientalmonarchy was suchan originof serfdomin the Greek
the naturalconsequence of the peculiar city-statesand are inclinedto ascribe
social and political conditionswhich its evolutionto the gradualenslavement
aroseboth in Egypt and Babyloniaout of the poorby the rich,a theorywhich
of the necessityof a strictorganization to my mindis untenable.
of agriculturallabor for the mainte- Equallyunknownis the originof serf-
nanceand developmentof the prosper- domin the tribalstates. Ourhistorical
ity of the country. State and religion tradition,which is not untrustworthy,
areinseparable in the Orientalstate,the ascribesthe existenceof serfdomin the
king being the representativeof the Illyrianstates of Dalmatiato the con-
God on earth;and,therefore,the insti- questof early Thracianinhabitantsby
tution of serfdomultimatelyexpresses Illyrians. The same origin seems to
the idea of the supremeruleof the God be natural in Gaul where the Celts
over man. This primarilyreligious appearedas conquerorscomparatively
aspect of serfdom,which implies the late, not before the sixth century,B.C.
notionof the ownershipby Godof both But everything in this question of
the landandthose who live on the land originsis still darkness.
andwho till it, is mostevidentin many, However, serfdom persistedin the
thoughnot in all, temple-orpriest-states ancientworld for centuriesand cen-
where religiousand politicalorganiza- turies. In the Orientit was inherited,
tion neverbecomedifferentiated.Such after the conquestof the PersianEm-
states existed in ratherlarge numbers pire by Alexanderthe Great, by the
all over the Orientuntilverylate times. Hellenisticmonarchs,andkeptjealously
Sometimes,though incorporatedin a by some of them, especiallyby the
state of a differentsecularform, they Ptolemies in Egypt. In Greece it
neverthelessretainedtheir peculiarso- lingeredon in some of the Greekcity-
cial and economicorganization (for states. And yet in the enlightened
instance,the templeof Comanain the atmosphereof the Greek life of the
Pontusin the timeof Straboand many Hellenisticperiodserfdomas an institu-
other templesin Asia Minordescribed tion could not prosperand could not
by the same author). remainunchanged. In mostof the city-
In the Orientaland Greekcity-states states it was eliminatedin one way or
the origin of serfdom is equallyun- anotherand replacedby privateprop-
known. It seemsas if in Carthageserf- erty or transformedinto relationsof
dom, as far as it developedthere,was temporaryshort- or long-termleases.
based on the conquestof the native Instancesare the activityof the Spartan
populationby the Phenicianconquer- kingsAgis andCleomenesandthe free-
ors. And this is the prevailingtheory domgiven to serfs in the city of Hera-
by which the origin of serfdom,as it clea on the Pontus. Even in most of
existedin early times all over Greece the temple-statesserfdom vanished,
and Greek Asia Minor, is commonly since manyof the templesand temple
explained. The institutionas such is territories were transformedby the
comparativelywell known since it per- Hellenistic rulers into cities and city
sisted until late Hellenistic times in territories. In Asia Minor and in
Sparta,in Thessaly, in Crete, and in Syria, serfdompersistedalmost exclu-
some cities of Asia Minor and South sively on the land owned by some

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 THE JOURNAL OF LAND & PUBLIC UTILITY ECONOMICS
temples and on the large estates of the
kings, which were partly given away by
them to their officers and officials. But
even here it was regulated and modified,
and subjected to some changes which
restricted the rights of the landowners
(including the state, that is, the king)
and created some legal rights of the
serfs.
Best known is serfdom in its modern
Hellenistic forms in Egypt. As far as
land cultivation goes, the original serf-
dom was treated practically as a form
of land tenure which was given to the
tillers of the soil without any definition
of time, with the obligation of the tiller
to work on the land and to pay a part
of his produce to the owner of the land
-the king. Other obligations (espe-
cially compulsory work for the state)
which lay on the peasants of Egypt in
addition to the obligation of cultivating
the land on specific conditions devised
by the landowner, were not confined to
the peasants and were not connected
with land tenure as such. They existed
from time immemorial and were inher-
ited by the Ptolemies from their prede-
cessors, the former rulers of Egypt.
One of the main features in the life of
Egyptian peasants and artisans was,
however, jealously kept by the Ptolemies
and never reduced and restricted. I
mean the rule that every peasant
belongs to his place of residence
("idia" in Greek, "origo" in Latin), is
supposed to stay there and to perform
his work. In its strict form, however,
the rule was never observed even in
Hellenistic Egypt.
What the evolution of serfdom in
Western Europe was during this same
time we do not know. It persisted in
Gaul, but the forms in which it existed
are unknown. In Carthage it might
have been used along with slavery for
cultivating the large estates of the
This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Phenician and half-Phenician aristoc-
racy. In Italy, certainly, if serfdom
really existed in Etruria, which seems
to be an historical fact, and in Rome,
which is more doubtful, it had the same
tendency to disappear and to dissolve
in private landownership and land ten-
ure. Peasant-owners and peasant-ten-
ants are the typical tillers of the soil all
over Italy in the times of the formation
and the blossom of the Italian federa-
tion of cities and tribes under the leader-
ship of Rome, as they were typical for
all the city-states, especially in Greece,
at the same period.
II. The Early Roman Empire
It is a well-known fact, which I have
not to deal with here, that the Italian
federation was gradually transformed
into the Roman Empire in the second
and first centuries B.C. Parallel to this
transformation, the leading type of
landownership assumed in Italy not the
forms of small landownership or ten-
ancy (the owner in this last case being
either a private person or the state),
but the forms of large landownership by
absentee landlords who resided in the
city of Rome or in the cities of Italy.
There is nothing peculiar in this process.
The same evolution is typical for all
the lands where property in land was
recognized and protected by state and
law. We meet it both in Greece, in the
Greek city-states, and in the Orient, in
those parts of it where serfdom was not
predominant but subsidiary (Mesopo-
tamia, Syria, Palestine). The large
estates of the Roman aristocracy were
tilled mostly by gangs or groups of
slaves (the most progressive types of
estates concentrated on wine and olive-
oil production and on cattle breeding),
On some of them, especially those with
a poorer soil, the tillers were free ten-
 ORIGIN OF SERFDOMIN THE ROMANEMPIRE
ants, coloni, who rented the land from
the landownersand paid a rent to them
mostly in money.
The transformation of the Roman
State into a world Empire enriched
enormously the ruling aristocracy of
Rome, which included the more ener-
getic and thrifty Roman citizens. The
numberand the sizes of the large estates
grew constantlyboth in Italy and in the
dominionsof Rome, the provinces,that
is, the former Greek city-states or
Hellenistic monarchies, or even tribal
states of Central and Western Europe.
In some of the provinces the Roman
capitalistsowned estates which had been
tilled by serfs before the Roman con-
quest and which remainedin this status
after it. Most of their estates, how-
ever, were tilled as in Italy by slaves
and tenants. The situation of the free
peasants and tenants in Italy grew
gradually worse. Constant wars and
the growing fortunes and political in-
fluence of the leading classes brought
about the impoverishmentof the peas-
ants and made them dependent on the
large landowners. Many free peasant-
owners of their plots became tenants,
and all the tenants were humbleclients
of the aristocrats and plutocrats of
Rome, though they were at the same
time politically (at least in theory) the
masters of the Roman World Empire.
This inconsistency led to the civil
wars of the first century B.C. In these
wars the proletariat of Italy-the peas-
ants forming the armies of the
ambitious men who fought for personal
and for some other political aims--was
fighting for a redistribution of property
in land and for a reorganization of the
social and economic life of Italy by
which the economic situation of the
masses of the population would not be
in such an appalling contrast to their
international and political status. How
This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
201
far this aim was achieved at the end of
the civil wars is very difficult to say.
About half a million proletarians re-
ceived from the victorious leaders large
plots of land for cultivation both in Italy
and in some of the provinces. They
formed after that time the leading and
most influential part of the city-bour-
geoisie of Italy and of the Romanized
provinces. The land which they received
was, of course, taken away from the
former landowners, especially from the
former city-bourgeoisie and from some
members of the Roman aristocracy.
Most of the dispossessed landowners,
however, emigrated to the provinces,
and in most cases they formed there the
upper class of the population, thus creat-
ing in the Western provinces a well-
to-do bourgeoisie of Roman citizens who
took up their residence in the newly
created urban centers of life.
The main phenomenon which was
brought about by the civil wars was
therefore not a further proletarization
of the masses of the Italian population,
which, as a matter of fact, was stopped
by the civil wars, but a transformation
of considerable numbers of proletarians
into well-to-do landowners. The middle
class of city residents was never so
strong and numerous in Italy and in the
Romanized and Hellenized provinces
as it was after the civil wars. No won-
der that Augustus based his reform of
the Roman Empire on this partly new,
partly old city-bourgeoisie made up of
the Roman citizens both of Italy and of
the provinces. Most of the members
of this city-bourgeois class were not
peasants, but landowners. Probably
very few of them tilled the soil of their
landed property with their own hands.
The labor employed on their land,
which was managed according to the
scientific methods of Hellenistic agricul-
ture, was slave labor, as is shown by the
202 THE JOURNAL OF LAND & PUBLIC UTILITY ECONOMICS

investigationsof the ruinsof Pompeii, was the leadingeconomicandsocialfea-

especiallythe villas near Pompeii(the tureof the life in Egyptwhereit existed
so-calledvillaerusticae). Someparcels on imperialand state lands alongwith
of the largerestateswerelet to tenants, the developmentof a class of private
who often combinedhusbandry on their landowners.It assumed,however,much
own land with husbandryon the land milder and muchmore modernforms
leased from the city-landowners(for even in comparisonwith its Ptolemaic
instance, the "coloni" of Horace). organization. This gradual transfor-
Along with these medium-sized estates mationwasno doubtdueto the influence
of the city-bourgeoisie,large estatesof of Romanlaw and Romanadministra-
the aristocracy andplutocracyof Rome tive practice. The same mustbe said
still existed and were managedin the of the imperialdomainsandthe temple
sameway as before, that is, by means lands in the East. How far serfdom
of slavesandtenants. New-richof the survivedin whathadbeenformerlythe
typeof well-known Trimalchio,the hero CarthaginianAfricanstate we do not
of the novel of Petronius,sometimes know. It mighthave left some traces
rivaledthe Romansenatorialandeques- in the organizationof the relations
trian aristocracyand the favoritesof betweenthe new landownersof Africa
the emperorsin the volume of their andthe old inhabitants who, as tenants,
fortunesandthe extentof theirestates. tilled the soil of their new masters.
Thus in the early RomanEmpirethe Still less is knownof the conditionsin
classof humbletenantsof absenteeland- which lived the clients of the Gallic
lords had not disappearedcompletely landowners,the last being now to a
butwas no moreso prominent,at least largeextentimmigrants fromItaly.The
in Italy, as it had beenin the firstcen- mostnaturalassumption is that the tra-
tury B.c. Replacedby slaves, large dition of serfdom survived in some of
numbersof tenants emigratedto the the devicesby which the relationsof
provinces,where they mostlyformeda landownersto their tenantswere regu-
part of the city-bourgeoisie,whichcon- lated.
stantlygrew in numberswith the grad- The earlyRomanEmpirebothin the
ual urbanizationof both the western West andin the Eastwas a blessedtime
and easternprovincesof Rome. How for the development of citiesandof the
these emigrantsorganized their eco- city-bourgeoisie.New cities and new
nomiclife we do not know. It is prob- groups of city-bourgeoisie sprang up
able,however,that in exceptionalcases all over the RomanEmpirein scores
only they would work the land with and perhapsin hundreds. New lands
their own hands. Abundantlaborwas weremadeaccessiblefor cultivationand
suppliedboth by the natives and the new possibilitiesfor applyingthe meth-
slaves. ods of scientificagriculturewereopened.
It is evidentthat the early Roman It remindsone of the early days of
Empirewith its economicstructureas the United States of Americaand of
describedabove was not favorableto the activityof the Frenchcolonistsin
serfdom and to its maintenanceand TunisiaandAlgeria. The government,
development. It was basedon private based as it was on city-bourgeoisie,fos-
property; and serfdom, where it still tered this movement. The emperors
existed,appearsas a meresurvival. In lookedwith suspicionon the magnates
fact,serfdomin a modernizedformstill and nabobs,especiallythe membersof

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ORIGIN OF SERFDOM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE 203

the Republicanaristocracy,and ruth- questionarose, the questionof provid-

lessly exterminatedthem. They pre- ing labor for scientificand capitalistic
ferredlarge fortunesto growup in the agriculture. The tendency towards
provincesand to be in the hands of concentration of landedpropertyin the
the municipalaristocracy.Hencetheir hands of capitalistsand city residents
ruthless persecutionof the rich and could not be stopped. The economic
aristocraticfamiliesof Romeand Italy evolutionof a prosperous worldEmpire
and a far-reaching confiscation of their basedon privatepropertytendednatu-
landed property. By the secondcen- rally towardscapitalism,and the best
tury A.D.,land in the RomanEmpire (that is, the safest) investmentof cap-
was ownedeitherby the emperors(that ital was in landedproperty. Butwhere
is, the state) or by membersof the could one get labor for the private
municipalbourgeosie. In someplaces, estates? In the peacefultimes of the
like somepartsof Italy,Thrace,Syria, Roman Empire, with its thoroughly
and Palestine,free peasant-landowners civilizedlife, slaverycouldnot provide
formed the largest landowningclass. laborbothfor domesticlife andindustry
Citiesin theseplaceswere rare andthe and for agriculture. The influx of
city-bourgeoisie not very numerous. slavesfromabroadbecameslow,andin
the enlightened atmosphere of the
III. Period of the Enlightened Mon- Antoninesno slaverycouldoriginatein
archy-The Crisis of the Third the civil relationsinsideof the Roman
Century and the Renaissance Empire. Nay, the emperorsdid their
of Serfdom best to facilitate manumission of slaves
and to transformthe largest possible
The evolution which began in the first numbersof slavesinto free residentsof
century A.D. with Augustus reached its the RomanEmpire.
climax in the second century, the time of The only substitutefor slaverywas
the enlightened constitutional monarchy either hiredfree laboror tenants.Both
of the Antonines. The Roman Empire were used extensively. However, the
reached its natural frontiers in the west, supply of hired labor being insecure,
in the south, and to a certain extent in sincetransportation was very slow and
the north. In the northeast and south- difficult,the easiestway was to let out
east it faced the large groups of Ger- land to tenants, coloni, on various
mans and Iranians which it was not able terms:short-term leases,leaseswithout
to assimilate. Along with the city life term or on a more or less long term,
the notion of private property in land andemphyteutic leases-virgin or waste
penetrated to the remotest corners of land let to those who were ready to
the Roman Empire. City life and serf- transformit intogardensand fieldsand
dom were in the last item incompatible, to keep it for an indefinitetime, with
and in the city territories the last the obligationof paying a moderate
remainders of serfdom gradually dis- rent. The rentwaspaideitherin money
appeared. The ultimate refuges of or in kind accordingto circumstances.
serfdom were some of the imperial In the hands of the tenants scientific
domains in the East (including Egypt) management of the land was ratheran
and a few temple territories. exception. Scientific managementre-
With the arrest of the expansion of quirescapital (that is, good inventory,
the Roman Empire a grave economic abundance of laborandcattle), andthis

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
204 THE JOURNAL OF LAND & PUBLIC UTILITY ECONOMICS
was what most of the tenants lacked,
since they were men who were not able
to find a more profitable occupation,
open to everybody. Capital was often
supplied by the landowners, but rarely
with success. The prevailing system
was lease without term or leases re-
newed almost mechanically from term
to term. On the imperial lands emphy-
teutic land tenure was largely used.
Tenants who lived generation after
generation on the same parcel of land
formed close relations with the land-
owners, the landowners being their nat-
ural protectors and masters, the tenants
being the humble clients of the land-
owners. Frequently the tenants of
today were the slaves of yesterday. On
the imperial lands the tenants regarded
themselves as clients of the emperor
himself, "their own folk." Such rela-
tions are natural and have nothing to
do with serfdom, that is, a formal
bondage to the soil. The tenants were
free to leave their parcels at any time,
provided that they were able to find
another place in which to live and to
work. Naturally they did not desire
such a change as they grew more and
more used to their place of residence,
their house, their neighbors, and their
masters. But when they grew angry
they threatened the master, be it even
the emperor, that if the conditions of
their life were not changed they would
quit and look for another place of
residence. And they certainly carried
out their threats frequently.
The tenants of the second and third
centuries A.D. were, therefore, free men
protected by Roman civil law and by
the administration of the Empire. We
must not forget how much Roman law
and the emperors did just for the weak
against the strong, for the humiliores
against the potentiores. The tenants
were, of course, often cheated or re-
This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
garded themselvesas cheated,but in
the main Romancivil law never dis-
criminatedbetweenrich and poor and
was ratherinclinedto turnthe balance
in favorof the poor. Economicevolu-
tion was also favorableto the tenants.
The supplyof laborwas scantyandthe
landownersneededgood tenantsmuch
morethanthe tenantsneededany land-
lord. Unemploymentwas not a phe-
nomenontypical of the early Roman
Empire.
Suchwas the situationin the Roman
Empireas late as the first half of the
third centuryA.D., as is proved by
scoresof documents.Andyet whenwe
skip a period of less than 50 years,
from the end of the dynastyof the
Severi to the time of Diocletianand
Constantine-whata change! We hear
verylittle of free tenantsand freepeas-
ants. The typicaltiller of the soil both
on the imperialestatesandon the large
estatesof the rich landowners,as well
as on the estateseitherassignedto the
cities or held by the municipalbour-
geoisie,is still a colonus,that is, a ten-
ant; but he is no more free. He is
boundto the soil, to his parcelof land
and to his house; and this bondage,
which is not far from slavery,is effi-
ciently protectedby law and govern-
ment. How can we accountfor such
a change?
The prevailingtheory says that it
was a natural developmentfrom the
conditionsof the second century. A
long-termtenant might at any time
becomea serf,that is, mightbe enslaved
by legal meansby a richand influential
landowner;and this naturalevolution
was just what had happenedin the
little-known50 yearsof the darkthird
century A.D. Those who advocate
such a theory are not aware that the
change was an enormous one. It was
practically a change from liberty to
 ORIGIN OF SERFDOM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE 205

slavery,and to this changethe govern- Empire,but it was not due to nature.

ment had given its sanction. No gov- It was createdby the consciousandsub-
ernmentcouldgive its sanctionto such consciousactivityof men. Let us state
a changeunlessthere was bitterneces- the facts. In the thirdcenturygeneral
sity for doing so. By normal evolu- misery descended upon the Roman
tionsucha changecouldnot be effected; Empire. All over the RomanEmpire,
it could only have been prepared. By not onlyin ItalyandGreece,largetracts
preparationI mean the existenceof a of cultivablelandlaywasteanduntilled.
class of humbletenants who for the In Egyptthe systemof dykesandcanals
most part lived on the estates of the was neglected,and withoutit the land
emperorandof the richlandownersfor was doomed. The sameis true of the
generations. However, a catastrophe works of irrigationin Africa, Spain,
musthave intervenedfor transformingAsia Minor, the Syrianlands. These
legallyin sucha short time millionsof systemsof irrigation,so essentialfor
free agriculturists,many of them and the conditionsof agriculturein the
later all of themcitizensof Rome,into south, had been created by men and
half-slavesboundto their master,be it weregraduallyimprovedby them. Now
the state or a privatelandowner. they becameneglectedand the result
In quite recenttimes some scholars was waste land, the desert advancing
have suggested that the catastrophe againand conquering one fieldand one
whichbroughtaboutsucha changewas gardenafter another.This neglectwas
neitherpoliticalnor social;it was a nat- notdueto the exhaustion of the soil.The
ural one. It was the exhaustionof the soil of Egypt, providedthat the Nile
soil, whichwas suddenlyrealizedin the does its work-and it very seldomfails
third century,that forced the govern- to do so-is inexhaustible; butmenmust
ment to use compulsionfor retaining help nature. Here, as in otherplaces,
tillersof the soil on theirparcelswhich it was this helpthat failed. Disorgani-
hadbecomepracticallysterile. Suchan zation and lack of labormadethe rich
explanationin no way harmonizeswith fields of the past waste and desolate.
ascertainedfacts. Never in the second And for explainingthe gradualdeser-
centurydid the peoplecomplainof any tion of formerlyfertile land we must
exhaustionof soil. And how couldthe firstaccountfor this lackanddisorgan.
soil of suchprovincesas Africa, Spain, izationof labor,which,after all, is the
Gaul,the Danubelands, and so forth, main foundationof humansociety in
have been exhaustedin a very short general.
timeby systematicagricultural exploita- I have given the explanationof this
tion with the help of refineddevices disorganizationof labor in another
of scientificagriculture? The soil of place.2 If I may summarizethis ex-
Egyptandof Mesopotamiais inexhaus- planation,it was the directresult of a
tible in any way, providedthat mea- lasting social and political revolution
suresaretakenfor regulatingthe yearly whichshatteredthe foundationsof the
floodsof the rivers. The alluvialsoil RomanEmpirein the thirdcentury. In
of theselands,if dulywateredandcare- the last analysisthis revolutionwas an
fully managed, yields abundant har- elementalfightof the tenantsandpeas-
vests. ants against the city bourgeoisie,a
A catastrophe certainly came about 'In my book on the Roman Empire, quoted in
and changed the aspect of the Roman the first paragraph of this article.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20o6 THE JOURNALOF LAND &fPUBLICUTILITY ECONOMICS

strugglewhich had been preparedby lence of the times. It is only natural

centuriesof evolutionin the ancient that these massesbecamediscouraged
world. The exponentof the hatredof and wouldhave stoppedworkingalto-
the lowerclassesagainstthe upperwas getherwere it not for the necessityof
the armyandits leaders-the emperors maintainingone's own life and the life
appointedby the army. In the turmoil of one's family. When the Empire,
of this mad struggle,chaoticand illog- after 50 years of such life-and we
ical as such strugglesalways are, the know what 50 years might mean, we
fabric of the RomanEmpirewent to who livedthroughthe WorldWar and
pieces,and firstof all the highlysensi- the acutesocialrevolutionof Russia-
tive machineof the finely developed cameto its senses,it lay practicallyin
economiclife of the RomanEmpiredis- ruins. The bourgeoisiewas decimated
integrated. Civilwarprovokedforeign and utterlydemoralized;the worst ele-
wars, and in their trail came pillage, mentonlyhadsurvived. Laborbothin
devastation,famineand plague. The the citiesand in the countrywas scarce
sea was in the hands of pirates, the and completelyout of balance. Agri-
land roads were infestedby brigands. culturalproduction,industry,and com-
And no rest was given to the unhappy mercewerenot ableto supplythe neces-
population. Emperor after emperor sities of life. No goods cameon the
was killed in the internecinewar, and market,and, therefore,the periodwas
every new spasmof it invitedthe Ger- characterizedby enormousand ever-
mans and the Iraniansto renewtheir fluctuatingprices.
attacks and their devastations,after For the government,after the crisis
which famines and plagues, robbery was over, the only two waysout of the
andmurder,followedwith the regular- terribledilemmawhichstood before it
ity of a naturalphenomenon.And last wereeitherto let the Empirealoneand
but not least, civilwar requiredwealth, give it time for recoverywhile helping
and the emperorsinsteadof protecting the laboringclasses as the Antonines
the Empire were the first organized had done, and protectingthem against
robbersof it. Force and compulsion the drones,or to use forceand compul-
were their weapons. sion andto start again,by thesemeans,
No wonderthatthe populationof the the economicmachine. Was it possible
Empirebecameutterlydemoralizedand for the stateto takethe firstway? No
disorganized-firstand foremostin its doubtthe processwas a slow one, and
economicactivityand in its reproduc- the needsof the Empirewere pressing.
tion. Work was given up: it was of In any case the state chosethe second
no use to workwith no stabilityandno path. It took the conditionscreated
hope. Childrenwere not reared, or by forceandcompulsion for grantedand
if reared,were not caredfor and edu- graduallylegalizedthem. The popula.
cated. No wonderthat in suchcondi- tion of the Empirewas drivenbackto
tions the bestlandlay wasteanddepop- normalityby cudgels. The state en-
ulationwas the leadingphenomenon of slavedthe wholepopulation: the aris-
life. Productiveworkwas doneby the tocracyand the city bourgeoisie,the
masses for a large army of greedy laborers,the artisans and the shop-
drones. To thesedronesbelongedalso owners,the landownersandthe tenants,
the absenteelandlords,themselveshard the officersand the officials,the mer-
pressedby the disorganization and vio- chantsandthe shop assistants,the ship-

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ORIGIN OF SERFDOMIN THE ROMANEMPIRE 207

ownersand the sailors all alike. The It was no wonderthen that in such con-
bondage, the serfdom in agricultural ditions as these the residents of the
life, was only one side of the picture, Roman Empire had no force of resis-
though,of course,in the primitivecon- tance left and submittedblindly,though
ditionsof the time,the mostimportant. reluctantly, to the reforms of Diocle-
It is probablethat in regulatingthe tian and Constantine,or rather to their
relationsof the state and of the land.. administrativepractice,especiallyin the
ownersto the newserfs the government field of taxation, which gradually
usedthe deviceswhichstillhadsurvived assumedthe form of special local regu-
in the few islandsof bondageand serf- lations developing finally into more or
dom. less general legislation.
How didthe Romanpopulationallow Such is the origin of the revival of
the governmentto perform such an serfdom in the ancientworld. It came
operationon it? Do not forget that back again and came to stay. No nor-
relativequietcameafteryearsof storm, mal evolutionalone can accountfor such
that generationsboth of rulersand of a revival. No naturalcausescan explain
subjectsgrew up in the atmosphereof it. The explanationlies in the activity
violence,murders,compulsion, robbery!I of men, in their complexpsychology. Is
Thereweregenerationsthat had never an elemental outbreak of the spirit of
seen Io consecutiveyears of peace, destruction,which is a social revolution,
and nobodyhad lived even for a few also a necessity,an elementalforce? Or
monthsin the normalair of legalityand may men foresee such an outbreakand
honesty. Forceandviolencewereboth preventit? Who knows? In any case
the motto and the practice. Law and the Roman colonate of the late Roman
orderwere dreams. Besides,by a long Empirewith its slavery and degradation
evolution,by longyearsof quietlife and was the legitimate child of the social
of completesubjectionto the central revolution of the third century A.D.,
power, the populationof the Roman which was prepared, of course, by the
Empirehad lost the habit of self-help long centuriesof evolutionin the Helle-
and initiative,and had becomeaccus- nistic period and in the early Roman
tomed to be ruled and to be directed. Empire.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:05:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions