In the later period of the empire freeborn persons of low condition were glad to secure a subsistence by labour on the estates of the great landowners, to which, after a continued residence fur thirty years, they and their families became bound by a tacit agreement under the name of Coloni, Itustiei, Adscriptitii, &e. The phrase "Beni term," which is applied to them, shows their connection with the soil. They could marry, which slaves could not. Though they bear a considerable resemblance to the serfs and villeins (villani) of the middle ages, yet -- • there are some important points of difference, and there is no evidence of any historical connection between the Coloni and Villani. The subject of the Coloui is discussed by Savigny, Lieber den Rdmischen Colonat; Zeitschrift fir Geschicht. Rechtswissenschaft,' vol. vi.
The customary allowance of food for a slave appears to have been four Roman bushels, " modii," of corn, mostly " far,' per month for country slaves, and one Roman libra or pound daily for those in town.
Salt and oil were occasionally allowed, as well as weak wine. Neither meat nor vegetables formed part of their regular allowance ; but they got, according to seasons, fruit, such as figs, olives, apples, pearl, &e. (Cato, Columella. and Varro.) Labourers and artisans in the country were shut up at night in a house (" ergastulum "), in which each slave appears to have had a separate cell. Columella adverts to some dis tinction between the ergastulum for ordinary labourers and that for ill-behaved slaves, which latter was in fact a prison, often under ground ; but generally speaking the ergastula in the later times of the republic and under the empire appear to have been no better than prisons in which freemen were sometimes confined after being kidnapped. The men often worked in chains. The overseers of farms and herdsmen had separate cabins allotted to them. Slaves enjoyed relaxation from toil on certain festivities, such as the Saturnalia.
The number of slaves possessed by the wealthy Romans was enor mous. Some individuals are said to have possessed 10,000 slaves. Scaurus possessed above 4000 domestic and as many rustic slaves. In the reign of Augustus, a freedman who had sustained great losses during the civil wars left 4116 slaves, besides other property.
A master bad, as a general rule. the power of manumitting his slave, and this he could effect in several forms, by vindicta, census, or by testamentum. The Lex Alia Sentia,aa already meutioued,laid various restrictions on manumission. Among other things it prevented persons nnder twenty years of age from manumitting a slave except by the vindieta, and with the approbation of the cenkilium, which at Rome consisted of five senators and five Roman equitea of legal age (puberes), and in the provincee consisted of twenty recuperatores, who were Roman citizens. (Gable, i. 20, 38.) The Lex /Elia Sentia also made all manumissions void which were effected to cheat creditors or defraud patrons of their rights. The Lex Furia Caninia. which was passed about A.D. 7, limited the whole number of slaves who could be manumitted by testament to 100, and when a man had fewer than 500 slaves, it determined by a scale the number that he could manu mit. This lex only applied to manumission by testament. (Gaius, L 42, &c.) In the earlier ages of the Republic, slaves were not very numerous, and were chiefly employed in household offices or as mechanics in-the towns. But after the conquests of Rome spread beyond the limits of Italy the influx of captives was so great, and their price fell so low, that they were looked upon as a cheap and easily renewed commodity, and treated as such. The condition of the Roman slave, generally speaking, became worse in the later Agee of the republic ; and many of the emperors, even some of the worst of them, interfered on behalf of the slave. Augustus established courts for the trial of slaves who
were charged with serious offences, intending thus to supersede arbi trary punishment by the masters, but the law was not made obligatory upon the masters to bring their slaves before the courts, and it was often evaded. By a law passed in tho time of Claudius, a master who exposed his sick or infirm slaves forfeited all right over them in the event of their recovery. The Lex Petronia, probably sewed in the time of Augustus, or in the reign of Nero, prohibited masters from compelling their slaves to fight with wild beasts, except with the con sent of the judicial authorities, and on a sufficient case being made out against the slave. Domitian forbade the mutilation of slaves. Hadrian suppressed the ergastula, or private prisons for the confinement of slaves; he also restrained proprietors from selling their slaves to keepers of gladiators, or to brothel-keepers, except as a punishment, in which case the sanction of a judge (judex) was required. Antoninus Pius adopted an old law of the Athenians by which the judge who should be satisfied of a elave being cruelly treated by his owner, had power to oblige the owner to sell him to some other person. The judge, however, was left entirely to his own discretion in determining what measure of harshness in the owner should be a proper ground for judicial Interposition. Septimi us Severus forbade the forcible subjection of slaves to prostitution. The Christian emperors went further in pro tecting the persons of slaves. Constantine placed the wilful murder of a slave on a level with that of a freeman ; and Justinian confirmed this law, including within its provisions eases of slaves who died under excessive punishment. Constantine made also two laws, both nearly In the same words, to prevent the forcible separation of the members of servile families by sale or partition of property. One of the laws, dated am 334, was retained by Justinian in his code. The church also powerfully interfered for the protection of slaves, by threatening excommunication against owners who put to death their slaves with out the consent of the judge ; and by affording asylum within sacred precincts to slaves from the auger of unmerciful masters. A law of Theodosius I. authorised a slave who had taken refuge in a church to call for the protection of the judge, that he might proceed unmolested to his tribunal in order that his case might be investigated. After Christianity became the predominant religion in the Roman world, it exercised in various ways a beneficial influence upon the condition of the slaves, without, however, interfering, at least for centuries, with the institution of slavery itself. Even the laws of the Christian emperors which abolished the master's power of life and death over his slave were long evaded. Salvianus De Gubernatione Dei; iv.) informs us that in the provinces of Gaul, in the 5th century. masters still fancied that they had a right to put their slaves to death. Macrobius (' Saturn.', i. 11) makes one of his interlocutors, though a heathen, expatiate with great eloquence on the cruel and unjust treatment of slaves. In Spain, in the early period of the Visigothic kings, the practice of putting slaves to death still existed, for in the Fore Judie= ' (b. vi., tit. 5) it is said that as some cruel masters in the impetuosity of their pride put to death their slaves without reason, it is enacted that a public and regular trial shall take place previous to their condemnation. Several laws and ecclesiastical canons forbade the sale of Christians as slaves to Jews or Saracens and other unbelievers.