The colonate in Late Antiquity is a phenomenon which has received ample attention in the last decades. On its origin (fiscal arrangement or continuous indebtedness), its nature (oppressive or not) and its frequency (scattered of omnipresent) opinions vary. Battistella also focuses on the colonate, but from a different perspective. Starting with the title in Justinian's Code on the coloni (CJ 11.48), he also examines the constitutions on their function as communication means between emperor and elites, and contextualises these in the political and economic setting: both for when they were issued and for when they were included in Justinian's Code. The latter objective, contextualisation, however, works only for the first issuance and works better if preambles are still present (as with constitutions and Novels issued by Justinian himself).

The book starts with an examination of the Justinian codification, after which in chapter 3 two classical works on agriculture (Geoponika, Palladius' Opus agriculturae) are analysed. Both regard the availability of labour force as essential for profitable farming estates and so for the landowning elites but the Geoponika shows that this was of particular interest in the sixth century.

On basis of this focuses Battistella on the coloni and consequently examines in chapter 4 the title in Justinian's Code on the coloni, CJ 48.11, since they provide a perspective on Justinian's agrarian policy. He assumes we deal here with tenants on a lease (also 322). The 24 texts in this title he analyses in sequence, first historically and then regarding the law. Pivotal in this research on the colonate is CJ 11.48.19, where he concludes that after 30 years (of lease) tenants were bound to their land and had to till it. Battistella assumes that a landlord acquired a hold on his labour force by acquisitive prescription ('Ersitzung'), but that he could not claim them as adscripticii, only as coloni (181). He refers for this to CJ 7.39.4, but errs here gravely: these texts deal with extinctive prescription ('Verjährung') and only and exceptionally unclaimed slaves acquire now formal freedom without an official confirmation. Acquisitive prescription only applies to possession of property rights. A landowner might have wished his tenants stayed on the land but if they left he could only claim compensation: he had no possession of them. But adscripticii he could claim, his right being based on the enrolment in the professio censualis of the estate; it could extinguish through non-exercise. Consequently the 30 years in CJ 11.48.19 can only refer to an extinctive prescription and since the resulting status is that of 'free' coloni, it applied to adscripticii who had fulfilled their duties over 30 years. CJ 11.48.23, to which Battistella refers for his interpretation, deals with absent adscripticii. Inconvenient is also that Battistella has not specified what he means by 'steuerlich erfasst' (fiscally recorded). His lack of legal expertise shows too in other constitutions. Further, Justinian's codificators were only interested in the rules and system of the colonate as existing and consequently the title should be analysed systematically, what is not done (and for Justinian's times Battistella's historical analyses of pre-Justinianic texts are irrelevant). Also hampering the research is that Battistella has, in line with chapter 3, primarily the entire agrarian work force in focus. In the end it is not clear what precisely made a colonus originalis or adscripticius bound to land or what their position was (the lack of an index of subjects is no help here). It is no moot point. Battistella's interpretation of colonus as lessee and of CJ 11.48.19 would imply that in the end there would be no farmers not bound to their land. It would suggest that the colonate was a widely spread phenomenon and raises the old question whether we see an empire wide change in exploitation. Yet there are many texts on the free lease of land in Justinian's codification.

Another fallacy is that Battistella assumes that constitutions may have been left out in the first Code of 529 and then included in the second Code of 534 as a reaction to events in the intermediate period (144). This is impossible in view of c. Haec 2: the first code was a combination of the previous three codes with the later novels, but the committee should further homogenise the contents, eliminating obsolete texts. C. Cordi 2, referring to this feat, adds that the recent novels issued by Justinian, must now be inserted in the second Code. There is no mention of other constitutions. This implies that there is no basis to assume that CJ 11.51-53 (235-276) were reissued by way of the second Code in response to recent events (i.e., 529-534) to ensure sufficient labour on the land (273, 274). Once issued, many constitutions embodied a rule and formed part of a context of rules, meant to organise a society and to provide solutions to potential new situations, without a new event required for that. Focussing on reaction to an event as characteristic of law means missing the essence of a legal system. In short, the ancient history treatment of chapter 4 is fine but the legal analysis is far from a success and not up to date. [1]

Battistella's research aim to examine the communication aspect under Justinian and contextualisation is more successful in chapter 5 with the constitutions enacted by Justinian himself since here the preambles or motives are often discernible and so the communication. He distinguishes two major events, a lasting darkened sky which caused crop failures around 536 and the plague in 549, and further raids in the Balkan; which he suggests could have inspired legislation. The crop failures may have forced farmers to take up loans against unfair conditions, which Nov. 32-34 forbid. Novel 40 of 536 allows the Resurrection Church in Jerusalem to sell real estate to cover exploitation losses, but not land. Here land revenues might have dropped due to crop failures. The plague may have led to the two- and threefold rise in rents and loans, which Novel 122 of 541 combats. Novel 128 reorganises the tax levy, assigning ownerless land to others. This phenomenon might have resulted from the plague too. The section on the offspring of adscripticii and others (Nov. 156, 157, 162 and App. 1) demonstrate the wish of Justinian to keep labour available on land. Since land was the normal form of wealth, it is evident that this regarded the elites.

The above critique of chapter 4 should not distract from the fact that here in chapter 5 and the appendices (which deal with mostly questions of datation), as well as in the parts on the original moment of issuance of the constitutions in CJ 11.48, and in chapter 2, Battistella shows his ability to detect potential causes for reactive legislation and communication between emperor and addressees. His historical comments on the issuance of constitutions of CJ 11.48 and connected constitutions are well founded and of good use and this goes all the more for Justinian's own legislation in chapter 5. Here and where it concerns contextualisation and the problems dealt with in the appendices Battistella presents the sound and profound analyses of an accomplished ancient historian.

Note:

[1] Absent in the list of literature is B. Sirks: The colonate in the Later Roman empire, in: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 90 (2022), 129-147; B. Sirks: The Colonate in the Roman Empire, Cambridge 2024 was of course not yet available.

Boudewijn Sirks