1 58 Organization of a great estate 



bourhood. These in their spare time could be employed as labourers. 

 At how early a date stipulation for labour in part payment of their 

 rents placed such tenants on a 'soccage' footing is not certain. It has, 

 rightly or not, been detected in Columella. At all events it contained 

 the germ of predial serfdom. 



r Now, so long as slave-labour was the permanent and vital element 

 'in agriculture, success or failure depended entirely on the efficiency of 

 /direction and control. Accordingly the regular organization of a great 

 estate was a complete hierarchy. At the head was the vilicus, having 

 under him foremen skilled in special branches of farm work and head- 

 shepherds and the like. Even among the rank and file of the slaves 

 many had special duties occupying all or part of their time, for it was 

 an object to fix responsibility. But it is clear that the efficiency of the 

 whole organization depended on that of the vilicus. And he was a slave, 

 the chattel of a master who could inflict on him any punishment he 

 chose. The temptation to rob his master 1 for his own profit was pro- 

 bably not nearly so strong as we might on first thoughts suppose. If 

 he had contrived to hoard the fruits of his pilferings in portable cash, 

 what was he to do with it? He was not free to abscond with it. He 

 would be well known in the neighbourhood : if any slave could escape 

 detection as a runaway, it would not be he. And detection meant the 

 loss of all his privileges as steward, with severe punishment to boot. 

 His obvious policy was to cling to his stewardship, to induce his master 

 to let him keep a few beasts of his own (aspeculium)* on some corner 

 of the estate, and to wait on events. It might be that he looked forward 

 to manumission after long service. But I cannot find any authority for 

 such a supposition, or any concrete instance of a manumitted vilicus. 

 This inclines me to believe that in practice to such a man manumission 

 was no boon. He was in most cases a native of some distant country, 

 where he had long been forgotten. The farm of his lord was the nearest 

 thing he had to a home. I am driven to suppose that as a rule he kept 

 his post as long as he could discharge its duties, and then sank into the 

 position of a quasi-pensioned retainer who could pay for his keep by 

 watching his successor. Ordinary slaves when worn out may have been 

 put to light duties about the farm, care of poultry etc, and he might 

 direct them, so far as the new steward allowed. I am guessing thus 

 only in reference to average cases. The brutal simplicity of selling off 

 worn-out slaves for what they would fetch was apparently not unknown, 

 and is approved 3 by Cato. 



1 But see the oratorical picture of the bad steward, Cic II in Verrem III 119. That 

 remarkable passage still leaves my questions unanswered, for the comparison with Verres is 

 superficial and only serves a temporary purpose. 



2 Varro I 2 17, 17 5, 7. 3 Cato 2 7, cf Martial XI 70. 



