Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

312 GCOLONATUS. COLONATUS.
should go to the owner of the mother. If a man or convent to which he belonged, except such as he
lived for thirty years as a Colonus, he became the had as a colonus, which went to his patronus, who
C::lnus of the owner of the land on which he with respect to his ownership of the land is called
lived; and though he was still free, he could Dominus possessionis. (Cod. Theod. v. tit. 3.)
not leave the land: and a man who had pos- Some classes of Coloni had a power of alienating
sessed for thirty years a colonus belonging to their property. (Cod. xi. tit. 47. s. 23.)
another, could defend himself against the claims of The land-tax due in respect of the land occupied
the former owner by the, Praescriptio triginta an- by the colonus was paid by the dominis; but the
norum. A constitution of Valentinian III. de- coloni were liable to the payment of the poll-tax,
clared how free persons might become Coloni by though it was paid in the first instance by the
agreement; and though there is neither this nor dominus who recovered it from the colonus. The
any similar regulation in the Code of Justinimin, liability of the colonus to a poll-tax explains why
there is a passage whicoh apparently recognizes this class of persons was so i portant to the state,
that persons might become Coloni by such agree- and why their condition could not be changed
ment. (Cod. xi. tit. 47. s. 22.) without the consent of the state. It was only
The Coloni were not slaves, though their con- when the colonus had lived as a free man for
dition in certain respects was assimilated to that thirty years that he could maintain his freedom by
of slaves; a circumstance which will explain their a praescriptio, but Justinian abolished this praebeing called servi terrae, and sometimes being con- scriptio, and thus empowered the dominus to assert
trasted with liberi. They had, however, conno- his right after any lapse of time. (Cod. xi. tit. 47.
bium, which alone is a characteristic that dis- s. 23.) With respect to their liability to the polltinguishes them clearly from slaves. (Cod. xi. tit. tax, the coloni were called tribtcarii, eensiti or
47. s. 24.) But, like slaves, they were liable to eensibus obnoxii, axlscriptitii, adscriptitiaeoTnditionis,
corporal punishment, and they had no right of and censibes adscripti. This term adscriptio apaction against their master, whose relation to pears to have no reference to their being attachedthein was expressed by the term Patronus. (Cod. to the land,but it refers to their liability to the
Theod. v. tit. 11.) *The colonus was attached poll-tax as being rated in the tax-books, and acto the soil, and he'could not be permanently cordingly we find that the G~reek term for Adseparalted from it by his own act, or'by that scriptitius is'Evamr4ypaoQs.
of his patronus, or by the consent of the two. As the Coloni were not servi, and as the class
The patronus could sell the estate with the coloni, of La-tini and peregtini hardly existed in the later
but neither of them without thq other. (Cod. xi. ages of the Emipire, we must considar the Coloni
tit. 47. s. 2. 7.) He could, however, transfer to have had the Civitas, such as it then was; and
superabundant coloni from one to another of his it is a consequence of this that they had connubium
own estates. When an estate held in common generally. A Consti!tution of Justinian, however
was divided, married persons and relations were (Vlqv. 22. c. 17), declared the marriage of a colonus,
not to be separated. The ground of there being who belonged to another person, and a free woman
no legal power of separating *the coloni and the -to be void. The Constitution does not seem to
estate was the opinion that such an arrangement mean any thing else than that in this case the
was favourable to agriculture, and there were also Emperor took away the Connubium, whether for
financial reasons for this rule of law, as will pre- the reasons stated by Savigny, or for other reasons,
sently appear. The only case in which -the colonus is immaterial. This special exception, however,
could be separated from the land was that of his proves the general rule as to Connubium.
becoming a saldier, which must be considered to The origin of these Colorai is uncertain. They
be done with the patron's consent, as the,burden appear to be referred to in one passage of the
of recruiting the army was imposed on him, and in Digest (Dig. 30. s. 112), under -the name of Inthis instance the state dispensed with a,general quilinus, a term which certainly was sometimes
rule for reasons of public convenience. applied to the whole class of Coloni. The passage
The colonus paid a certain yearly rent'for the states, that if a man bequeaths, as a legacy, the
land on which he lived: the amount was fixed by inquilini without the praedia to whieh they adhere
custom and could not be raised; but as the land- (sine praediis quibus adhaesent), it is a void legacy.
owner might attempt to raise it, the colonus had in Savigny conceives that this passage may be exsuch case for his protection a right of action plained without considering it to refer to the
against him, wFhic'h was an exception to the gene- Coloni of whom we are speaking; but the exral rule above stated. (Cod. xi. tit. 47. s. 5.) planation that he suggests, s ems a very forced
There were,'however, cases in which the rent was on:,, and the same remark applies to his explanation
fixed by agreement. of another passage in the Digest (50. tit. 15. s. 4).
A further analogy between the.condition of The condition of the old Clients se:Iems to be;-r
Servi and Colonli appears from the fact of the pro- some relation to that of the Cololli, but all histor:cal
perty of Coloni being called their Peculium. It is traces of one class growinug out of the oether are
however, distinctly stated that they could hold pro- entirely wanting.
perty (Cod. Theod. v. tit. 11); and the expressions Savigny observes that he does not perceive any
which d clare that they couad have nothing -" pro- historical connection between the villeins (viElhvti)
pria"' (Cod. xi. tit. 49. s. 2) seem merely'to de- of modern Europe and the Coloni, though there is
clare that it was not propria in the sense of their a strong resemblance between th.eir respective conhaving power to alienate it, it:least without the ditions. Th.,re were, however, many importan.t
consent of cheir patroni. It appears that a co- distinctions; for instance, the villein services due
Jonus could.make a will, and that if he made to the lord had nothing corresponding to them in
naone, his property went to his next of kin.; for if the case of the Coloni, so far as we know. Some
ea bishop, presbyter, deacon, &e., died -intestate modern writers would hastily infer an historical
sand. without kin, his property went to the church connection of institutions which happen to have