mele

his ‘ure and 10se pli. hich Ss of man ched Mies and

res, nds, nes, din ants aves 25 to

h the mans eXact ’ this they over- pear or the f pos. what ht to is far ; and th all °§ not there vork, d the ht be dung othes arden d, all have that vine, good year, x the ting. ng a ols, ller,

i of OW * of ner ord > Is

a

Book I. AGRICULTURE OF THE ROMANS. 1!

at no age will he be so much impaired with years as to be despised by his servants.” (Col. lib. 1. cap. 9.)

60. The earliest farmers among the Romans seem not to have been upon the same footing as in Britain. The stock on the farm belonged to the landlord, and the farmer received a certain proportion of the produce for his labor. The farmer, who possessed a farm upon these terms, was called politor or polintor, from his business, being the dresser of the land; and partuarius, from his being in a kind of co-partnership with his landlord, and his receiving a part of the produce of the farm for his labor. Cato takes notice of this kind of farmers only, and it is probable that there were no others in his time. << The terms,” says he,“ upon which land ought to be let to a politor; in the good land of Casinum and Venafrum, he receives the eighth basket; in the second kind of land he receives the seventh; in the third kind he receives the sixth. In this last kind, when the grain is divided by the modius, he receives the fifth part; in the very best kind of land about Venafrum, when divided by the basket, he receives only the ninth. If the land- lord and politor husk the far in common, the politor receives the same proportion after as before; of barley and beans divided by the modius, he receives a fifth.”(Ch. xl. xli.) The small proportion of the produce that the poditor received, makes it evident that he was at no expence in cultivating the land, and that he received his proportion clear of all deductions.

61. The coloni, or farmers mentioned by Columella, seem to have paid rent for their farms in the same manner as is done by the farmers in Britain. The directions given by this author to landlords concerning the mode of treating them, are curious as well as im- portant. A landlord, he says, ought to treat his tenants with gentleness, should show himself not difficult to please, and be more vigorous in exacting culture than rent, because this is less severe, and upon the whole more advantageous. For, where a field is care- fully cultivated, it for the most part brings profit, never loss, except when assaulted by a storm or pillagers; and therefore the farmer cannot have the assurance to ask any ease of his rent. Neither should the landlord be very tenacious of his right in every thing to which the farmer is bound, particularly as to days of payment, and demanding the wood and other small things which he is obliged to, besides paying his rent, the care of which is a greater trouble than expense to the rustics. Nor is every penalty in our power to be exacted, for our ancestors were of opinion, that the rigor of the law is the greatest op- pression. On the other, the landlord ought not to be entirely negligent in this matter; because it is certainly true, what Alpheus the usurer used to say, that good debts become bad ones, by being not called for. I remember to have heard it asserted by L. Volusius, an old rich man, who had been consul, that an estate was most advantageous to the land- lord, which was cultivated by farmers, natives of the country, and born upon the lands, for these are attached to it by a strong habit from their cradles, So, indeed, it is my opinion, that the frequent letting of a farm is a bad thing; however, it is still worse to let one to a farmer who lives in town, and chooses rather to cultivate it by servants than by himself. Saserna used to say, that from such a farm a lawsuit was got in place of rent. For which reason, we ought to be careful to retain in our farms the same in- dustrious farmers that have been bred in the country, when it is not in our power to cultivate them ourselves, or convenient to do it by domestics; which, however, cannot happen except in those countries that are laid waste by the severity of the climate, or barrenness of the soil. For wherever the climate is moderately healthful, and the soil moderately good, lands never produce so much under the care of a farmer, as under the care of a landlord, or even of a bailiff, unless his very great negligence or rapaciousness prevent it, both of which are, for the most part, owing to the fault of the landlord; for it is in his power to prevent such a person from having the management of his affairs, or to remove him if placed in that office. However, in farms that lie at a distance, to which the landlord has not easy access, as all kinds of them are better under the manage- ment of free farmers than under bailiffs, so particularly corn farms, which a farmer cannot destroy, as he can a vineyard and other plantations; for when such farms are cultivated by distant landlords, the oxen are greatly harassed, these and the other cattle ill fed, the land ill ploughed, and much more seed charged than sown. Besides these things, the produce of the land is not managed in such a manner as to turn out to any account; for, when the corn is brought to the threshing-floor, during the threshing it is daily lessened by fraud or negligence; the servants themselves carry it off, and they allow it to be carried off by thieves; nor even after it is laid up, is it faithfully accounted for; so that, when the manager and servants are in the fault, the land is rendered infamous. Wherefore a farm of this kind, if, as I have said, the landlord cannot be on the spot, in my opinion ought to be let.(Col. lib. i. cap. 7.)

62. These directions are valuable even with reference to the present times; and they instruct us respecting the general management of landed property among the Romans.

It appears that the landlord was considered as understanding every thing respecting the \usbandry of his estate himself; and that there was no agent, or intermediate person,