The Colonate in the Roman Empire

Boudewijn Sirks
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-colonate-in-the-roman-empire-boudewijn-sirks/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Roman Empire in Crisis, 248-260 Paul N Pearson

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-roman-empire-in-
crisis-248-260-paul-n-pearson/

Medicine and the Law Under the Roman Empire Claire Bubb

https://ebookmass.com/product/medicine-and-the-law-under-the-
roman-empire-claire-bubb/

Medicine and the Law Under the Roman Empire Claire Bubb

https://ebookmass.com/product/medicine-and-the-law-under-the-
roman-empire-claire-bubb-2/

Associative Political Culture in the Holy Roman Empire:

Upper Germany, 1346-1521 Duncan Hardy

https://ebookmass.com/product/associative-political-culture-in-
the-holy-roman-empire-upper-germany-1346-1521-duncan-hardy/
Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman
Empire: A Sourcebook Dirk Rohmann

https://ebookmass.com/product/christianity-and-the-history-of-
violence-in-the-roman-empire-a-sourcebook-dirk-rohmann/

The Roman Empire in Crisis, 248-260: When the Gods

Abandoned Rome Paul N. Pearson

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-roman-empire-in-
crisis-248-260-when-the-gods-abandoned-rome-paul-n-pearson/

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium Anthony

Kaldellis

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-roman-empire-a-history-of-
byzantium-anthony-kaldellis/

Sextus Julius Frontinus and the Roman Empire John D.

Grainger

https://ebookmass.com/product/sextus-julius-frontinus-and-the-
roman-empire-john-d-grainger/

The Bread Makers: The Social and Professional Lives of

Bakers in the Western Roman Empire Jared T. Benton

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-bread-makers-the-social-and-
professional-lives-of-bakers-in-the-western-roman-empire-jared-t-
benton/
 T HE C OL O NA TE IN THE RO M AN EM P IRE

The fourth and fifth centuries AD gave rise to a particular phenomenon

in the Roman Empire: the colonate. The colonate involved the fiscal
regulation of a relationship of surety between landowners and farmers in
the later Roman Empire and played a major role in agrarian and social
relations, with implications for these farmers’ freedom of movement and
transmission of status. This study provides a clear and comprehensive
reassessment of the legal aspects of the phenomenon, embedding them
as far as possible in their legal, social and economic contexts. As well as
taking the innovative approach of working retrogradely, or backwards
through time, the volume provides a thorough assessment of two critical
sources, the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and will therefore be an
invaluable resource for students and scholars of Roman law and the
agricultural and social history of late antiquity.

boudewijn sirks is Emeritus Regius Professor of Civil Law at the

University of Oxford and an Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College. He
was formerly Professor of Private Law and Legal History at the J.W.
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt and is currently Member of the
Consiglio Direttivo of the Associazione Storico-Giuridica
Costantiniana.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Published online by Cambridge University Press
 THE COLONATE
IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

BOUDEWIJN SIRKS
University of Oxford

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge cb2 8ea, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009172608
doi: 10.1017/9781009172585
© Boudewijn Sirks 2024
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
First published 2024
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
names: Sirks, Adriaan Johan Boudewijn, author.
title: The Colonate in the Roman Empire / Boudewijn Sirks, University of Oxford.
description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press,
2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
identifiers: lccn 2023026047 | isbn 9781009172608 (hardback) | isbn 9781009172592
(paperback) | isbn 9781009172585 (ebook)
subjects: lcsh: Colonate. | Colonate – Social aspects. | Colonate – Economic aspects. |
Colonatus (Roman law) | Land tenure (Roman law) | Farm tenancy (Roman law) | Peasants –
Rome. | Agricultural laws and legislation (Roman law) | Serfdom (Roman law)
classification: lcc kja2202 .s57 2023 | ddc 340.5/4–dc23/eng/20230609
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023026047
isbn 978-1-009-17260-8 Hardback
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Contents

Introduction page 1
1 The Status Quaestionis : General Approaches 3
2 Sources and Working Method 12
2.1 Sources 13
2.2 Justification of the Retrograde Research
Method Applied Here 17
2.3 Terminology 24

1 The Colonate in the East under Justinian, 527/534–565/642 30

3 Introduction and Background to Justinian’s Code 30
4 The Coloni in Book 11 of Justinian’s Code 32
5 CJ 11.48.20–24: The Central Texts on the Colonate 35
6 Entering or Imposing the Condicio Coloniaria 36
7 Effects of the Colonate: Potestas and Peculium 42
7.1 Coloni Are in the Potestas of the Estate Owner 42
7.2 Their Assets Are Considered Peculium 45
7.3 The Reality of the Potestas and Peculium 49
8 Paying Taxes 52
8.1 Taxes and Taxation 52
8.2 The Colonus as Taxpayer 55
8.3 The Landowner Is Factually and Administratively Surety
of the Capitatio Humana 58
9 Occupations of Coloni 61
10 Transmission of the Condicio and the Effect of the Abolition
of the Senatusconsultum Claudianum 67
10.1 Transmission of the Condicio 67
10.2 The Abolition of the Senatusconsultum Claudianum
and the Condicio Coloniaria 69
10.3 The Coniugium Non Aequale 74
10.4 Unions between Adscripticii and Slaves 78
10.5 Other Cases of the Coniugium Non Aequale 79
10.6 Developments after the Abolition of the Senatusconsultum
Claudianum 81

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 vi Contents
11 Moving Coloni to Other Places 85
12 Coloni Who Migrate and Recalling Them 89
12.1 Reasons for Migrating 89
12.2 Recalling Coloni 91
12.3 Limitation of Prescription against Recall 96
12.4 Immunities against a Recall 97
12.5 Another Way of Losing Labour: Exposition 98
13 Release from the Colonate and the ‘Free’ Colonate 99
13.1 Incidental Private Release 99
13.2 Institutional Release: Anastasius’ Constitution 100
13.3 Institutional Release: Justinian’s Constitutions 104
13.4 Other Interpretations of CJ 11.48.19 105
13.5 Anastasius’ Motives 107
14 Public and Procedural Aspects of the Colonate 109
14.1 Social Mobility 109
14.2 Procedural Privileges 110
14.3 Criminal Law and Abuse of Power 111
15 The Coloni on State and Imperial Lands: CJ 11.63–64, 68–69 112
15.1 General 112
15.2 Coloni on Patrimonial Land (Fundi Patrimoniales),
Emphyteuticarian Land (Fundi Emphyteuticarii),
and Combined Estates (Saltus) 122
15.3 Coloni on Land of the Res Privata (Fundi Rei Privatae) 123
15.4 Coloni on Land of the Imperial House (Fundi Divinae
Domus or Domus Augustae) 126
15.5 Coloni on Land of the Fisc (ταμιεῖον) 127
15.6 A Reason for the Privileges? 128
16 The ‘Free’ Colonate 129
17 The ‘Free’ Colonate: A Byzantine Serfdom? 133
18 Farmers Not Subjected to the Colonate 135
19 Conclusions 138
19.1 The Colonate under Justinian 138
19.2 Open Questions 144
19.3 Different Interpretations 144

2 The Colonate in the Year 438 in Theodosius’ Code 147

20 Introduction 147
20.1 General 147
20.2 The Structure of the Theodosian Code 149
20.3 The Place of the Coloni in the Code 150
21 The Background to the Law in the Theodosian Code 152
22 The Term Colonus 156
23 Entering the Condicio Coloniaria 157
23.1 Condicio and Condicionalis 157
23.2 Origin of the Colonate 160

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Contents vii
23.3 Origin of the Colonate in the East 161
23.4 Origin of the Colonate in the West 167
24 Effects of the Colonate: Potestas and Peculium 167
24.1 Effects of the Colonate in the East 169
24.2 Effects of the Colonate in the West 173
24.3 Summary 180
25 Taxation and Complying with Taxes 181
25.1 Taxes and the Coloni in the East 183
25.2 Taxes and the Coloni in the West 186
26 Transmission of the Condicio and the Effect of the Senatusconsultum
Claudianum 190
26.1 In the East 190
26.2 In the West 191
26.3 The Coniugium Non Aequale 194
26.4 The Coniugium Non Aequale and the Various Categories
of Condicionales 198
27 Moving Coloni to Other Places 199
27.1 Moving Coloni in the East 201
27.2 Moving Coloni in the West 202
28 Coloni Who Migrate and Recalling Them 205
28.1 Flight in the East 206
28.2 Flight in the West 206
28.3 Problems with Reclaiming Coloni : Death, Marriage, Offspring 211
29 Public and Procedural Aspects of the Colonate 215
29.1 In the East 215
29.2 In the West 215
30 Coloni Originales on State and Imperial Lands 216
31 Coloni on Patrimonial Land (Fundi Patrimoniales)
and Emphyteuticarian Land (Fundi Emphyteuticarii) 217
31.1 In the East 218
31.2 In the West 220
32 Coloni on Land of the Res Privata (Fundi Rei Privatae)
and of the Imperial House (Fundi Divinae Domus or Domus Augusta) 220
32.1 The Res Privata 220
32.2 Coloni Dominici on Land of the Imperial House 222
33 The Patrocinium Vicorum, Vicani, Coloni Homologi, and Rusticani 223
34 The ‘Free’ Colonate 232
35 Farmers Not Subjected to the Colonate 233
36 Texts Not Necessarily Connected with the Colonate 234
37 Conclusions 234
37.1 Beginning of the Condicio 235
37.2 Taxation and Taxes 236
37.3 Transfer of Land 237
37.4 Features of the Colonate 237
37.5 Recalling 238

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 viii Contents
3 The Colonate in the East, 438–527 240
38 Enactments by the Emperors in 438–527 240
38.1 Theodosius II (402–455) 240
38.2 No Constitutions on Coloni by Marcianus (455–457)
Have Been Transmitted 241
38.3 Leo (457–473) 241
38.4 Zeno (474–491) 243
38.5 Anastasius (491–518) 245
38.6 Constitutions Not Included 247
39 Comparing the Situation in 534 and 438 247

4 The Colonate in the West, 438–ca. 506 249

40 The Situation in the West, 438–ca. 506 249
40.1 Sources 249
40.2 Background 251
41 The Posttheodosian Novels in the Roman West, 438–post 506 254
41.1 General 254
41.2 Valentinian III 256
41.3 Majorian 262
41.4 Severus 263
42 The Council of Orange of 441, Sidonius Apollinaris ep. 5.19,
and Remigius of Reims 264
43 The Colonate in Vandal Africa 268
44 Farmers Not Subjected to the Colonate 269
45 The Colonate in the Breviarium Alaricianum Alias the Lex Romana
Visigothorum of 506 (Southern Gaul, Septimania,
and Visigothic Spain): Status 269
46 The Colonate in the Breviarium Alaricianum: Obligations
and Restrictions 280
47 The Colonate in Legal Writings 282
48 The Coloni in the Summaria Antiqua, 535–554 286
49 Nachleben and Conclusions 287

5 The Colonate between Theodosius’ Code and Diocletian

and the Third Century, 438–293/268/249 292
50 The Period 438–293/268/249 292
50.1 Development in the East in 438–364 292
50.2 Development in the West in 438–364 293
50.3 Development before 364 293
51 A Connection with Diocletian’s Tax Reforms? 294
52 Farmers in the Middle of the Third Century: The Heroninos
Archive, AD 249–268 295
53 Oiketai and Metrèmatiaioi : A Pre-colonate? 301
54 Moulding the Paramonè into the Roman Law 306
55 Was There a Colonate? 308

Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Contents ix
56 Reconstruction of a Chronology of the Colonate 309
56.1 Development in the West between 364 and 438 316
56.2 Development in the East between 364 and 438 318
56.3 Development after the Theodosian Code 320

Bibliography 321
Sources and Abbreviations 321
Secondary Literature 322
Index Locorum 338
General Index 347

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Introduction

The purpose of this book is twofold. On the one hand it intends to provide
a survey and analysis of the colonate in the Roman Empire from the legal
point of view, embedded as much as necessary in the social and economic
context of Roman society. On the other hand, it is meant to show how to
approach the sources in a case like this and, in general, how to work with
the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, in a way that does justice to the
place of the texts in the whole of these codifications, that is, taking account
of their function within a codification. The individual texts have their
value as historical sources, yet one must be aware how they have come to
us, in which context and to which purpose they were selected and edited, or
else their historical value might diminish or even disappear.
This is in the first place a legal-historical work. It means that its first aim
is to look for legal rules. Legal rules are meant to arrange life and are
imposed if not followed. In order to get a sound notion of a legal phenom-
enon, here the colonate, it is necessary to collect all rules and to check them
against each other until a systematic survey is achieved. This may seem a bit
overdone to non-jurists, but the old Byzantine scholia to Justinian’s
compilation prove that systematisation was all-important to the
Byzantine jurists and Justinian’s compilation is a product of this drive
for systematisation. These jurists did not invent this. They were pupils and
successors to a line of jurists, teaching in Constantinople, Beyrouth, and
other places the same systematisation. We know only two of their names:
Domninos and Patroklos, called the heroes. And they in their turn were
continuing the same drive which existed in the classical period of Roman
law, as the surviving remnants in Justinian’s compilation prove. Also, the
imposition of rules required consistency. It is thus helpful, if not necessary,
to have a good grasp of Roman law and of the exegesis of legal texts. It
seems exaggerated, yet it is the warning that counts: search for the system
behind it, because those who formulated the law worked in that system.
For these reasons it is necessary to check all possible sources and see
1

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 2 Introduction
whether such a consistency is present and makes it possible to speak of
a rule. Moreover, the codes are embedded in a broader body of law which
one should also keep in mind.1 My research may be boring because of this
at some moments, but it is absolutely necessary. I have relegated to
footnotes what should be present but was not directly necessary for the
main argument. Texts can be found through the index.
Still, since law is meant to register the rules followed and to impose these
if not followed, it is connected with the way humans interact and society
functions. In one way, it follows what people do and what things they
think should be done; in another way, it regulates behaviour, both when
that behaviour is deviant and has to be corrected, and when behaviour or
circumstances arise which were not yet foreseen. In that case new rules are
issued to address such problems. Law is embedded in society and there is
no society without law.2 And although in general society was rather
conservative and legislation consequently more reactive and conservative,
innovations happened too. Ancient man was not afraid of or averse to new
things (like accepting debt acknowledgements in the form of chirographs
as negotiable papers). Still, those structures set up to continue for a long
time were not changed rashly. For example, the administrative structures of
the overseas transportation of grain from Africa and Egypt to Rome and
Constantinople remained basically unchanged for two or three centuries,
only to be adapted in the east in 409. The same goes for taxation, which
under Diocletian was probably more straightened and homogenised than
set on a completely new footing and remained so until the Justinianic
reforms.
We shall see the same with the colonate: not fallen from the sky, it was
incorporated in public law to continue with the necessary adaptations for
more than three centuries. Its predecessor was an answer to particular
economic needs, it required certain economic conditions, it may have
competed with other solutions to the same or similar problems, it evolved
under the pressure of changing circumstances, and it was adapted to
counter undesirable uses.
Wherever possible, the cause of changes or introduction of new rules
will be discussed, but apart from that a final chapter is destined to put the
entire history of the colonate in a more historical perspective. It will not

1
See for an example the table in Sirks 2007, § 24.
2
I do not refer to the Natural Lawyers like Grotius, but put merely the question whether we can speak
of a society if there is no minimum of law, and second, more empirically, I refer to Kramer 1956, From
the tablets of Sumer, Twenty-five firsts in man’s recorded history. As Hesiod said, law distinguishes man
from animal.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 1 The Status Quaestionis : General Approaches 3
always be possible to make quantitative statements about the field of
application, for example whether the colonate covered the entire farming
population of the Empire (by the way, far from likely). Rules are made or
issued when something is simply necessary, such as organising care for
insane people, or when something turns up which is sizeable or important
enough that it requires regulation. Nobody will assume from the extent of
the regulations about the cura furiosi that a large part of the population is
insane. With theft, it is the same: it is considered such an outrage to
property that it cannot be tolerated, regardless of the frequency.
However, in the punishment we can also see the value a society (through
its courts) attaches to this: the death penalty in archaic times, the death
penalty for grand larceny in the Bloody Code in the UK of the late
eighteenth century, a few years of imprisonment nowadays. The same
applies when we research other ancient laws. The lex Pompeia de parricidis
expresses the societal horror over parricide by its special punishment
(death), but we do not find any application of this.

1 The Status Quaestionis : General Approaches

The colonate is part of the antique agricultural exploitation. Perhaps in the
archaic Mediterranean world all farmers were working on their own
individual plots of land without any assistance (although it seems that,
considering the dominant role of the community, anybody would have
relied on the community and the community on him); but as early as there
existed some division between more and less rich members of
a community, there existed also some relation determined by dependency
between these richer and poorer members. For Roman society the phe-
nomenon of the clientela is known. We can leave aside the questions of
when in Republican Rome the large estates came into existence and when
and to what extent there existed farmers who no longer tilled their own
land but rented land and tilled it in exchange for rent in money or share-
cropping.3 It suffices for the present to state that around AD 200 agricul-
ture in the Roman Empire was done according to various legal and
economic models. There existed the farmer who worked his own land,
be it alone (with, undoubtedly, the assistance of his family) or with some
farm hands (slaves or free persons). There existed the lessee, who paid rent
in money (and who might be assisted by a remission in years of dearth) or
in kind. If the measure of the rent was expressed as a fraction of the harvest,

3
See, for example, Scheidel et al. 2007; more specialised is De Neeve 1985.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 4 Introduction
it was share-cropping. There were the large estates (latifundia) which were
tilled by slaves of the estate owner if not issued in plots on lease, sometimes
under the supervision of a head slave (vilicus). These could be attached to
the land as instrumentum and live quasi as a family with wife and children.
As we know from the Heroninos archive, large landownership did not
necessarily mean an extended estate such as a Communist kolkhoz or an
East German Kombinat : it will rather have consisted of all kinds of plots of
land, which were individually administered within a centralised account-
ing and management system. The guiding economic and managerial
principle was to reduce loss as much as possible by reducing costs and
using what was available.4 Investments were made, for example, in improv-
ing land and setting up irrigation,5 but whether this was possible will have
depended on the availability of time and capital. Richer people will have
been in a better position here, but a dependency relation may have been
advantageous in this respect. As somebody who was a freedman of a rich
family will have had easier access to investment capital through his
dependence on his patron, so a farmer who was a cliens of a rich patron
will have had easier access to resources too. In both cases they paid a price as
well, namely in independence, but the balance may have been advanta-
geous for both sides.
Cities and temples possessed agricultural land and issued this in the form
of long leases against a fixed rent (vectigal ). These lessees enjoyed a right of
lease which resembled that of an owner, it being hereditary and they being
protected against disturbances by a possessory interdict.6 The emperor
possessed land which he issued in diverse forms. It could be as a normal
lease to an individual lessee, or to a head lessee (conductor) who would
sublet parcels to (under)lessees. It could be done on a more permanent
basis through an imperial conductor with lease conditions fixed for all, as
the lex Manciana of Africa shows. In the Later Empire we find another
form of land issue, where these lands are called fundi patrimoniales. Here
the emperor donated Treasury land to somebody under certain conditions,
usually that a yearly rent (canon) had to be paid. The donee could not
dispose of the land by sale or gift, but his right was hereditary. Failure to
pay the canon resulted in withdrawal of the gift. As such, it resembled the
long lease for a vectigal, which was also a hereditary tenure. But it could
happen that the issue was done sine canone, or iure privato. In the first case,
the donee did not have to pay a canon ; in the latter case, the donee could

4
Rathbone 1991, 396. His reflection on the response to his book is in Rathbone 2005.
5 6
Cf. CJ 3.34.7, 11.43.4, 11.63.1 for legal evidence. Kaser 1975, 374, 388.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 1 The Status Quaestionis : General Approaches 5
freely dispose of the land. Often the latter was done salvo canone and in that
case it must have been almost indistinguishable from private property,
albeit that a yearly canon had to be paid – which may have looked like
a servitude on the land.7 Another form of issue was that Treasury land was
issued in emphyteusis under conditions like a canon. In this case the donee
had to ameliorate the land or keep it in good condition; non-compliance
could, like non-payment of the canon, lead to a recall of the gift. Here also
it was possible to alienate land, even manumit the slaves attached to it. As
with the fundi patrimoniales privato iure it must have been almost like
private property, except for the canon. In all these cases the donee had to
exploit the land and needed, consequently, farmers. He could use one or
more of the forms of exploitations as described above. The emperor Leo
(468–484) extended in the east the application of the legal construction of
emphyteusis to land in private property (CJ 4.66.1). In the west the form of
a locatio conductio in perpetuum was used.
In all these exploitation forms the basic assumption is that we are dealing
with contracts between legally independent persons who may enter and
end the contractual relationship, even unilaterally if they see a reason for
this and as long as they comply with the legal rules governing this. In
practice, many persons, both landlords and lessees, will of course rather
have wanted to continue the contract, being both dependent on the returns
of the land for their income and life subsistence. But this did not change
their personal free status and did not infringe on their legal autonomy as
such.
It is therefore rather surprising to see emerge in legal and other texts of
the fourth and later centuries the phenomenon of people legally bound to
an estate, apparently in an agricultural context. From the fourth century
onwards we dispose of imperial constitutions which were issued with the
purpose of tying agricultural workers (coloni ) to the land. Precisely when
this began, we do not know, neither do we know precisely why, but it
clearly had to do with guaranteeing the cultivation of land and payment of
taxes. This system of binding those people to an estate or plot of land is
called the (Roman) colonate.
Ancient historians look at this from the perspective of the ancient
economy and the agrarian exploitation which is of course an indispensable
aspect of the colonate, since it functions in this context, as the texts
demonstrate. It is only later, the colonate being a status, that coloni are

7
One wonders whether there remained a distinction: perhaps the gift could be revoked? The texts do
not give a clue to this.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 6 Introduction
found in other occupations (and can be recalled). Thus the connection
with the agrarian setting must be taken into account.
The colonate has generated much literature and many theories, already
by Gothofredus and later by Savigny, whose essay ‘Über dem römischen
Kolonat’ includes a reaction to Gothofredus’ views, and by other authors.8
Due to the need to take as many factors as possible into account, the
theories are not sharply separated from each other. We can distinguish
several approaches.
One view is connected with a shift in the mode of agrarian exploitation.
The colonate is seen within the context of agricultural exploitation, as the
successor to the tenancy of the Late Republic (when a colonus would have
been a lessee). The cause of this development would have been an increas-
ing impoverishment of the lessees, making them increasingly dependent on
the landowners.9 The Republican way of many individual lessees and
individual farmers-owners made way for a slave-based exploitation on
larger estates. By the end of the second century AD, the supply of slaves
dwindled and landlords were forced to find new supplies of workers. These
they found by subletting their great estates and fixing the sublessees to their
land. The fact that the great imperial estates in North Africa (and else-
where?) were administered by conductores, who in their turn sublet parcels,
under a general regulation for all (the Decretum Commodi de saltu
Burunitano, found in 1879, and the lex colonis fundi Villae Magnae datae
ad exemplum legis Mancianae, found in 1896) seemed only to sustain this
view. It led to a change in production method. The farmers/lessees on these
gradually came into a state of dependency which needed little to become

8
Already in the Middle Ages the texts on the coloni attracted interest: see Conte 2000; Savigny 1825–
50, 1–16. One should be aware that serfdom was abolished in Prussia in 1811, in Mecklenburg in 1822
and in Saxonia in 1832: the colonate was an actual question. For a survey of other nineteenth-century
authors, see Heisterbergk 1876, 7–21 and Marcone 1988; further Marcone 1997b on the Italian
literature in the nineteenth century on the colonate. A previous summary of the status quaestionis is
provided by Jones 1974; Cracco Ruggini 1990; Sirks 1993a, n. 1; Whittaker & Garnsey 1998, 287–294;
Ward-Perkins 2000, 343–344; Demandt 2007, 398–401 (Seeck 1901 is rather old). Scheidel et al.
2007 does not enter into the subject of the colonate. Johnson 2012 has a chapter by J. Harries,
‘Roman law and legal culture’ (789–807), which hardly deals with the (private) law as such and has
nothing about the colonate, as the entire ‘handbook’ does not pay special attention to the
phenomenon. Banaji thinks coloni were bound tenants (2001, 615), Mathisen thinks they were
tenant farmers (2012, 752); see also Liebs 2005, 1957–1960. For further literature in addition to what
is cited here, see the following: Sirks 1993a, 331 n. 1 and the bibliography in Terre 1997. See, more
recently Amarelli 2017 and further Carrié 2017 in the context of a survey on the problems connected
with land in Late Antiquity.
9
An example of this view is Johne 1993. Earlier contributions by Johne in this respect are Johne et al.
1983; Johne 1985, 1986 and 1987.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 1 The Status Quaestionis : General Approaches 7
the colonate in the following centuries.10 This view was first put forward by
Fustel de Coulanges in 1885.11 Clausing, following Fustel de Coulanges,
thought the farmers got gradually indebted. Together with a tendency to
continue tenancies, a diminishing fertility of the land and, with it, dimin-
ishing tax revenues led to a legal attachment to the land.12 Saumagne, in
a rather complicated analysis, saw the colonate as a quasi-servilité juridique,
originating in the fiscality because the tributum made him subjected to the
landowner. There is an echo of Fustel de Coulanges here, and Saumagne
extends it by attributing to the landowner the right to levy the tax owed by
his censibus adscripti.13 But these suggestions are not well based, as shall
become clear later. Pallasse discerned in the lex Manciana and the contracts
in the Tablettes Albertini traces of emphyteusis and thus of lease in
perpetuity.14 Weßel assumes that these conductores of imperial land of
the second century had in Late Antiquity become emhyteuticarii and, as
the parallel to this, the lease of their lessee-coloni had turned into a property
right which allowed them to sell it. However, as he himself admits, it has no
relation to property.15 Kolendo has resumed the question of continuity of
the colonate in Africa, albeit with some reservation.16 Santilli thought the
same and combined this with a shortage in slave labour.17 Mirković rejects
an introduction through Diocletian’s fiscal reforms because the colonate
existed before: landowners could already force their coloni to remain on the
land. She assumes indebtedness forced the coloni by way of their lease
contract to the land.18
10
CIL VIII 10570, 11–13: non amplius annuas quam binas aratorias binas satorias binas messorias operas
debe[a]mus ; CIL VIII 25902, IV.24–27: quodannis in hominibus singulis in arationes operas n(umero)
ii et in messem n(umero). et in sarritiones cuiusque generis singulas operas binas. But that could still be
part of the tenancy agreement. So also Lenski 2017, 121.
11
Fustel de Coulanges 1885. Several publications followed: Wiart 1894; His 1896; Schulten 1896;
Beaudouin 1897–98, and the authors mentioned by them.
12
Clausing 1925, 262–280, 284–296. Clausing mentions antique views that Italy’s soil was exhausted
(271–272). It would be interesting to check this against modern data.
13
Saumagne 1937. 14 Courtois et al. 1952; Pallasse 1955.
15
Weßel 2003, 109–116 on the legal position of landowner and colonus, who is for him a ‘Kleinpächter’;
here 112–113, dominium means more than ownership, cf. Augustine De civitate Dei 10.1.2, where
coloni are sub dominio possessorum. There it concerns certainly coloni originales.
16 17
Kolendo 1991, 1997, 158–161. Santilli 1975; repeated in Santilli 1999.
18
Mirković 1997, 15–26. See the critical review by Kränzlein 1999. Also Mirković 1986 and Mirković
1994. The arguments put forward are hard to follow. The assumption that under Verres landowners,
liable for the land tax, devolved this burden by transferring this to their tenants by the lease contracts
but remained liable in case the tenant fled (Mirković 1997, 20) is perhaps meant to explain why
landowners got the authority to keep them on the land, but it is not confirmed by contemporary
sources. The link with Ulpian (D. 50.15.4.8) is dubious (the text is much later and it does not follow
from this that tenants and land tax were connected), while other texts are from the later Empire.
Mirković 1997 cites on 24 P.Oxy. XLVII 3364 (in J. D. Thomas, A petition to the Prefect of Egypt, JEA
61 (1975) 102–221) as proof that under Caracalla the person who had sheltered a fugitive tributarius

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 8 Introduction
Another view is that the colonate originated in the fiscal reorganisations
which Diocletian (r. 285–305) carried out. At a rather early moment in his
reign, Diocletian began to reform the taxation system because, due to the
doubling of the number of provinces19 and increasing the troops,20 he
needed more revenues.21 This reform built on the previous systems; prob-
ably it was more a uniformisation which extended over the Empire. All
land was taxed according to its potential yield, resulting in a potential total
revenue, after which the expected expenditure was repartitioned propor-
tionally over these assessments. In this process Diocletian would have made
landowners responsible for the collection of the taxes their lessees owed,
which would alleviate the task of the authorities considerably and, since the
landowners were more able to carry the fiscal burden, would give the
emperor more stable revenues. In compensation Diocletian introduced
the bond to the estate for their farmers so that the landowner could rely on
having enough labour.22 These lessees, the coloni, declined by this subju-
gation and fixation to the land, which resulted in the colonate of the
late fourth and fifth century.23 Under Justinian, a category of coloni

was penalised. Unfortunately, she cites Serenus as petitioner, whereas it was Herakleides, Serenus
being the lawbreaker, and the editor warns against equalising ὑπόφορος with tributarius and taking
the term as technical. Also, although the text confirms that taxpayers should reside in their idia,
either their village or nomē, it does not say that landowners had the authority to recall their tenants.
And, as a matter of fact, regarding the land tax the edicts pertained to landowners, not tenants. There
are more occasions where it is difficult to follow Mirković’s arguments.
19
CAH XII, 179–181, introduction of the dioceses presumably in 297. 20 CAH XII, 120–124.
21
CAH XII, 172–176. Bott 1928 is an interesting publication, but now outdated.
22
Giliberti 1999, 86: to prevent migration and thereby a shortage in farmers. Giliberti opposes the idea
of a ‘genealogy’ of the colonate, namely that it evolved out of a class of half-free farmers, or
barbarians settled on the land, or of slaves freed with the obligation to remain on the land, or of
slave-farmers, or out of hellenistic practice. Farmers, who were lessees, were or gradually became
subjected to their landowners. He rejects the idea that the colonate was instituted by the imperial
government in its own, and not the landowners’ interest. Under Diocletian, lessees underwent the
same fate as other groups like the curials and the navicularii, whose function was considered essential
for life in the Empire: their function became hereditary and they became obnoxii. To that came his
tax reform. But is there evidence for such a tying to the land and work? Lactantius (ca. 250–ca. 320)
De mortibus persecutorum 23.1–2 is usually cited for this, but the word homo, used here (2 Agri
glebatim metiebantur, vites et arbores numerabantur, animalia omnis generis scribebantur, hominum
capita notabantur . . .), usually means slaves, and slaves were indeed put on the census. It cannot be
proof that it concerned free farmers. Also adhering to this fiscalist view: Schipp 2009, 40.
23
For example, Faure 1961, 127–133, mentioning 305 and 306 as the moments of introduction. Also
Marcone 1993, 825–826. I refer further for an overview with literature to Carrié 1993, 292–301 for his
fiscal reforms. Fikhman rejects Carrié’s fiscal cause of the colonate and stresses that great landlords
had an interest in tying labour to their lands: Fikhman 1990, 171, 172, 175 = Fikhman 2006, 270, 271,
274. Harper 2011, 153–155, seems to adhere to the fiscal cause, subjecting long-term tenants, and
assumes a different development in the west and east (but his subject is slavery, not the colonate).
Similarly Vera 2012 = Vera 2019, 369 does not exclude such a development, assuming that it
concerned private landowners/farmers. The proposition of Panitschek 1990, to explain the origin
by assuming that the half-free status in peregrine legal systems by the beginning of the fourth

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 1 The Status Quaestionis : General Approaches 9
(the adscripticii ) is even compared to slaves. Their number would have
been considerable but there is no information about their actual size. There
is certainly evidence of free labour also in this time.24 This view differs from
the previous ones in that it supposes an active legal change, initiated by the
emperor.
To some extent connected with this is the idea that a hereditary tying to
their profession led to the situation that the landlords treated their tenants
de facto as their property, which led to their being considered personae
alieni iuris. It is based on the view according to which all functions and
professions became from Diocletian onwards hereditary in order to ensure
the functioning of the administration and state. The coloni made no
exception. In that context they were tied to their land by way of the tax
registration. As such the colonate would be but one illustration of the
decline of the Roman Empire from this emperor onwards by its social
petrification and bureaucracy. This theory lacks the proof of a legal transi-
tion, which, however, is desirable, since in Antiquity one was very keen on
the difference between freedom and slavery.25 Connected with this is the
supposed emergence in Late Antiquity of the great domains as semi-public
institutions, which had the right of autopragia, that is, to collect taxes
themselves.26
Another question is whether the colonate was the precursor of medieval
servage, villeinage and Hörigkeit. I shall deal briefly with this question in
Sections 17 and 49, but it requires further research. We are here only
concerned with the colonate as established in the Roman Empire.
Finally, there is the stimulating opinion of Carrié that the colonate is
nothing more than a nineteenth-century construct.27 It has encountered
criticism.28 Yet, the question, is there something like ‘the colonate’?, is
a good question. All too quickly an interpretation becomes absolute, and

century were romanised in the form of the colonate, in the course of his fiscal reforms, is very
speculative. There were indeed situations which looked like the half-free status which he mentions
(dominus–libertus, patronus–cliens), but still these people were legally free – and Roman. Did similar
dependencies exist elsewhere? What do we know of peregrine half-free statuses? Panitschek does not
name one. I could unfortunately not consult Perelman Fajardo 2019.
24
So CJ 11.48.21.1; Whittaker & Garnsey 1998.
25
Munzinger 1998. See my review, Sirks 2003. See Sirks 1993b for a refutation.
26
The idea of the great domains as semi-public institutions, an idea set out before by Gascou 1985, is
regarded with scepticism by Banaji 2001, 94–100 (on the rents paid), and by Sarris 2006, 150–154,
and n. 85.
27
Carrié 1982. See below.
28
Marcone 1993, in his survey Il lavoro nelle campagne. As to the question whether in Africa already in
the third century emphyteusis existed and was fundamental for the development of the colonate
(Marcone 1993, 828–830), on which Vera 1987, I must refrain from entering into this, since it would
require a study different from the present one.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009172585.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Dixie: A monthly
magazine, Vol. I, No. 2, February 1899
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Dixie: A monthly magazine, Vol. I, No. 2, February 1899

Author: Various

Release date: August 30, 2023 [eBook #71526]

Language: English

Original publication: Baltimore: The Dixie Publishing Co, 1899

Credits: hekula03 and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team

at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from
images made available by the HathiTrust Digital
Library.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DIXIE: A

MONTHLY MAGAZINE, VOL. I, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1899 ***
FEBRUARY 1899 10 CENTS

DIXIE. A MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

THE DIXIE BALTIMORE PUBLISHING CO.

Vol. I No. 2.
 Terms: $1.00 a Year in Advance. 10 Cents a Number.

DIXIE
A MONTHLY MAGAZINE. FEBRUARY, 1899.

Henry Clayton Hopkins, Editor, 326 St. Paul St., Baltimore.

G. Alden Peirson, }
Clinton Peters, } Art Editors.
Chas. J. Pike, }
George B. Wade, Business Manager.

CONTENTS.
I. Frontispiece, Drawn by Lucius Hitchcock.
Illustration for “How Randall Got Into The Salon”.

II. If Like a Rose (Poem)—Edward A. U. Valentine 3

III. Anna Evauovna—Margaret Sutton Briscoe 4
Full Page Picture by Katharine Gassaway.

IV. Death and Love (Poem)—William Theodore Peters 17

Illustration by Clarence Herbert Rowe.

V. Channoah—Edward Lucas White 18

Head and Tail-Piece by G. A. Peirson.

VI. Here and There in Maryland—Edward G. McDowell 33

(Eight Illustrations.)
VII. How Randall Got Into The Salon—Clinton Peters 49
Illustrated by Frontispiece.

VIII. A Valentine (Poem)—Maurice Weyland 56

IX. Elena’s Daughters—D. Ramon Ortega y Frias 57
(To be Continued.)
Head-Piece by Chas. J. Pike.

X. Quatrain (Poem)—H. C. H. 78
XI. Extracts from the Log of the Rita 79
Illustrated by Numerous Sketches.

XII. The Four Fears of Our General (The Second Fear)—

Adele Bacon, 95
Full Page Picture by Clinton Peters.

XIII. The Happiness of Being Nearsighted—Walter Edgar

M’Cann, 113
XIV. “An Eighteenth Century Beauty” 117
Reproduction of the Miniature by Hugh Nicholson.

XV. Comment, 119

XVI. Books and Authors—Edward A. U. Valentine 125

Copyright, 1899, by Dixie Publishing Company.

 Drawn by Lucius Hitchcock.

“He slowly pushed the massive door ajar, and the next instant
perceived he was standing in the actual, awful presence of the
famous master”—(See page 49)
 DIXIE.

Vol. I. February, 1899. No. 2.

 IF LIKE A ROSE.
If life were like a rose designed,
That proves its purpose to be fair
And with the grace its bud divined
Distils June’s sweetness on the air;
Then would the stubborn sheaths that hold
The flower of the heart’s ideal
Beneath the stress of time unfold
And what we dream become the real—
If life had but the rose’s art
And beauty burgeoned from the heart!

Then like the rose that o’er the grass

Spills leaf by leaf its lovely freight
And tho’ its purple fortunes pass
Is calm in an accomplished fate,
Might we with less reluctant will
Yield up the harvest of our hours,
Seeing the inner grace fulfil
Its promise in old age’s powers—
If life had but the rose’s art
And beauty burgeoned from the heart!

—Edward A. Uffington Valentine.

 ANNA EVAUOVNA
A STUDY OF RUSSIAN LIFE
By Margaret Sutton Briscoe
And M.A.R.

They stood in the village street talking together, two little Russian
peasant girls, dressed in rough carpet skirts, thick leather boots, with
hair plaited in two long plaits and heads covered with bright kerchiefs
as became unmarried girls.
Grusha was larger and taller than Masha, and her coloring
stronger, in fact, she was stronger in all respects, and good-
naturedly conscious of her superiority. She stood looking down on
Masha with a mischievous smile on her red lips and in her black
eyes.
“Is it that you mean to marry Ivan when he comes from the war,
Grusha?” Masha was asking.
Grusha laughed.
 “Perhaps,” she replied lightly.
“Then you are a bad girl, Grusha. Why do you keep Alioscha
dancing after you?”
Grusha laughed again.
“What if he likes it? Alioscha would be more unhappy if I did not let
him do his dancing. And besides, I like him.”
“Do you mean to marry him then, Grusha?”
“Perhaps.”
Grusha caught Masha’s hand as she turned from her with a
gesture of anger.
“Come back, Masha, listen to me. Ask Anna Evauovna what I
mean to do. She knows all things, the old witch!”
Masha crossed herself, glancing over her shoulder.
“And she will know you have said that,” she answered.
Grusha’s face wore a reflected uneasiness for a moment.
“Bah!” she replied, shaking herself. “What harm can she do me!”
Masha nodded her head gravely.
“That was what Marusa said, and how did the Njania punish her?
Has she a child to call hers? And look at poor Julina. She defied the
Njania also, and has had children showered on her faster than she
can breathe. Her isba is like a beehive. Anna Evauovna can give you
a draught that will cure any sickness if she will, and oh! what
fortunes she can tell, Grusha! And what do we here in the village that
she does not know of at once?”
“Who teaches her and who tells her? Answer me that, Masha. Oh,
you may well cross yourself! Ask her if you want to know anything
and if you are not afraid of her teacher. Have done then. What are
you after?”
While the girls talked, two of the young men of the village had
crept behind Grusha unseen. Each held one of her plaits in his hand
as a rein, and they began shouting as to a restive horse, when she
struggled to escape. Grusha’s heavy plaits were favorite playthings,
never safe from attack; for she was a belle in the village. In the
confusion of the romp, Masha turned away and walked off.
“I will go to Anna Evauovna,” she said to herself.
It is easy to state the positions of Grusha and Masha. They were
only two little Russian peasant girls, who worked in the garden of the
Prince in Summer, and about his great house in winter.
But for Anna Evauovna, the Prince himself could hardly have
defined her position. She had been Njania (nurse) to his children,
and was now housekeeper. Anna Evauovna was the only peasant on
the estate who wore a cap, who spoke a pure Russian, and wore
dresses and shoes. She was older by years than her actual days
numbered, capable, resolute, silent and invaluable to her employers.
The peasants spoke to her with deference, calling her Anna
Evauovna. Behind her back they called her the old witch, and the
Princess had been appealed to for protection from her more than
once.
Anna Evauovna was in the housekeeping room assorting the
house linen from the wash, when Masha came to her and humbly
proffered her request to know the future.
The old woman looked up at the girl keenly.
“He who wants to know too much grows old too soon, Masha,” she
said.
“Tell me only a little then, Anna Evauovna, but tell me that.”
“Have it your own way then, Masha. Open the drawer of the table
and look in the left hand corner, and you will find a pack of cards
under a wooden box that has a strange smell about it. Bring them to
me, but no, I forgot—the box has something lying open in it which
you might touch and find harmful.”
As Anna Evauovna opened the drawer herself, Masha made the
sign of the cross furtively.
The old woman turning sharply, caught the gesture, and the girl’s
head drooped in confusion.
 Anna Evauovna’s eyes twinkled. She shuffled the cards and
began to deal them out on the table, glancing now and then at
Masha, who sat opposite, the light of the lamp falling on her round
good-natured face, fair hair, and solemn blue eyes.
“Ah! there you are,” said Anna Evauovna, as the queen of hearts
fell. “And there is a dark man near you—the king of clubs. Now mark,
you are nearer to him in thought than he to you. Ah! ah! ah! I thought
so. Here she comes, there lies the cause. The queen of clubs, a dark
woman, lies between you and him. She separates you.”
Masha bent forward breathless.
“And will she succeed, Njania?”
“We shall see. Who comes here? The king of diamonds—and near
the queen of clubs. Here is one who is away, very far away, but
coming nearer. He is thinking of the queen of clubs. ‘Is she waiting
for me, is she waiting for me,’ he is thinking. Look for yourself,
Masha. The queen of spades, emblem of all that is bad, lies across
him, and thus it is easy to see that he is worrying about the dark
woman, your rival. Once more I will lay the cards. Now see; the king
of diamonds is thinking of a journey and of home. The dark woman is
restless, she thinks of the king of diamonds, and then of the king of
clubs. But how is this? The king of diamonds is close to your dark
rival, and the nine and ten of diamonds on either side. A marriage!”
Masha clasped her hands.
“And does that leave the king of clubs to me, Anna Evauovna?”
Anna Evauovna swept the cards into a heap.
“God knows,” she answered. “Would you seek to know as much
as He, Masha?”
“May the saints forbid!”
Anna Evauovna returned to her interrupted occupation, and
Masha still sat gazing at her, awestruck.
“Njania,” she said timidly, “is it right that a girl should keep a man
dangling after her, as a lash to a whip, if she means nothing by it?”
 “You mean Grusha and Alioscha,” said Anna Evauovna shortly. “Is
it not her own affair?”
Masha blushed and hung her head.
“It was Grusha I thought of,” she stammered. “You know the very
hairs on our heads, Anna Evauovna.”
The Njania nodded, not ill pleased.
“I know what I know. Grusha thinks Ivan will marry her when he
comes back from the war.”
“Then why does she keep Alioscha waiting and sticking to her like
a wet leaf?” cried Masha passionately. “It is wicked, Njania, if she
loves Ivan.”
“Who said she loved Ivan!” answered Anna Evauovna drily. “Do all
girls love some one?”
“Did not you say that she loved him?” stammered Masha.
“I did not, my child. Njania is not to be fooled by a Grusha. Ah, but
she is a girl of wits, is Grusha, and so smooth to see. In still waters,
devils thrive, remember that, Masha.”
Masha’s lip quivered.
“But if she does not love Ivan, Njania, she may marry Alioscha.”
“Perhaps, who knows! It takes a wise man to tell the future, and a
wiser yet to tell a girl’s mind.”
“And she will surely marry Alioscha if Ivan has forgotten her by the
time he comes back,” added Masha more piteously.
Anna Evauovna laughed a dry chuckle and rubbed her hand on
the girl’s head.
“Your wits sharpen, little Masha. You may grow as wise as Grusha
some day.”
“Ivan does not write to her—I know that.”
“Now, now, as for writing, Masha, could Grusha read if he did?
Ivan may have been fool enough to remember her but even a
peasant does not like his love letters read from the house-tops.”
“But Grusha could take his letters to the doctor or the deacon.
They would read them to her alone.”
“Would they? A man is a man, doctor or deacon. He may keep
another man’s secret, but a woman’s—no. Come, child, Grusha will
marry whom God wills, and meantime, let her have rope. All is for
the best. Did Grusha know Ivan faithful to her, she would not have
this curiosity which makes her wish to wait and see how he will act
when he finds her waiting. Meantime, Alioscha is the best singer and
dancer in the village. And what could the village have to talk of but
for her behavior? For your part, eat, drink, sleep on the top of the
stove at night, and work by day. Let each hold up his share of the
burden, and all will go well.”
Masha listened, sighed, and assented.
The next day, as Anna Evauovna was walking in the field near the
village street, she heard sounds of music, the clapping of hands and
beating of feet in measured time, and loud shouts. She might have
walked to the isba whence the sounds came, and inquired the
cause, but that was not Anna Evauovna’s way. She slipped behind a
hedge, and walking along in its shadow, reached the spot where the
merry-making was taking place.
 MASHA CLASPED HER HANDS

“AND DOES THAT LEAVE THE KING OF CLUBS TO ME?”

Drawn by Katharine Gassaway.

 On a bit of ground in front of three of the principal isbas, the
peasants were assembled. A wooden bench had been brought out,
and a plain deal table, beneath which could be seen a wooden pail
of vodka (brandy). On the table stood a steaming samovar, a white
stone teapot, some huge pieces of rye bread, thick tumblers for tea,
and a paper bag of lump sugar. Spoons were not needed, as the
sugar was held in the fingers and nibbled between the sips of hot tea
served in the glasses.
Ivan had returned, and this was his welcome.
The samovar had been borrowed for the great occasion; for not
every peasant can afford that luxury, and Ivan’s parents were not
rich.
There were three musicians present, one playing on a concertina,
one on a trumpet-like instrument, which gave out bag-pipe sounds,
and the other on a melon-shaped guitar, strung with a few strings, on
which he twanged merrily.
The peasants kept time with feet and voice in barbaric medley.
Ivan, the hero of the day, sat at the centre of the table in an
unsoldierly, weary attitude, unkempt and unwashed. He had been
tramping for days. The trousers of his weather-stained uniform were
tucked in his travel-worn boots, and he wore a summer cap on his
dark hair.
He was replying at his leisure to the numberless questions asked
as his fagged brain comprehended them, but when the table was
cleared, and the musician with the concertina leaped upon it, his
loose linen trousers tucked in his boots, his kaftan into his belt, his
hoarse voice cheering the company to the dance, Ivan sprang to his
feet, and seizing Grusha as his partner, danced more furiously than
any.
Anna Evauovna, peering through the leaves, could see it all.
Alioscha, as eager in his welcome to the wanderer as Grusha
herself, was now dancing merrily also, and Masha was his happy
partner. Her kerchief had fallen back, leaving her good-natured,
round face unframed, and exposing the line of white forehead which
had been protected from the sun. She was a pretty picture.
The dance grew wilder, the voices louder, the stamping and
clapping more vehement. The musician on the table shouted more
lustily as he danced himself, now on one foot, now on the other, all
over the table-top.
Anna Evauovna looked at Grusha’s excited face flushed with her
exertion, and then at her rival suitors, both of the same height, both
well built, and both with the same heavy square face and mass of
thick hair. That Ivan was fair, and Alioscha dark, seemed the only
difference.
The old woman turned away with a wicked chuckle.
“There is not a pin to choose between them,” she said to herself,
“Grusha must draw lots.”
When, a little later, Masha came into the housekeeper’s room,
breathless and over-running with her news, Anna Evauovna could be
told nothing. She knew when Ivan had arrived, from where, by what
roads, and, in fact, everything. The only thing she did not know, or as
Masha believed, would not tell, was how Grusha would choose.
On her way home, Masha came across Grusha sweeping the
leaves from a path in the garden. She was alone, and Masha could
not help questioning her.
“Grusha, Ivan has come back, what are you going to do now?”
Grusha leaned on her broom and looked at Masha’s earnest face.
She laughed aloud, but good-naturedly still.
“I am going to sweep this path when you stand off it,” she said,
and Masha could get no further satisfaction.
But the next day, Anna Evauovna was able, or willing, to relieve
Masha’s anxiety.
“She takes Ivan, and they are to be married in a week. Both get
what they want and have waited long for. Now we shall see what we
shall see,” said Anna Evauovna grimly.