Full download ebooks at https://ebookmeta.

com

Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics:

Proceedings of ICMCSI 2022 (Lecture Notes on
Data Engineering and Communications
Technologies, 126) Subarna Shakya (Editor)
For dowload this book click link below
https://ebookmeta.com/product/mobile-computing-and-
sustainable-informatics-proceedings-of-icmcsi-2022-lecture-
notes-on-data-engineering-and-communications-
technologies-126-subarna-shakya-editor/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics

Proceedings of ICMCSI 2021 1st Edition Subarna Shakya

https://ebookmeta.com/product/mobile-computing-and-sustainable-
informatics-proceedings-of-icmcsi-2021-1st-edition-subarna-
shakya/

Sentimental Analysis and Deep Learning: Proceedings of

ICSADL 2021 (Eds) Subarna Shakya

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sentimental-analysis-and-deep-
learning-proceedings-of-icsadl-2021-eds-subarna-shakya/

Blockchain based Internet of Things (Lecture Notes on

Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 112)
Debashis De (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/blockchain-based-internet-of-
things-lecture-notes-on-data-engineering-and-communications-
technologies-112-debashis-de-editor/

Illumination of Artificial Intelligence in

Cybersecurity and Forensics (Lecture Notes on Data
Engineering and Communications Technologies, 109)
Sanjay Misra (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/illumination-of-artificial-
intelligence-in-cybersecurity-and-forensics-lecture-notes-on-
data-engineering-and-communications-technologies-109-sanjay-
Advances in Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and
Knowledge Discovery: Proceedings of the ICNC-FSKD 2021
(Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications
Technologies, 89) Quan Xie (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/advances-in-natural-computation-
fuzzy-systems-and-knowledge-discovery-proceedings-of-the-icnc-
fskd-2021-lecture-notes-on-data-engineering-and-communications-
technologies-89-quan-xie-editor/

Parallel Computational Technologies 16th International

Conference PCT 2022 Dubna Russia March 29 31 2022
Revised Selected Papers Communications in Computer and
Information Science 1618 Leonid Sokolinsky
https://ebookmeta.com/product/parallel-computational-
technologies-16th-international-conference-pct-2022-dubna-russia-
march-29-31-2022-revised-selected-papers-communications-in-
computer-and-information-science-1618-leonid-sokolin/

Structural Information and Communication Complexity

29th International Colloquium SIROCCO 2022 Paderborn
Germany June 27 29 2022 Proceedings Merav Parter

https://ebookmeta.com/product/structural-information-and-
communication-complexity-29th-international-colloquium-
sirocco-2022-paderborn-germany-june-27-29-2022-proceedings-merav-
parter/

Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization 23rd

International Conference IPCO 2022 Eindhoven The
Netherlands June 27 29 2022 Proceedings Lecture Notes
in Computer Science 13265 Karen Aardal (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/integer-programming-and-
combinatorial-optimization-23rd-international-conference-
ipco-2022-eindhoven-the-netherlands-june-27-29-2022-proceedings-
lecture-notes-in-computer-science-13265-karen-aardal/

2021 International Conference on Big Data Analytics for

Cyber-Physical System in Smart City: Volume 2 (Lecture
Notes on Data Engineering and Communications
Technologies, 103) Mohammed Atiquzzaman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/2021-international-conference-on-
big-data-analytics-for-cyber-physical-system-in-smart-city-
volume-2-lecture-notes-on-data-engineering-and-communications-
Lecture Notes on Data Engineering
and Communications Technologies 126

Subarna Shakya
Klimis Ntalianis
Khaled A. Kamel Editors

Mobile
Computing and
Sustainable
Informatics
Proceedings of ICMCSI 2022
Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and
Communications Technologies

Volume 126

Series Editor
Fatos Xhafa, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
The aim of the book series is to present cutting edge engineering approaches to data
technologies and communications. It will publish latest advances on the engineering
task of building and deploying distributed, scalable and reliable data infrastructures
and communication systems.
The series will have a prominent applied focus on data technologies and
communications with aim to promote the bridging from fundamental research on
data science and networking to data engineering and communications that lead to
industry products, business knowledge and standardisation.
Indexed by SCOPUS, INSPEC, EI Compendex.
All books published in the series are submitted for consideration in Web of Science.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/15362

Subarna Shakya · Klimis Ntalianis ·
Khaled A. Kamel
Editors

Mobile Computing
and Sustainable Informatics
Proceedings of ICMCSI 2022
Editors
Subarna Shakya Klimis Ntalianis
Institute of Engineering University of Applied Sciences
Tribhuvan University, Pulchowk Campus Athens, Greece
Lalitpur, Nepal

Khaled A. Kamel
Department of Computer Science
Texas Southern University
Houston, TX, USA

ISSN 2367-4512 ISSN 2367-4520 (electronic)

Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies
ISBN 978-981-19-2068-4 ISBN 978-981-19-2069-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2069-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
We are privileged to dedicate the proceedings
of ICMCSI 2022 to all the participants and
editors of ICMCSI 2022.
Preface

This conference proceedings volume contains the written versions of most of

the contributions presented during the conference of International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics (ICMCSI) 2022, held at Tribhuvan
University, Nepal, during January 27–28, 2022. The conference provided a setting
for discussing recent developments in a wide variety of topics including mobile
computing, cloud computing, and sustainable expert systems. This conference has
been a good opportunity for participants coming from various destinations to present
and discuss topics in their respective research areas.
ICMCSI 2022 conference tends to collect the latest research results and appli-
cations on mobile computing, cloud computing, and sustainable expert systems. It
includes a selection of 65 papers from 322 papers submitted to the conference from
universities and industries all over the world. All accepted papers were subjected to
a strict peer-review system by 2–4 expert referees. The papers have been selected for
this volume because of their quality and their relevance to the conference.
ICMCSI 2022 would like to express our sincere appreciation to all authors for
their contributions to this book. We would like to extend our thanks to all the referees
for their constructive comments on all papers, and especially, we would like to thank
the organizing committee for their hard work. Finally, we would like to thank the
Springer publications for producing this volume.
Guest Editors

Lalitpur, Nepal Prof. Dr. Subarna Shakya

Athens, Greece Dr. Klimis Ntalianis
Houston, USA Dr. Khaled A. Kamel

vii
Acknowledgments

The International Conference on Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics

(ICMCSI) 2022 would like to thank the conference organizing committee and
keynote speakers for their excellent work on January 27–28, 2022. The conference
organizers also wish to acknowledge publicly the valuable services provided by the
reviewers.
On behalf of the organizers, authors, and readers of this conference, we would
like to thank the keynote speakers and the reviewers for their time, hard work, and
dedication to this conference. The conference organizers would like to acknowledge
all the technical program committee members for the discussion, suggestion, and
cooperation to organize the keynote speakers of this conference. The conference
organizers also wish to acknowledge speakers and participants who attended this
conference.
Many thanks to everyone who has helped and supported this conference. ICMCSI
2022 wishes to acknowledge the contribution made to the organization by its many
volunteers. Members contribute their time, energy, and knowledge at a local, regional,
and international level.
We also thank all the chairpersons and conference committee members for their
support.

ix
Contents

XGBoost Design by Multi-verse Optimiser: An Application

for Network Intrusion Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Milan Tair, Nebojsa Bacanin, Miodrag Zivkovic, K. Venkatachalam,
and Ivana Strumberger
Gateway-Based Congestion Avoidance Using Two-Hop Node
in Wireless Sensor Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A. Revathi and S. G. Santhi
Stroke Prediction System Using Machine Learning Algorithm . . . . . . . . . 33
Siddharth Purohit, Ankit Chahar, Anish Reddy Banda, Anson Antony,
Abhishek Subhash Suryawanshi, and Chandan Vanwari
A Comprehensive Survey on Multilingual Opinion Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Aniket K. Shahade, K. H. Walse, and V. M. Thakare
Development Features and Principles of Blockchain Technologies
and Real Options as the Main Components of the Digital Economy . . . . . 57
Radostin Vazov, Gennady Shvachych, Boris Moroz, Leonid Kabak,
Vladyslava Kozenkova, Tetiana Karpova, and Volodymyr Busygin
Technical Efficiency Analysis of China’s Telecommunication
Infrastructure: A Copula-Based Meta-Stochastic Frontier Model . . . . . . 75
Anuphak Saosaovaphak, Chukiat Chaiboonsri, and Fushuili Liu
ATM Security Using Iris Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Judy Simon, Ushus S. Kumar, M. Aarthi Elaveini,
Reshma P. Vengaloor, and P. Phani Kumar
Reliable Data Acquisition by Master–Slave Approach
in Marine-IoT Environment for Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Geetha Venkatesan and Avadhesh Kumar

xi
xii Contents

Mobile Technology Acceptance of University Students:

A Consolidated Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Zahra Hosseini, Jani Kinnunen, Mohammad Mehdizadeh,
and Irina Georgescu
Multistage Intrusion Detection System using Machine Learning
Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
N. Maheswaran, S. Bose, G. Logeswari, and T. Anitha
Modeling Global Solar Radiation Using Machine Learning
with Model Selection Approach: A Case Study in Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Samuel C. A. Basílio, Rodrigo O. Silva, Camila M. Saporetti,
and Leonardo Goliatt
Plant Disease Detection Using Transfer Learning with DL Model . . . . . . 169
Prakash Sahu and Vivek Kumar Sinha
Tagging Fake Profiles in Twitter Using Machine Learning Approach . . . 181
Monika Singh
A Machine Learning System to Classify Cybercrime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Shridevi Soma and Fareena Mehvin
Analyses of Non-linear Effects with DCS and HOA Performance
for 4 X 4 WDM/DWDM System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Tsegaye Menber Belay and Pushparaghavan Annamalai
User Profiling and Influence Maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Bahaa Eddine Elbaghazaoui, Mohamed Amnai, and Youssef Fakhri
An Efficient IoT-Based Novel Design for Home Automation Using
Node MCU Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Naveen Rathee, Varnika Rathee, Sandeep Kumar, Archana Das,
Yuliia Ivchuk, and Chornenka Liudmyla
A Supervised Machine Learning Approach for Analysis
and Prediction of Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Abhinav Mittra, Devanshu Singh, and Anish Banda
Artificial Neural Network Established Hexagonal Ring- MPA
Intended for Wideband Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Rohini Saxena, J. A. Ansari, and Mukesh Kumar
EEGs Signals Artifact Rejection Algorithm by Signal Statistics
and Independent Components Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Hussein M. Hussein, Kasim K. Abdalla, and Abdullah S. Mahmood
IoT-Based Air Quality Monitoring System Using SIM900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
P. Lavanya and I. V. Subbareddy
Contents xiii

Predictive Modeling for Risk Identification in Share Market

Trading—A Multiphase Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
R. V. Raghavendrarao, Ch. Ram Mohan Reddy, T. Sharmila,
and H. M. Ankitha
An Efficient Cross-Layered Approach Quality-Aware
Energy-Efficient Routing Protocol for QoS in MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
S. Jayaprada, B. Srikanth, Chokka Anuradha, K. Kranthi Kumar,
Syed Khasim, and Padmaja Grandhe
HealthCare Data Analytics: A Machine Learning-Based
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Mangesh Bharate and Suja Sreejith Panicker
A Novel Dual-Watermarking Approach for Authentication
and Tamper Recovery of Colored Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Nahush Kulkarni, Reshma Koli, Nayana Vaity, and Dakshta Argade
Blockchain-Based E-Pharmacy to Combat Counterfeit Drug
Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
S. Kalarani, Keerthisree Raghu, and S. K. Aakash
A Survey on Designing a Secure Smart Healthcare System
with Blockchain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Neelam Chauhan and Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi
A Novel Ensemble of Classification Techniques for Intrusion
Detection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Shaik Jakeer Hussain, N. Raghavendra Sai, B. Sai Chandana,
J. Harikiran, and G. Sai Chaitanya Kumar
An Resourceful System for Lossless Address Data Compression
Using Novel Adaptive Algorithm in WSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Sanjay Mainalli and Kalpana Sharma
A New Paradigm in Cultivation Observing System Using
NodeMCU and Blynk Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
G. Sasikala, Sai Venkata Raghavan Nookala, Nasir Shaik,
and Veerendranath Reddy
RTL Verification and FPGA Implementation of Generalized
Neural Networks: A High-Level Synthesis Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Satyashil D. Nagarale and B. P. Patil
Application of a Fuzzy Logic Model for Optimal Assessment
of the Maintenance Factor Affecting Lighting in Interior Design . . . . . . . 463
Rahib Imamguluyev, Rena Mikayilova, and Vuqar Salahli
xiv Contents

Comprehensive Analysis to Predict Hepatic Disease by Using

Machine Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Reddy Shiva Shankar, P. Neelima, V. Priyadarshini,
and K. V. S. S. R. Murthy
Classification of Breast Tumor Using Ensemble Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
Aditya Singh and Vitthal Gutte
Different Categories of Forwarding Routing Protocols in WSN
(Wireless Sensor Network): A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
Deepak Kumar, Vishal Kumar Arora, and Richa Sawhney
Comprehending Object Detection by Deep Learning Methods
and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Mallineni Priyanka, Kotapati Lavanya, K. Charan Sai, Kavuri Rohit,
and Shahana Bano
A Comprehensive Survey on Federated Learning: Concept
and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Dhurgham Hassan Mahlool and Mohammed Hamzah Abed
A Comprehensive Review of Optimisation Techniques in Machine
Learning for Edge Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
P. Alwin Infant, P. N. Renjith, G. R. Jainish, and K. Ramesh
AIC for Clients’ Perceived Risk on Online Buying Intention . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Dam Tri Cuong
The DICE Framework: Efficient Computation Offloading through
CASCADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
P. Irene Komal, Anirudh Bathija, and K. Sindhu
Depression Detection from Social Site using Machine Learning
and Deep Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
Tushtee Varshney, Sonam Gupta, and Charu Agarwal
An Improvised Machine Learning Approach for Wireless
Sensor-Based Healthcare Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
V. Bharathi and C. N. S. Vinoth Kumar
A Novel Deep Learning-Based Object Detector Using
SPOTNET-SNIPER Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Museboyina Sirisha and S. V. Sudha
A Survey on Various Architectural Models Using Software-Defined
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Alfred Raju M. and Narendran Rajagopalan
A Survey on Alzheimer’s Disease Detection Using Machine
Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
N. L. Hemavathi, C. R. Aditya, and N. Shashank
Contents xv

Lightweight Cryptography in IoHT: An Analytical Approach . . . . . . . . . . 665

Arnab Chakraborty and Payel Guria
Prediction Model of the Burkholderia glumae Pest in Rice Crops
Using Machine Learning and Spatial Interpolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
Joel Perez-Suarez, Nemias Saboya, and A. Angel Sullon
Application of Transfer Learning with a Fine-tuned ResNet-152
for Evaluation of Disease Severity in Tomato Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
R. Rajasree, C. Beulah Christalin Latha, and Sujni Paul
Smart Home Technologies Toward SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
P. Vinoth Kumar, B. Gunapriya, S. Sivaranjani, P. S. Gomathi,
T. Rajesh, S. Sujitha, and G. Deebanchakkarawarthi
Health Monitoring of Critical Care Patients Using Internet
of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
Y. Sri Lalitha, Varagiri Shailaja, K. Swanthana, M. Trivedh,
and B. Chaitanya Kumar
Quantum-Based Resource Management Approaches in Fog
Computing Environments: A Comprehensive Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
T. Veni
Blockchain-Based Framework for Secure and Reliable Student
Information Management System Using Artificial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . 753
Noor M. Abdulhadi, Noor A. Ibraheem, and Mokhtar M. Hasan
Siamese Q&A: Distinguishing Unanswerable Questions Using
Deep Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
L. Anantha Padmanabhan and G. Vadivu
The State of the Art in Deep Learning-based Recommender Systems . . . 783
C. K. Raghavendra and K. C. Srikantaiah
Varıous Frameworks for IoT-Enabled Intellıgent Waste
Management System Usıng ML for Smart Cıtıes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797
Karan S. Belsare and Manwinder Singh
Multi-level Thresholding Partitioning Algorithm for Graph
Processing in Cloud Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
J. Chinna and K. Kavitha
Determining Trajectories for Hair Wash and Head Massage Robot
Based on Artificial Neural Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Nguyen Minh Trieu and Nguyen Truong Thinh
Pineapple Eyes Removal System in Peeling Processing Based
on Image Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Nguyen Minh Trieu and Nguyen Truong Thinh
xvi Contents

Threshold Optimization in Maximum–Minimum

Eigenvalue-Based Detection in Cognitive Radio Using Ant
Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Anilkumar Dulichand Vishwakarma and Girish Ashok Kulkarni
Glaucoma Diagnosis: Handcrafted Features Versus Deep Learning . . . . . 869
Shantala Giraddi, Swathi Mugdha, Suvarna Kanakaraddi,
and Satyadhyan Chickerur
Synthesis of the Variants of Adaptive Hexagonal Antenna Array
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Sridevi Kadiyam and A. Jhansi Rani
Indexing, Clustering, and Search Engine for Documents Utilizing
Elasticsearch and Kibana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Franz Frederik Walter Viktor Walter-Tscharf
Q-Learning-Based Spatial Reuse Enhancement of Wireless
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Gajanan Uttam Patil and Girish Ashok Kulkarni
A Survey on Healthcare EEG Classification-Based ML Methods . . . . . . . 923
Abdulkareem A. Al-hamzawi, Dhiah Al-Shammary,
and Alaa Hussein Hammadi
The COVID-19 Images Classification by MobileNetV3
and Enhanced Sine Cosine Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Miodrag Zivkovic, Aleksandar Petrovic, Nebojsa Bacanin,
Stefan Milosevic, Vasilije Veljic, and Ana Vesic

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951

About the Editors

Prof. Dr. Subarna Shakya is currently Professor of Computer Engineering, Depart-

ment of Electronics and Computer Engineering, Central Campus, Institute of Engi-
neering, Pulchowk, Tribhuvan University, Coordinator (IOE), LEADER Project
(Links in Europe and Asia for engineering, eDucation, Enterprise and Research
exchanges), ERASMUS MUNDUS. He received M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in
Computer Engineering from the Lviv Polytechnic National University, Ukraine, 1996
and 2000 respectively. His research area includes E-Government system, computer
systems and simulation, distributed and cloud computing, software engineering and
information system, computer architecture, information security for E-Government
and multimedia system.

Dr. Klimis Ntalianis is Full Professor at the University of West Attica, Athens,
Greece. He has worked as Senior Researcher in multi-million research and devel-
opment projects, funded by the General Secretariat of Research and Technology of
Greece (GSRT), the Research Promotion Foundation of Cyprus (RPF), the Informa-
tion Society S.A. of Greece and the European Union. He is also serving as Senior
Project Proposal Evaluator for GSRT, RPF, the European Union, the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the National Science Center of
Poland. In parallel, he is Member of several master theses and Ph.D. evaluation
committees in Greece, Cyprus, Germany and India. He is also serving as Promo-
tion Evaluator for Saudi Arabia’s academic staff. He has served as General Chair in
several conferences (IEEE, etc.). Dr. Ntalianis has published more than 160 scientific
papers in international journals, books and conferences. His main research interests
include social computing, multimedia analysis and information security.

Dr. Khaled A. Kamel is currently Chairman and Professor at Texas Southern Univer-
sity, College of Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science, Houston,
TX. He has published many research articles in refereed journals and IEEE confer-
ences. He has more than 30 years of teaching and research experience. He has been
General chair, Session Chair, TPC Chair and Panelist in several conferences and

xvii
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
tenants or good slaves no doubt induced landlords to entrust farms
to men who could and would work them profitably, whether freemen
or slaves. And a slave had in agriculture, as in trades and finance, a
point in his favour: his person and his goods[1494] remained in his
master’s power. If by skilled and honest management he relieved his
master of trouble and worry, and contributed by regular payment of
rent to assure his income, it was reasonable to look for gratitude
expressed, on the usual Roman lines, in his master’s will.
Manumission, perhaps accompanied by bequest[1495] of the very
farm that he had worked so well, was a probable reward. May we
not guess that some of the best farming carried on in Italy under the
earlier Empire was achieved by trusted slaves, in whom servile
apathy was overcome by hope? Such a farmer-slave would surely
have under him[1496] slave labourers, the property of his master;
and he would have the strongest possible motives for tact and skill
in their management, while his own capacity had been developed by
practical experience. I can point to no arrangement in Roman
agriculture so calculated to make it efficient on a basis of slavery as
this.
The services (operae) of a slave, due to his owner or to some one
in place of his owner, were a property capable of valuation, and
therefore could be let and hired at a price. That is, the person to
whom they were due could commute[1497] them for a merces. This
might, as in the corresponding Greek case of ἀποφορά, be a paying
business, if a slave had been bought cheap and trained so as to earn
good wages. It was common enough in various trades: what
concerns us is that the plan was evidently in use in the rustic world
also. Now this is notable. We naturally ask, if the man’s services
were worth so much to the hirer, why should they not have been
worth as much (or even a little more) to his own master? Why
should it pay to let him rather than to use him yourself? Of course
the owner might have more slaves than he needed at the moment:
or the hirer might be led by temporary need of labour to offer a
fancy price for the accommodation: or two masters on neighbouring
farms might engage in a reciprocity of cross-hirings to suit their
mutual convenience at certain seasons. Further possibilities might be
suggested, but are such occasional explanations sufficient to account
for the prevalence of this hiring-system? I think not. Surely the
principal influence, steadily operating in this direction, was one that
implied an admission of the economic failure of slavery. If A’s slave
worked for B so well that it paid A to let him do so and to receive a
rent for his services, it follows that the slave had some inducement
to exert his powers more fully as B’s hireling than in the course of
ordinary duty under his own master. Either the nature and conditions
of the work under B were pleasanter, or he received something for
himself over and above the stipulated sum claimed by his master. In
other words, as a mere slave he did not do his best: as a hired man
he felt some of the stimulus that a free man gets from the prospect
of his wage. So Slavery, already philanthropically questioned, was in
this confession economically condemned.
These points considered, we are not surprised to find mention of
slaves letting out their own[1498] operae. This must imply the
consent of their masters, and it is perhaps not rash to see in such a
situation a sign of weakening in the effective authority of masters. A
master whose interest is bound up with the fullest development of
his slave’s powers (as rentable property exposed to competition) will
hardly act the martinet without forecasting the possible damage to
his own pocket. A slave who knows that his master draws an income
from his efficiency is in a strong position for gradually extorting
privileges till he attains no small degree of independence. We may
perhaps find traces of such an advance in the arrangement by which
a slave hires his own operae[1499] from his master. He will thus
make a profit out of hiring himself: in fact he is openly declaring that
he will not work at full power for his master, but only compound with
him for output on the scale of an ordinary slave. This arrangement
was common in arts and handicrafts, and not specially characteristic
of Rome. In rustic life, the slave put into a farm as tenant[1500] at a
fixed rent, and taking profit and loss, may furnish an instance.
Whether such cases were frequent we do not know. The general
impression left by the Digest passages on hiring and letting of slaves
is that, when we read of mercennarii, it is generally if not always
hireling[1501] slaves, not free wage-earners, that are meant. In a
passage[1502] where servus occurs as well as mercennarius, it is
reference to the owner as well as to the hirer that necessitates the
addition. If I have interpreted these points aright, the picture
suggested is a state of things in which the rustic slave was steadily
improving his position, supplying hired labour, at times entrusted
with the charge of a farm, and with a fair prospect of becoming by
manumission under his owner’s will a free colonus, or even his own
landlord. How far this picture is really characteristic of rustic Italy, or
of the Provinces (such as Gaul or Spain), is what one would like to
know, but I can find no evidence.
In the foregoing paragraphs I have refrained from inquiring
whether the colonus as he appears in the Digest was a farmer who
worked with his own hands, or merely an employer and director of
labour. The reason is that I have found in the texts no evidence
whatever on the point. It was not the jurist’s business. We are left to
guess at the truth as best we may, and we can only start from
consideration of the farmer’s own interest, and assume that the
average farmer knew his own interest and was guided thereby. Now,
being bound to pay rent in some form or other and to make good
any deficiencies in the instrumentum at the end of his tenancy, he
had every inducement to get all he could out of the land while he
held it. How best to do this, was his problem. And the answer no
doubt varied according to the size of the farm, the kind of crops that
could profitably be raised there, and the number and quality of the
staff. In some rough operations, his constant presence on one spot
and sharing the actual work might get the most out of his men.
Where nicety of skill was the main thing, he might better spend his
time in direction and minute watching of the hands. On a fairly large
farm he would have enough to do as director. We may reasonably
guess that he only toiled with his own hands if he thought it would
pay him to do so. This a priori guesswork is not satisfactory. But I
see nothing else to be said; for the African inscriptions do not help
us. The circumstances of those great domains were exceptional.
So far we have been viewing agriculture as proceeding in times
and under conditions assumed to be more or less normal, without
taking account of the various disturbing elements in rustic life, by
which both landlords and tenants were liable to suffer vexation and
loss. Yet these were not a few. Even a lawyer could not ignore wild
beasts. Wolves carried off some of A’s pigs. Dogs kept by B, colonus
of a neighbouring villa, for protection of his own flocks, rescued the
pigs. A legal question[1503] at once arises: are the rescued pigs
regarded as wild game, and therefore belonging to the owner of the
dogs? No, says the jurist. They were still within reach; A had not
given them up for lost; if B tries to retain them, the law provides
remedies to make him give them up. I presume that B would have a
claim to some reward for his services. But the lawyer is silent,
confining his opinion to the one question of property. References to
depredations of robbers or brigands (latrones, grassatores,) occur
often, and quite as a matter of course. The police of rural Italy, not
to mention the Provinces, was an old scandal. Stock-thieves, who
lifted a farmer’s cattle sheep or goats, and sometimes his crops,
were important enough to have a descriptive name (abigei)[1504]
and a title of the Digest to themselves. That bad neighbours made
themselves unpleasant in many ways, and that their presence gave a
bad name to properties near them, was an experience of all lands
and all ages: but the jurists treat it gravely[1505] as a lawyer’s
matter. Concealment of such a detrimental fact[1506] by the seller of
an estate made the sale voidable. The rich (old offenders in this
kind) were by a rescript of Hadrian[1507] awarded differential
punishment for removing landmarks: in their case the purpose of
encroachment was not a matter open to doubt.
In one connexion the use of force as an embarrassing feature of
rustic life was a subject of peculiar interest to the jurists, and had
long been so. This was in relation to questions of possession. In
Roman law possessio held a very important place. All that need be
said of it here is that the fact of possession, or lack of it, seriously
affected the position of litigants in disputes as to property. Great
ingenuity was exercised in definition and in laying down rules for
ascertaining the fact. Now among the means employed in gaining or
recovering possession none was more striking or more effective than
the use of force. Special legal remedies had been provided to deal
with such violence; interdicta issued by the praetor, to forbid it, or to
reinstate a claimant dislodged by his rival, or simply to state the
exact issue raised in a particular case. On conformity or
disobedience to the praetor’s order the case was formally tried in
court: the question of law mainly turned on questions of fact. What
concerns us is that force was solemnly classified under two heads,
vis and vis armata. Each of these had its own proper interdict at
least as early as the time of Cicero, and they occupy a whole
title[1508] in the Digest. Clearly the use of force was no negligible
matter. That it was a danger or at least a nuisance to owners or
claimants of property, is not less clear. But how did it touch the
colonus? He was, as such, neither owner nor claimant of the
property of his farm. He had in his own capacity[1509] no possession
either. But, as tenant of a particular owner, his presence
operated[1510] to secure the possession of his landlord. Hence to
oust him by force broke the landlord’s possession; whether rightly or
wrongly, the law had to decide. Now it is obvious that, in cases
where serious affrays resulted from intrusion, a tenant might suffer
grave damage to his goods and person. The intruders (often a gang
of slaves) would seldom be so punctiliously gentle as to do no harm
at all. Therefore, having regard to the amount of interest in this
subject shewn by the lawyers, we cannot omit the use of force in
matters of possession from the list of rustic embarrassments.
Another cause of annoyance was connected with servitudes, such
as rights of way and water, which were frequent subjects of dispute
in country districts. Whether regarded as rights or as burdens, the
principles governing them were a topic that engaged the minute and
laborious attention[1511] of the lawyers. Now it is evident that a right
of way or water through an estate, though a material advantage to a
neighbouring estate served by the convenience, might be a material
disadvantage to the one over which the right extended. Also that the
annoyance might be indefinitely increased or lessened by the
cantankerous or considerate user of the right by the person or
persons enjoying it. When we consider that servitudes were already
an important department of jurisprudence in Republican days, and
see how great a space they occupy in the Digest, we can hardly
resist the conclusion that country proprietors found in them a fertile
subject of quarrels. But surely the quarrels of landlords over a
matter of this kind could not be carried on without occasional and
perhaps frequent disturbances and injury to the tenants on the land.
Even if the law provided means of getting compensation for any
damage done to a tenant’s crops or other goods in the course of
attempts to enforce or defeat a claimed servitude, was the average
colonus a man readily to seek compensation in the law-courts? I
think not. But, if not, he would depend solely on the goodwill of his
own landlord, supposing the latter to have got the upper hand in the
main dispute. On the whole, I strongly suspect that in practice these
quarrels over rustic servitudes were a greater nuisance to farmers
than might be supposed. So far as I know, we have no statement of
the farmer’s point of view. Another intermittent but damaging
occurrence was the occasional passage of soldiery, whose discipline
was often lax. We might easily forget the depredations and general
misconduct of these unruly ruffians, and imagine that such
annoyances only became noticeable in a later period. But the jurists
do not allow us to forget[1512] the military requisitions for supply of
troops on the march, the payment for which is not clearly provided,
and would at best be a cause of trouble; or the pilferings of the
men, compensation for which was probably not to be had. It would
be farmers in northern Italy and the frontier-provinces that were the
chief sufferers.
Damage by natural disturbances or by fires may happen in any
age or country. That Italy in particular was exposed to the effect of
floods and earthquakes, we know. Accordingly the lawyers are
seriously concerned with the legal and equitable questions arising
out of such events. It was not merely the claim of tenants[1513] to
abatement of rent that called for a statement of principles. Beside
the sudden effects of earthquakes torrents or fires, there were the
slower processes of streams changing their courses[1514] and
gradual land-slides on the slopes of hills. These movements
generally affected the proprietary relations of neighbouring
landlords, taking away land from one, sometimes giving to another.
Here was a fine opening for ingenious jurists, of which they took full
advantage. The growth of estates by alluvion, and loss by erosion,
was a favourite topic, the operation of which, and the questions
thereby raised, are so earnestly treated as to shew their great
importance in country life. Of fire-damage, due to malice or neglect,
no more need be said; nor of many other minor matters.
But, when all the above drawbacks have been allowed for, it is still
probably true that scarcity of labour was a far greater difficulty for
farmers. We hear very little directly of this trouble, as it raised no
point of law. Very significant[1515] however are the attempts of the
Senate and certain emperors to put down an inveterate scandal
which is surely good indirect evidence of the scarcity. It consisted in
the harbouring[1516] of runaway slaves on the estates of other
landlords. A runaway from one estate was of course not protected
and fed on another estate from motives of philanthropy. The slave
would be well aware that severe punishment awaited him if
recovered by his owner, and therefore be willing to work for a new
master who might, if displeased, surrender him any day. The
landlords guilty of this treason to the interests of their class were
probably the same as those who harboured[1517] brigands, another
practice injurious to peaceful agriculture both in Italy and abroad.
Another inconvenience, affecting all trades and all parts of the
empire in various degrees, was the local difference in the money-
value[1518] of commodities in different markets. This was sometimes
great: and that it was troublesome to farmers may be inferred from
the particular mention of wine oil and corn as cases in point. No
doubt dealers had the advantage over producers, as they generally
have, through possessing a more than local knowledge of necessary
facts. These middlemen however could not be dispensed with, as
experience shewed, and one of the later jurists[1519] openly
recognized. Facilities for borrowing, and rates of interest, varied
greatly in various centres. But all these market questions do not
seem to have been so acute as to be a public danger until the
ruinous debasement of the currency in the time of Gallienus. A few
references may be found to peculiar usages of country life in
particular Provinces. Thus we read that in Arabia[1520] farms were
sometimes ‘boycotted,’ any person cultivating such a farm being
threatened with assassination. In Egypt[1521] special care had to be
taken to protect the dykes regulating the distribution of Nile water.
Both these offences were summarily dealt with by the provincial
governor, and the penalty was death. Here we have one more proof
of the anxiety of the imperial government to insure the greatest
possible production of food. The empire was always hungry,—and so
were the barbarians. And the northern frontier provinces could not
feed both themselves and the armies.
While speaking of landlords and tenants we must not forget that
all over the empire considerable areas of land were owned by
municipalities, and dealt with at the discretion of the local
authorities. Variety of systems was no doubt dictated by variety of
local circumstances: but one characteristic was so general as to
deserve special attention on the part of jurists. This was the system
of perpetual leaseholds[1522] at a fixed (and undoubtedly beneficial)
rent, heritable and transferable to assigns. So long as the tenant
regularly paid the vectigal, his occupation was not to be disturbed. It
was evidently the desire of the municipal authorities to have a
certain income to reckon with: for the sake of certainty they would
put up with something less than a rack-rent. There were also other
lands owned by these civitates that were let on the system[1523] in
use by private landlords; the normal term probably being five years.
Of these no more need be said here. Beneficial leases under a
municipality were liable to corrupt management. It had been found
necessary[1524] to disqualify members of the local Senate
(decuriones) from holding such leases, that they might not share out
the common lands among themselves on beneficial terms. But this
prohibition was not enough. The town worthies put in men of
straw[1525] as nominal tenants, through whom they enjoyed the
benefits of the leases. So this evasion also had to be met by
revoking the ill-gotten privilege. But disturbance of tenancies was
not to be lightly allowed, so it appears that a reference to the
emperor[1526] was necessary before such revocation could take
place. This system of perpetual leases is of interest, not as indicating
different methods of cultivation from those practised on private
estates, but as betraying a tendency to fixity[1527] already existing,
destined to spread and to take other forms, and to become the fatal
characteristic of the later Empire. Another striking piece of evidence
in the same direction occurs in connexion with the lessees
(publicani) of various state dues (vectigalia publica) farmed out in
the usual way. In the first half of the third century the jurist Paulus
attests[1528] the fact that, in case it was found that the right of
collecting such dues, hitherto very profitable to the lessees, could
only be let at a lower lump sum than hitherto, the old lessees were
held bound to continue their contract at the old price. But
Callistratus, contemporary or nearly so, tells us that this was not so,
and quotes[1529] a rescript of Hadrian (117-138 ad) condemning the
practice as tyrannical and likely to deter men from entering into so
treacherous a bargain. It appears that other[1530] emperors had
forbidden it, but there is no proof that they succeeded in stopping it.
At all events the resort to coercion in a matter of contract like this
reveals the presence of a belief in compulsory fixity, ominous of the
coming imperial paralysis, though of course not so understood at the
time. It did not directly affect agriculture as yet; but its application
to agriculture was destined to be a symptom and a cause of the
empire’s decline and fall.
 Another group of tenancies, the number and importance of which
was quietly increasing, was that known as praedia Caesaris[1531],
fundi fiscales, and so forth. We need not discuss the departmental
differences and various names of these estates. The tenants,
whether small men or conductores on a large scale who sublet in
parcels[1532] to coloni, held either directly or indirectly from the
emperor. We have seen specimens in Africa, the Province in which
the crown-properties were exceptionally large. What chiefly concerns
us here is the imperial land-policy. It seems clear that its first aim
was to keep these estates permanently occupied by good solvent
tenants. The surest means to this end was to give these estates a
good name, to create a general impression that on imperial farms a
man had a better chance of thriving than on those of average
private landlords. Now the ‘state,’ that is the emperor or his
departmental chiefs, could favour crown-tenants in various ways
without making a material sacrifice of a financial kind. In particular,
the treatment of crown-estates as what we call ‘peculiars,’ in which
local disputes were settled, not by resort to the courts of ordinary
law, but administratively[1533] by the emperor’s procuratores, was
probably a great relief; above all to the humbler coloni, whom we
may surely assume to have been a class averse to litigation. No
doubt a procurator might be corrupted and unjust. But he was
probably far more effectually watched than ordinary magistrates;
and, if the worst came to the worst, there was as we have seen the
hope of a successful appeal to the emperor. Another favour
consisted in the exemption of Caesar’s tenants from various
burdensome official duties in municipalities, the so-called munera,
which often entailed great expense. This is mentioned by a
jurist[1534] near the end of the second century: they are only to
perform such duties so far as not to cause loss to the treasury.
Another[1535], somewhat later, says that their exemption is granted
in order that they may be more suitable tenants of treasury-farms.
This exemption is one more evidence of the well-known fact that in
this age municipal offices were beginning to be evaded[1536] as
ruinous, and no longer sought as an honour. We must note that, if
this immunitas relieved the crown-tenants, it left all the more
burdens to be borne by those who enjoyed no such relief. And this
cannot have been good for agriculture in general.
It is not to be supposed that the fiscus[1537] was a slack and easy
landlord. Goods of debtors were promptly seized to cover liabilities:
attempts to evade payment of tributa by a private agreement[1538]
between mortgagor and mortgagee were quashed: a rescript[1539]
of Marcus and Verus insisted on the treasury share (½) of treasure
trove: and so on. But there are signs of a reasonable and
considerate policy, in not pressing demands so as to inflict hardship.
Trajan[1540] had set a good example, and good emperors followed it.
We may fairly guess that this moderation in financial dealings was
not wholly laid aside in the management of imperial estates. Nor is it
to be imagined that the advantages of imperial tenants were exactly
the same in all parts of the empire. In Provinces through which
armies had to move it is probable that coloni Caesaris would suffer
less[1541] than ordinary farmers from military annoyances. But on
the routes to and from a seat of war it is obvious that the imperial
post-service would be subjected to exceptional strain. Now this
service was at the best of times[1542] a cause of vexations and
losses to the farmers along the line of traffic. The staff made good
all deficiencies in their requirements by taking beasts fodder vehicles
etc wherever they could find them: what they restored was much
the worse for wear, and compensation, if ever got, was tardy and
inadequate. The repair of roads was another pretext for exaction. It
is hardly to be doubted that in these respects imperial tenants
suffered less than others. Some emperors[1543] took steps to ease
the burden, which had been found too oppressive to the roadside
estates. But this seems to have been no more than relief from
official requisitions: irregular ‘commandeering’ was the worst evil,
and we have no reason to think that it was effectually suppressed. It
appears in the next period as a rampant abuse, vainly forbidden by
the laws of the Theodosian code.
 L. THE LATER COLONATE, ITS PLACE IN
ROMAN HISTORY.
In the endeavour to extract from scattered and fragmentary
evidence some notion of agricultural conditions in the Roman empire
before and after Diocletian we are left with two imperfect pictures,
so strongly contrasted as to suggest a suspicion of their truth. We
can hardly believe that the system known as the later Colonate
appeared in full force as a sudden phenomenon. Nor indeed are we
compelled to fly so directly in the face of historical experience. That
we have no narrative of the steps that led to this momentous
change, is surely due to the inability of contemporaries to discern
the future effect of tendencies operating silently[1544] and
piecemeal. What seems at the moment insignificant, even if
observed, is seldom recorded, and very seldom intentionally. Hence
after generations, seeking to trace effects to causes, are puzzled by
defects of record. Their only resource is to supplement, so far as
possible, defective record by general consideration of the history of
the time in question and cautious inference therefrom: in fact to get
at the true meaning of fragmentary admissions in relation to their
historical setting. The chief topic to be dealt with here from this
point of view is the character of the Roman Empire in several
aspects. For among all the anxieties of the government during these
troubled centuries the one that never ceased was the fear of failure
in supplies of food.
The character of the Roman Empire had been largely determined
by the fact that it arose from the overthrow of a government that
had long been practically aristocratic. The popular movements that
contributed to this result only revealed the impossibility of
establishing anything like a democracy, and the unreality of any
power save the power of the sword. The great dissembler Augustus
concealed a virtual autocracy by conciliatory handling of the remains
of the nobility. But the Senate, to which he left or gave many
powers, was never capable of bearing a vital part in the
administration, and its influence continued to dwindle under his
successors. The master of the army was the master of the empire,
and influence was more and more vested in those who were able to
guide his policy. That these might be, and sometimes were, not born
Romans at all, but imperial freedmen generally of Greek or mixed-
Greek origin, was a very significant fact. In particular, it marked and
encouraged the growth of departmental bureaus, permanent and
efficient beyond the standard of previous Roman experience. But the
price of this efficiency was centralization, a condition that carried
with it inevitable dangers, owing to the vast extent of the empire. In
modern times the fashionable remedy suggested for over-
centralization is devolution of powers to local governments
controlling areas of considerable size. Or, in cases of aggregation,
the existing powers left to states merged in a confederation are
considerable. In any case, the subordinate units are free to act
within their several limited spheres, and the central government
respects their ‘autonomy,’ only interfering in emergencies to enforce
the fulfilment of definite common obligations.
But, if it had been desired to gain any such relief by a system of
devolution within the Roman empire, this would have meant the
recognition of ‘autonomy’ in the Provinces. And this was
inconceivable. The extension of Roman dominion had been achieved
by dividing Rome’s adversaries. Once conquered, it was the interest
or policy of the central power to keep them in hand by preventing
the growth of self-conscious cohesion in the several units. Each
Province was, as the word implied, a department of the Roman
system, ruled by a succession of Roman governors. It looked to
Rome for orders, for redress of grievances, for protection at need. If
the advance of Rome destroyed no true nations, her government at
least made the development of truly national characteristics
impossible, while she herself formed no Roman nation. Thus, for
better or worse, the empire was non-national. But, as we have
already seen, the decline of Italy made it more and more clear that
the strength of the empire lay in the Provinces. Now, having no
share in initiative and no responsibility, the Provinces steadily lost
vitality under Roman civilization, and became more and more
helplessly dependent on the central power. As the strain on the
empire became greater, the possibility of relief by devolution grew
less: but more centralization was no cure for what was already a
disease.
That local government of a kind existed in the empire is true
enough; also that it was one of the most striking and important
features of the system. But it was municipal, and tended rather to
subdivide than to unite. It was the outcome of a civilization
profoundly urban in its origins and ideas. The notion that a city was
a state was by no means confined to the independent cities of early
Greece. Whether it voluntarily merged itself in a League or lived on
as a subordinate unit in the system of a dominant power, the city
and its territory were politically one. Within their several boundaries
the townsmen and rustic citizens of each city were subject to the
authorities of that community. Beyond their own boundary they were
aliens under the authorities of another city. It is no wonder that
jealousies between neighbour cities were often extreme, and that
Roman intervention was often needed to keep the peace between
rivals. But the system suited Roman policy. In the East and wherever
cities existed they were taken over as administrative units and as
convenient centres of taxation: in the West it was found useful and
practicable to introduce urban centres into tribes and cantons, and
even in certain districts to attach[1545] local populations to existing
cities as dependent hamlets. And, so long as the imperial
government was able to guard the frontiers and avert the shock of
disturbances of the Roman peace, the empire held its own in
apparent prosperity. To some historians the period of the ‘Antonines’
(say about 100-170 ad) has seemed a sort of Golden Age. But signs
are not lacking that the municipal system had seen its best days.
The severe strain on imperial resources in the time of Marcus left
behind it general exhaustion. The decay of local patriotism marked
the pressure of poverty and loss of vitality in the cities. More and
more their importance became that of mere taxation-centres, in
which the evasion of duty was the chief preoccupation: they could
not reinvigorate the empire, nor the empire them.
Another characteristic of the empire, not less significant than
those mentioned above, was this: taken as a whole, it was non-
industrial. Manufactures existed here and there, and products of
various kinds were exchanged between various parts of the empire.
So far as the ordinary population was concerned, the Roman world
might well have supplied its own needs. But this was not enough.
The armies, though perilously small for the work they had to do,
were a heavy burden. The imperial civil service as it became more
elaborate did not become less costly. The waste of resources on
unremunerative buildings and shows in cities, above all in Rome, and
the ceaseless expense of feeding a worthless rabble, were a serious
drain: ordained by established custom, maintained by vanity, to
economize on these follies would seem a confession of weakness.
Nor should the extravagance of the rich, and of many emperors, be
forgotten: this created a demand for luxuries chiefly imported from
the East; precious stones, delicate fabrics, spices, perfumes, rare
woods, ivory, and so forth. Rome had no goods to export in payment
for such things, and the scarcity of return-cargoes must have added
heavily to the cost of carriage. There was on this account a steady
drain of specie to the East, and this had to be met by a
corresponding drain of specie to Rome. In one form or another this
meant money drawn from the Provinces, for which the Provinces
received hardly the bare pretence of an equivalent, or a better
security for peace.
Thus the empire, created by conquest and absorption,
administered by bureaucratic centralization, rested on force; a force
partly real and still present, partly traditional, derived from a
victorious past. The belief in Rome as the eternal city went for much,
and we hear of no misgivings as to the soundness of a civilization
which expressed itself in a constant excess of consumption over
production. Naturally enough, under such conditions, the imperial
system became more and more what it really was from the first, a
vast machine. It was not a league of cooperating units, each
containing a vital principle of growth, and furnishing the power of
recovery from disaster. Its apathetic parts looked passively to the
centre for guidance or relief, depending on the perfection of a
government whose imperfection was assured by attempting a task
beyond the reach of human faculty and virtue. The exposure of the
empire’s weakness came about through collision with the forces of
northern barbarism. What a machine could do, that it did, and its
final failure was due to maladies that made vain all efforts to renew
its internal strength.
The wars with the northern barbarians brought out with singular
clearness two important facts, already known but not sufficiently
taken into account. First, that the enemy were increasing in numbers
while the people of the empire were in most parts stationary or even
declining. Bloody victories, when gained, did practically nothing to
redress the balance. Secondly, that at the back of this embarrassing
situation lay a food-question of extreme seriousness and complexity.
More and more food was needed for the armies, and the rustics of
the empire, even when fitted for military service, could not be
spared from the farms without danger to the food-supply. The
demands of the commissariat were probably far greater than we
might on the face of it suppose; for an advance into the enemy’s
territory did not ease matters. Little or nothing was found to eat:
indeed it was the pressure of a growing population on the means of
subsistence that drove the hungry German tribes to face the Roman
sword in quest of abundant food and the wine and oil of the South
and West. The attempt of Marcus and others after him, to solve the
problems of the moment by enlisting barbarians in Roman armies,
was no permanent solution. The aliens too had to be fed, and their
pay in money could not be deferred. Meanwhile the taxation of the
empire inevitably grew, and the productive industries had to stagger
along under heavier burdens. The progressive increase of these is
sufficiently illustrated in the history of indictiones. At first an indictio
was no more than an occasional[1546] impost of so much corn levied
by imperial proclamation on landed properties in order to meet
exceptional scarcity in Rome. But it was in addition to the regular
tributum, and was of course most likely to occur in years when
scarcity prevailed. No wonder it was already felt onerous[1547] in the
time of Trajan. Pressure on imperial resources caused it not only to
become more frequent, and eventually normal: it was
extended[1548] to include other products, and became a regular
burden of almost universal application, and ended by furnishing a
new chronological unit, the Indiction-period of 15 years.
That agriculture, already none too prosperous, suffered heavily
under this capricious impost in the second century, seems to me a
fact beyond all doubt. And, not being then a general imperial tax, it
fell upon those provinces that were still flourishing producers of
corn. Debasement of currency already lowered the value of money-
taxes, and tempted emperors to extend the system of dues in kind.
Under Diocletian and Galerius things came to a head. Vast increase
of taxation was called for under the new system, and it was mainly
taxation in kind. Already the failure of agriculture was notorious, and
attempts had been made to enforce cultivation of derelict lands. The
new taxation only aggravated present evils, and in despair of milder
measures Constantine attached the coloni to the soil. Important as
the legal foundation of the later serf-colonate, this law is historically
still more important as a recognition of past failure which nothing
had availed to check. He saw no way of preventing a general
stampede from the farms save to forbid it as illegal, and to employ
the whole machinery of the empire in enforcing the new law. This
policy was only a part of the general tendency to fix everything in a
rigid framework, to make all occupations hereditary, that became
normal in the later Empire. The Codes are a standing record of the
principle that the remedy for failure of legislation was more
legislation of the same kind. Hard-pressed emperors needed all the
resources they could muster, particularly food. They had no
breathing-space to try whether more freedom might not promote
enterprise and increase production, even had such a policy come
within their view. Hence the cramping crystallizing process went on
with the certainty of fate. The government, unable to develope
existing industry, simply squeezed it to exhaustion.
 How came it that the government was able to do this? How came
it that agricultural tenants could be converted into stationary serfs
without causing a general upheaval[1549] and immediate dissolution
of the empire? Mainly, I think, because the act of Constantine was
no more than a recognition de iure of a condition already created de
facto by a long course of servilizing influences. Also because it was
the apparent interest, not only of the imperial treasury but of the
great proprietors generally, to tie down to the soil[1550] the
cultivators of their estates. Labour was now more valuable than
land. In corn-growing Africa the importance attached to the task-
work of sub-tenants was a confession of this. And, law or no law,
things had to move in one or other direction. Either the landlord and
head-lessee had to win further control of the tenants, or the tenants
must become less dependent. Only the former alternative was
possible in the circumstances; and the full meaning of the change
that turned de facto dependence into legal constraint may be stated
as a recognition of the colonus as labourer rather than tenant.
Whether the settlement of barbarians as domiciled aliens in some
Provinces under strict conditions of farm-labour had anything to do
with the creation of this new semi-servile status, seems hardly to be
decided on defective evidence. At all events it cannot have hindered
it. And we must make full allowance for the effect of various
conditions in various Provinces. If we rightly suppose that the
position of coloni had been growing weaker for some time before the
act of Constantine, this does not imply that the process was due to
the same causes operating alike in all parts of the empire in the
same degree. The evidence of the Theodosian Code shews many
local differences of phenomena in the fourth and fifth centuries; and
it is not credible that there was a greater uniformity in the conditions
of the preceding age. Laws might aim at uniformity, but they could
not alter facts.
My conclusion therefore is that the general character of the
imperial system was the main cause of the later serf-colonate.
However much the degradation of free farm-tenants, or the
admission of slaves to tenancies, or the settlement of barbarians
under conditions of service, may have contributed to the result, it
was the mechanical nature of the system as a whole that gave effect
to them all. After Trajan the rulers of the empire became more and
more conscious that the problem before them was one of
conservation, and that extension was at an end. Hadrian saw this,
and strove to perfect the internal organization. By the time of
Aurelian it was found necessary to surrender territory as a further
measure of security. We can hardly doubt that under such conditions
the machine of internal administration operated more mechanically
than ever. Then, when the reforms of Diocletian made fresh taxation
necessary to defray their cost, an agricultural crisis was produced by
the turning of the imperial screw. The hierarchy of officials justified
their existence by squeezing an assured revenue out of a population
unable to resist but able to remove. There was no other source of
revenue to take the place of the land: moreover, it was agricultural
produce in kind that was required. Therefore the central
bureaucracy, unchecked by any public opinion, did after its wont. In
that selfish and servile world each one took care of his own skin.
Compulsion was the rule: the coloni must be made to produce food:
therefore they must be bound fast to the soil, or the empire would
starve—and the officials with it.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO CHAPTER L.

I cannot lose this opportunity of referring to a very interesting

little book by M. Augé-Laribé, L’évolution de la France agricole [Paris
1912]. Much of it bears directly on the labour-question, and sets
forth the difficulties hindering its solution. It is peculiarly valuable to
a student of the question in the ancient world, because it lays great
stress on the effect of causes arising from modern conditions.
Causes operating in both ancient and modern times are thereby
made more readily and clearly perceptible. Such modern influences
in particular as the vast development of transport, the concentration
of machine-industries in towns, and the constant attraction of better
and more continuous wage-earning, by which the rustic is drawn to
urban centres, are highly significant. The difference from ancient
conditions is so great in degree that it practically almost amounts to
a difference in kind. So too in the material resources of agriculture:
the development of farm-machinery has superseded much hand-
labour, while Science has increased the possible returns from a given
portion of soil.
Most significant of all from my point of view is the author’s
insistence on the irregularity of wage-earning in rustic life as an
active cause of the flitting of wage-earners to the towns. This brings
it home to a student that a system of rustic slavery implies a set of
conditions incompatible with such an economic migration; and also
that the employment of slaves by urban craftsmen would not leave
many eligible openings for immigrant rustics. It is fully consistent
with my view that the wage-earning rustic was a rare figure in the
Greco-Roman world.
It is perhaps in the remedies proposed by the author for present
evils (and for the resulting depopulation of the countryside) that the
contrast of ancient and modern is most clearly marked. Bureaucratic
the French administrative system may be: but it is not the
expression of a despotism that enslaves its citizens in the frantic
effort to maintain itself against pressure from without. For
individuals and organizations are free to think speak and act, and so
to promote what seems likely to do good. Initiative and invention are
not deadened by the fear that betterment will only serve as a
pretext for increase of burdens. Stationary by instinct the French
peasant proprietor may be: but he is free to move if he will, and no
one dare propose to tie him to the soil by law.
Nor can I omit a reference to a paper of the late Prof Pelham on
The Imperial domains and the Colonate (1890, in volume of Essays,
Oxford 1911).
The simplicity of the solution there offered is most attractive, and
the general value of the treatise great. But I do not think it a final
solution of the problem. Not only are there variations of detail in the
domains known to us from the African inscriptions (some of them
found since 1890). That some of the regulations may have been
taken over from those of former private owners is a point not
considered. And there is no mention of the notable requisition of the
services of coloni as mere retainers, to which Caesar refers without
comment (above pp 183, 254). Therefore, while I welcome the
proposition that the system of the Imperial domains had much to do
with the creation of the later Colonate, I still think that earlier and
more deep-seated causes cannot safely be ignored. Perhaps this is
partly because I am looking at the matter from a labour point of
view.
 FROM DIOCLETIAN
LI. GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
If we desire to treat History as the study of causation in the affairs
of mankind—and this is its most fruitful task—we shall find no more
striking illustration of its difficulties than the agricultural system of
the later Roman Empire. In the new model of Diocletian and
Constantine we see the imperial administration reorganized in new
forms[1551] deliberately adopted: policy expresses itself, after a
century of disturbance, in a clear breach with the past. But, when
Constantine in 332 legislates[1552] to prevent coloni from migrating,
he refers to a class of men who are not their own masters but
subject to control (iuris alieni), though he distinguishes them from
slaves. Evidently he is not creating a new class: his intention is to
prevent an existing class from evading its present responsibilities.
They are by the fact of their birth attached as cultivators to their
native soil. With this tie of origo[1553] goes liability to a certain
proportion of imperial tax (capitatio). This is mentioned as a matter
of course. Now we know that such serf-coloni formed at least a large
part of the rustic population under the later Empire. We cannot but
see that the loss of the power of free migration is the vital difference
that marks off these tied farmers from the tenant farmers of an
earlier period, the class whom Columella advised landlords to retain
if possible. For these men cannot move on if they would. How came
they to be in this strange condition, in fact neither slave nor free, so
that Constantine had merely to crystallize relations already
existing[1554] and the institution of serf-tenancy became a regular
part of the system? If we are to form any notion of the conditions of
farm labour in this period, we must form some notion of the causes
that produced the later or dependent colonate. And this is no simple
matter: on few subjects has the divergence of opinions been more
marked than on this. I have stated my own conclusions above, and
further considerations are adduced in this chapter.
Our chief source of evidence is the collection of legal acts of the
Christian emperors issued by authority in the year 438, and known
as the codex Theodosianus. It covers a period of more than a
hundred years, and innumerable references to the land-questions
attest the continual anxiety of the imperial government to secure
adequate cultivation of every possible acre of land. Contemporary
history may suggest motives for this nervousness. The increased
expenses of the court and the administrative system made it
necessary to raise more taxes than ever for the civil services. The
armies, now mainly composed of Germans and other barbarians,
were necessary for imperial defence, but very costly to equip pay
and feed. Whether they were mercenaries drawing wages, or aliens
settled as Roman subjects within the empire on lands held by tenure
of military service, they were either a burden on the treasury or a
doubtful element of the population that must at all costs be kept in
good humour. On a few occasions Roman victories furnished
numbers of barbarian prisoners to the slave-market. These would be
dispersed over various districts, generally at some distance from the
troubled frontiers, and the rustic slaves of whom we hear were
doubtless in great part procured in this way. But that the rustic
population consisted largely of actual slaves we have no reason to
believe. Of estates worked on a vast scale by slave labour we hear
nothing. Naturally; for the social and economic conditions favourable
to that system had long passed away. Slaves were no longer
plentiful, markets were no longer free. Under the Empire, the pride
of great landlords needed a strong mixture of caution; under a
greedy or spendthrift emperor the display of material wealth was apt
to be dangerous. In the century of confusion before Diocletian
agriculture had been much interrupted in many parts of the empire,
and much land had gone out of cultivation. So serious was the
situation in the later part of that period, that Aurelian[1555] imposed
upon municipal senates the burden of providing for the cultivation of
derelict farms.
When a taxpayer is required to pay a fixed amount in a stable
currency, he knows his liability. So long as he can meet it, any
surplus income remains in his hands, and he has a fair chance of
improving his economic position by thrift. If what the state really
wants is (say) corn, it can use its tax-revenue to purchase corn in
the open market. But this assumes that the producer is free to stand
out for the best price he can get, and that he will be paid in money
on the purchasing power of which he can rely for his own needs.
This last condition had ceased to exist[1556] in the Roman empire.
Not to mention earlier tamperings with the currency, since the
middle of the third century its state had been deplorable. Things had
now gone so far that the value of the fixed money taxes seriously
reduced the income derived from them: the government was literally
paid in its own coin. The policy of Diocletian was to extend an old
practice of exacting payment in kind, and this became the principal
method[1557] of imperial taxation. We must bear in mind that the
supply of corn for the city of Rome, the annona urbis, went on as
before, though the practical importance of Rome was steadily
sinking. Diocletian made it no longer the residence of emperors, and
Constantine founded another capital in the East: but Rome was still
fed by corn-tributes from the Provinces, chiefly from Africa and
Egypt. When the New Rome on the Bosporus was fully equipped as
an imperial capital, Egypt was made liable for the corn-supply of the
Constantinopolitan populace. Old Rome had then to rely almost
entirely on Africa, with occasional help from other sources. Italy
itself[1558] was now reduced to the common level, cut up into
provinces, and liable for furnishing supplies of food. But it was
divided into two separate regions: the northern, officially named
Italia, or annonariae regiones, in which a good deal of corn was
grown, had to deliver its annona at Mediolanum (Milan) the new
imperial headquarters: the southern, suburbicariae (or urbicariae)
regiones, in which little corn was grown, sent supplies of pigs cattle
wine firewood lime etc to Rome. The northern annona, like that from
other provinces, helped to maintain military forces and the host of
officials employed by the government. For it soon became the
practice to pay salaries in kind. In the pitiful state of the currency
this rude method offered the best guarantee for receipt of a definite
value.
Unhappily this exaction and distribution in kind was at best a
wasteful process. At worst it was simply ruinous. The empire was
subject to constant menace of attack, and was in dire need of the
largest possible income raised on the most economical system. If the
ultimate basis of imperial strength was to be found in the food-
producers, it was all-important to give the farming classes a feeling
of security sufficient to encourage industry and enterprise, and at all
costs to avoid reducing them to despair. Nor was the new census as
designed by Diocletian on the face of it an unjust and evil institution.
Taking account of arable lands and of the persons employed in
cultivating them, it aimed at creating a fixed number[1559] of
agricultural units each of which should be liable to furnish the same
amount of yearly dues in kind. But it is obvious that to carry out this
doctrinaire scheme with uniform neatness and precision was not
possible. To deal fairly with agriculture a minute attention to local
differences and special peculiarities was necessary, and this attention
could not be given on so vast a scale. Perhaps careful observation
and correction of errors might have produced a reasonable degree of
perfection in a long period of unbroken peace: but no such period
was at hand. The same strain that drove the imperial government to
the new taxation also prevented any effective control of its working.
It is perhaps inevitable that the exaction of dues in kind should
lead to abuses. At all events, abuses in this department were no new
thing: the sufferings of such Provinces as Sicily and Asia were
notorious in the time of the Republic. A stricter control had made the
state of things much better in the first two centuries of the Empire.
The exploitation of the Provincials was generally checked, and the
imperial government was not as yet driven by desperate financial
straits to turn extortioner itself. Caracalla’s law of 212, extending the
Roman franchise[1560] to all free inhabitants, was a symptom of
conscious need, for it brought all estates under the Roman
succession-tax. At the same time it did away with the old distinction
between the ruling Roman people and the subject nationalities:
henceforth, wherever there was oppression within the Roman world,
it necessarily fell upon Roman[1561] citizens. Time had been when
the Roman citizen, free to move into any part of the Roman
dominions and to acquire property there[1562] under protection of
Roman law, made full use of the opportunities afforded him, to the
disadvantage of the subject natives. Now all alike were the helpless
subjects of a government that they could neither reform nor
supersede; a government whose one leading idea was to bring all
institutions into fixed grooves in which they should move
mechanically year after year, unsusceptible of growth or decay. True,
the plan was absurd, and some few observers may have detected its
absurdity. But the power of challenging centralized officialism and
evoking expression of public opinion, never more than rudimentary
in the Roman state, was now simply extinct. Things had come to
such a pass that, speaking generally, a citizen’s choice lay between
two alternatives. Either he must bear an active part in the system
that was squeezing out the vital economic forces of the empire,
making whenever possible a profit for himself out of a salary or illicit
gains; or he must submit passively to all such extortions as the
system, worked by men whose duty and interest alike tended to
make them merciless, was certain to inflict. The oppressors, though
numerous, could only be few in proportion to the whole free
population. Therefore the vast majority stood officially condemned to
lives of penury and wretchedness. The system became more hard-
set and the outlook more hopeless with the lapse of time.
The dues exacted from the various parts of the empire varied in
quality[1563] according to local conditions, and to some extent in
methods of collection. In the frontier Provinces the quantity was
sometimes reduced[1564] by remissions, when a district ravaged by
invaders was relieved for a few years that it might recover its normal
productiveness. The details of these variations are beyond the scope
of the present inquiry. The general principle underlying the whole
system was the fixing of taxation-units equal in liability, and the
organizing of collection in municipal groups. Each municipal town or
civitas was the administrative centre of a district, and stood charged
in the imperial ledgers as liable for the returns from a certain
number of units, this number being that recorded as existing at the
last quinquennial census. For the collection the chief municipal
authorities were responsible; and they had to hand over the amount
due to the imperial authorities, whether they had received it in full or
not. Already burdened with strictly municipal liabilities, the members
of municipal senates (curiales) were crushed by this additional and
incalculable pressure. Unable to resist, they generally took the
course of so using their functions and powers as to protect their own
interests as far as possible. One obvious precaution was to see that
the number of taxable units[1565] in their district was not fixed too
high by the census officials. This precaution was certainly not
overlooked, and success in keeping down the number may well have
been the chief reason why the system was able to go on so long.
The curiales were mostly considerable landlords, residing in their
town and letting their land to tenants. But there were other
landlords, smaller men, some also resident in the towns, others in
the country. We still hear of men farming land[1566] of their own,
and it seems that some of these held and farmed other land also, as
coloni of larger landlords. When any question arose as to the
number of units for the tax on which this or that farm was liable, it is
clear that the interests of different classes might easily clash. And
the curiales undoubtedly took care[1567] that their own and those of
their friends did not suffer.
These remarks imply that the system practically worked in favour
of the richer classes[1568] as against the poorer. And so it certainly
did, not only in the time of revision at the census each fifth year, but
on other occasions. If an invasion or some other great disaster led
the emperor to grant temporary relief, this would normally take the
form of reducing the number of taxable units in the district for a
certain period. But the local authorities were left to apportion this
reduction[1569] among the several estates, and the poor farmers had
no representative to see that they got their fair share of relief.
Moreover, outside taxation, the farmers were often subjected to
heavy burdens and damage by the irregular requisitions of imperial
officials. For instance, the staff of the imperial post-service (cursus
publicus)[1570] were a terror. They pressed the goods of farmers into
the service of their department on various pretexts, and exacted
labour on upkeep of roads and stations. For their tyranny there was
no effective compensation or redress. Like other officials, they could
be bought off by bribes: but this meant that the various
exactions[1571] were shifted from the shoulders of the rich to those
of the poor. Another iniquity, the revival of a very old[1572] abuse,
was connected with the question of transport, an important
consideration in the case of dues in kind, often bulky. For instance,
in the case of corn, the place at which it had to be delivered might
easily count for more in estimating the actual pressure of the burden
than the amount of grain levied. In making the arrangements for
delivery there were openings for favouritism and bribery.
Circumstances varied greatly in various parts of the empire. In some
Provinces delivery was made at a military depot within easy reach.
Transport by sea from Egypt or Africa was carried on by gilds[1573]
of shippers, who became more and more organized and regulated by
law. But in many parts good roads were few, and laid out for
strategic reasons; the country roads inconvenient and rough: and for
transport in bulk the post-service provided no machinery available
for the use of private persons.
It is not necessary here to follow out in detail all the particular
discomforts and grievances of the farming classes under the system
devised by Diocletian and developed by his successors. Enough has
been said to shew that they were great, and to remove all ground
for wondering that the area of arable land actually under tillage, and
with it population, continued to decline. Constantine’s law confirming
the bondage of coloni to the soil by forbidding movement was the
confession of a widespread evil, but no remedy. Repeated legislation
to the same purpose only recorded and continued the failure. When
all the resources of evasion were exhausted, the pauperized serf fled
to a town and depended for a living on the pitiful doles of private or
ecclesiastical charity, or turned brigand and took precarious toll of
those who still had something to lose. In either case he was an
additional burden on a society that already had more than it could
bear. In 382 we find an attempt[1574] made to put down ‘sturdy
beggars.’ The law rewarded anyone who procured the conviction of
such persons by handing over the offenders to him. An ex-slave
became the approver’s own slave, and one who had nothing of his
own beyond his freeborn quality was granted to him as his colonus
for life. But this law seems to have been ineffectual like others.
Desertion of farms might to some extent be checked, but mendicity
and brigandage remained.
There was however another movement, later in time and less in
volume, but not less serious as affecting the practical working of the
imperial machine. With the increase of poverty life in municipal
towns became less attractive. Local eminence was no longer an
object of ambition; for to local burdens, once cheerfully borne, was
now added a load of imperial responsibilities which lay heavy on all
men of property, and which they could neither shake off nor control.
In hope of evading them, well-to-do citizens took refuge[1575] in the
country, either on estates of their own or under the protection of
great landlords already settled there. But to allow this would mean
the depletion of the local senates (curiae) on whose services as
revenue-collectors the financial system of the empire depended. To
prevent men qualified for the position of curiales from escaping that
duty was the aim of legislation[1576] which by repeated enactments
confessed its own failure. That there were country magnates, men
of influence (potentes), whose protection might seem able to screen
municipal defaulters, is a point to be noted. They were the great
possessores[1577] (a term no longer applied to small men), who held
large estates organized on a sort of manorial model, and sometimes
ruled them like little principalities, territorial lordships[1578] standing
in direct relations with the central authorities and not hampered by
inclusion in the general municipal scheme. Such ‘peculiars’ had
existed under the earlier Empire, and evidently continued to exist:
the Crown-lands of the emperors, especially in Africa, were the most
signal cases. But the great private Possessor could not secure to his
domain the various exemptions[1579] that emperors conferred on
theirs. He had to collect and pay over[1580] the dues from his estate,
as a municipal magistrate did from the district round his town-
centre. But he had a more immediate and personal interest in the
wellbeing of all his tenants and dependants, whose presence and
prosperity gave to his land by far the greater part[1581] of its value.
That territorial magnates should be free to build up a perhaps
dangerous power in various corners of the empire by gathering
dependants round them, could hardly be viewed with approval by
the jealousy of emperors. Not only was the system of letting land in
parcels to tenants spreading, but the power of the landlords over
them was increasing, long before Constantine took the final step of
treating them as attached permanently to the soil. Whether they
were the landlord’s free tenants who had gradually lost through
economic weakness the effective use of freedom; or small
freeholders who had found it worth their while to part with their
holdings to a big man and become his tenants for the sake of
enjoying his protection; or former slaves to whom small farms had
been entrusted on various conditions; they were in a sort of
economic bondage. Doubtless most of them lived from hand to
mouth, but we have no reason to believe that poverty, so long as
they had plenty to live on, was the motive[1582] that made them
wish to give up their holdings and try their luck elsewhere. It was
the cruel pressure of Diocletian’s new taxation, and the army of
officials employed to enforce it, that drove them to despair. A
contemporary witness[1583] tells us, referring to this very matter, ‘the
excess of receivers over givers was becoming so marked that farms