Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/136

126 126 On the Ro7nan Colofii. this new arrangement then became unalterable, even though one of the estates should afterward be sold^^. The reason for these restrictions on the landholder one might be disposed at first to look for in certain rights possest by the colonus himself, in which case his consent would have been sufficient to remove them. But no mention is ever made of any such consent ; nor in fact had the colonus any manner of right in the soil. That he was not the pro- prietor of it, and so could not himself dispose of it, was clear ^^: but even the lowest kind of real right to the soil is never ascribed to him. Indeed that no such existed, follows necessarily from the before-mentioned rights of the master to exchange his coloni and to remove them. So that in fact it was only for the interests of the state that those restrictions were imposed ^% although the coloni thereby indirectly ob- tained a similar protection against arbitrary conduct on the part of the landowner, as if they had themselves had a right in the soil. These interests of the state consisted primarily and mainly in its superintending care for agriculture, which was held to be especially promoted by the encouragement of such a relation^'. Beside this however there were the interests of the revenue, which will be spoken of presently. The welfare of the coloni themselves was not considered, except in certain subordinate regulations, which, it is true, were founded on humanity, but the very need for which is enough to prove that they had no right in the soil. Thus for instance when an estate held in common, to which there were coloni belonging, was divided, married couples and relations were not to be separated ^^. Again if coloni were transferred from one estate to another, and then one of these estates was sold, the children were in like manner to remain with their 54 L. 13. § 1. C. J. de agric. (xi. 47). 55 L. 1. C. Theod. ne colonus (v. 11) : Non dubium est colonis arva quae subigunt — alienandi jus non esse. L. 17. C. J. de agric. (xi. 47). 56 There is a direct reference to this in the words privata pactione in the passage quoted in note 53. 57 Nov. Valent. Tit. 9 : Ne ad alterum coloni, ad alterum possessio exhausta per- veniat. L. 7. C. J. de agric. (xi. 47) : Neque vero — id usurpet legis illusor ut parva pprtione terrae emptor i tradita, omnis integri fundi cultura adimatur. ^^ L. 11. C. J. comm. utr. jud. (iii. 38).