FredaUtley.com
TRADE GUILDS OF THE LATTER ROMAN EMPIRE
by Freda Utley (MA Thesis at the London School of Economics, 1925)
(Retyped from old manuscript--footnotes deleted after first section)
P A R T 2
WORKERS IN STATE MINES, WORKSHOPS, MINTS,
WEAVING AND DYEING ESTABLISHMENTS
CHAPTER I
STATE MINES AND MANUFACTURERS
We now come to the considerations of the collegia which were not merely
used for certain purposes by the State and charged with certain services, but whose
members were directly employed by the State. The workers in the mines, in the mint,
in the arsonals, in the imperial weaving and dyeing in establishments, the fishermen who
fished for the ----- all these were state employees in the strictesxt sense of the term.
Being so employed, the treatment of the various work people of the kind was on
similar ---- general conditions ---
can't read this---
stuffs brought from the weaving establishments, is threatened with death". This
at least, is the case when he himself has influenced the vote by which he was appointed to
the coveted office; "suffragiis per quae memoratas administrationes adipiscuntur,
abatineant vol ai contra hoe focerint, numero civium Romanorum exempti, gladio
feriantur". How these procurators were appointed is unknown, and in spite of
the implication of the above decree, it seems impossible to suppose that there were
elected. This point needs further investigation; possibly the procurators were at
this date (333) "elected" by the curiales of the city where the state factory
was situated. In the case of the mines and quarries, we know that the "procurator
metallorum" who supervised the working of all the mines and quarries in a
district, was chosen from amongst the curiales. In 377 the higher officials of
the resprivata were warned that losses must be made good by them unless they appoint
administrators whose property is sufficient to make good any losses occurring through
their deceit or covetousness. A full account had to be rendered up within 30 days of
termination of duty as a procurator if the funds of his concern were small; 50 days if
they were large. He is to give documents to the receivers showing what he received,
what he demanded, and what funds are at the moment in the treasury of the concern.
These procurators cannot have been apponted from amongst the personnel
of the factories, who, even when they had some little property, cannot ever have possessed
enough to make good big losses occasioned by bad workmanship or accidents.
The procurators are seen to have often misused their office, both to
cheat and oppress the provincials and to cheat the State. There were froo from all
onera, which points to their having been members of the local curiae appointed to their
poses for a prescribed length of time. As regards the workmen, their status and
economic conditions varied in the different industries. The armourers for instance,
were in the best position and the weavers probably in about the worst, since the Tariff of
Diocletian shows their wages to have been the lowest.
Furthermore, there were distinct classes of workmen in the factories
and mines: free employees, slaves and freedmen, criminals.
The free workers were only free in the limited sense of the word which
applies in the 4th and 5th centuries; they were bound to their trade by heredity and such
possessions as they had were bound with them. In the case of all except the miners
and possibly the armourers, they could leave their posts as state employees if they
produced others as fit to take their places: "non quosoumque nee facile in locum
proprium ----- substituant, sed cos, quoa omnibus idoneos modis sub ipais quodammodo
amplissimae tuse sedis obtutibus adprobarint"; Such substitutes became in
turn bound with their children and goods to hereditary service in the state workshops.
The permission to procure a substitute must usually have been an illusory
concession; for only the most miserable and poor would desire to be thus employed and
bound, and they would not be considered "idonei". A substitute who was not
too poor, or who was not already bound to some other hereditary trade must have been well
nigh impossible to find.
Each factory received a certain quantity of raw material, and the
workmen were bound to produce a definite quantity of manufactures, (in the mines and
quarries a definite quantity of metal or stone had to be produced). The amount
demanded of each factory was in accordance with the number of workmen in it, and in
accordance with the amount of raw material supplied. In the case of the armourers,
the amount of work to be done by each workman was prescribed.
This also seems to have been the case for the workers in the minds and
the weavers. Sozomon, telling of a religious riot at Gizicus, speaks of the many
people "who were engaged in woollen manufactures for the state and were coiners of
money. They were numerous, and were divided into two populous classes, (he must mean
collegia) they had received permission from preceding Emperors to dwell with their
wives and possessions in Ozzious, provided that they annually handed over to the public
treasury a supply of clothes for the soldiery and of newly coined money".
These people must have been working for the State alone though in their
own houses, for the coiners of money at anyrate, cannot have sold their product to anyone
but the State.
Here then are State employees working in their own homes for a piece
wage, but with the necessity of never producing less than a certain quantity of goods.
Whether the "free" state employees all worked at home it is impossible to
say. Persson thinks everything points to the weavers working in their own homes.
The dyers obviously worked in factories since the imperial procurator
was responsible for stuffs damaged in the process of dyeing. As regards the
armourers they must have worked in the arsenals which are known to have existed in various
parts of the Empire.
The slaves and freedmen who in previous centuries had formed the bulk
of the workers in the mines and such other state concerns as existed, are still found in
the 4th and 5th centuries, but in this, as in all other industries, it was the dwindling
supply of slave labour which made the labour problem acute and compelled the government to
force free men to work at the trade prescribed for them, whether they would or no.
Whether the free men and the slaves were members of the same collegium
or whether the slaves formed familiae which had no connection with the collegia is an
obscure and, as yet, undecided question. It is probably that, since the slaves had
in previous centuries formed colledia of their own they still belonged to the collegia in
this period. Some could no doubt become freedmen as a result of good service and
rise to be foremen or to do less onerous work than that performed by the slaves.
can't read this secion.
the Emperor and his household, or whether some were sold to the public as was the case in
the Byzantine Empire later on. We know that the number of the state factories
increased in the East through the 4th and 5th centuries.
It remains to consider in more detail the status and conditions of
labour of the workers in the various industries.
C H A P T E R II
THE MINERS AND QUARRYMEN
Under the Empire most mines and quarries became the property of the
State, wither belonging to the fisc or forming part of the imperial patrimony. In
the 4th century some were still rented out to companies (societates) who exploited them;
others were directly exploited by the State under the direction of a Comess metallorum.
With the companies of lessees of the mines were are not directly concerned, since
they do not seem to have formed collegia.
From the Code definite information can be obtained about the system of
running the mines and quarries directly under state control, about the workers in them,
and about the mines and quarries still in private hands.
The state mines were under the control of a department of the Sacrae
Largitiones. The Comites metallorum were thus under the orders of the Comes
Sacrarum Largitionum or of his superiors: the Praetorian Prefect or the Vicars
of dioceses or the "Rationalis". To those officials the various
imperial decrees are addressed.
Although the "Comes metallorum" supervised all the mines in
his district and saw to it that the requisite amount of metal, stone, sic. was produced,
the actual work of management was performed by a "procurator metallorum" chosen,
as might be supposed, from among the curiales of the municipality in whose territory the
mine or quarry was situated.
The workers ain mine or quarry were partly freemen bound to their
condition like the members of other collegia, partly slaves, and partly criminals.
Like all other industries, mining was in a depressed condition in the
4th century, and efforts were made to encourage outsiders to work in them.
The 'free' miners were bound absolutely to their calling with no
loophole of escape; if they migrated from their place of origin they were recaled without
any possibility of reprieve.
Stringent measures were taken to prevent their flight. In 362 the
Emperor speaks of metallarii is hiding all over the Roman world. They are to be
produced wherever they may have hidden themselves, even from the secret places of the
imperial household. The governors are to aid the investigators with force when the
latter are arresting metallarii who have hidden themselves.
In 370 or 373 the order goes out again, this time to the Practorian
prefect. An edict of Valens is referred to which had warned landowners throughout
the East not to give refuge to minors who had left their work and fled. The
praetorian prefect is to issue an edict to the provincials in Illyricum and the diocese of
Macedonia forbidding them to hide any Thracian (i.e. any escaped miner from Thrace) and
ordering them to compel such miners to return to their birthplace, that is to say, to
their place of work. Anyone henceforth who harbours an escaped miner is to be
severely punished. To help the process of identification, the miners were branded
with the redhot iron on their arm as early as 316 A.D.
Bound to dig in mine or quarry all his life, the miner was not even
allowed to go to another district or county where the conditions of work were easier.
Evidently Sardinia was a favoured spot where the ore or metal was more accessible,
and so miners tried to migrate there. In 378 the miners of the Gaule and of Italy
are warned that they are not "to conceive the unlawful hope of going over to
Sardinia". Nine years previously, the master of any ship0 coming to Sardinia
with miners aboard had been warned that he would have to pay 5 solidi per man, presumably
as a fine.
In 378 the precautions are increased. "Judices" are to
be appointed in the provinces "nourished by the sea" to prevent miners embarking
in ships in order to cross the channel to Sardinia. If they attempt to do so they
are to be severely punished. The guards who allow them to escape over the sea are to
be punished. If the rectores of the provinces neglect to punish the guards,
they are to be punished themselves. The miners who sought thus to escape to Sardinia
were gold miners (auriloguli).
The workers referred to in these laws are not slaves, since they are
owners of lands "metallica loca" are since no special laws, such as these, would
have been required for the recapture of slaves.
One would otherwise have thought that, their service being so strictly
personal, they would have been too porr to possess anything. Their property was like
their persons inalienably bound to service the mining industry. Whoever acquired
such land by sale had to become a miner himself if he kept it. Although this law is
of the year 424, the sale of such lands is not forbidden, as, for instance, it had long
been in the case of that other colelgium so ruthlessly held to personal servie: the pistores.
However, it may be conjectured that it was extremely unlikely that anyone would buy
such land, if it meant becoming a miner for life. Indeed not only for life, for
their children would have to become miners also; the miner's calling was strictly
hereditary; "ad propriao obsequies stirpen earumque revocentur",
"quicumque ex ipsis ot ex quocumque fuerint latere procreati". If he had
married someone outside the collegium of miners half his children had to become miners,
the other half remained to the stronger parent and presumably had to follow his or her
condition. If there were only one son, he had to become a miner. But after 424
the offspring of such mixed marriages had all to become miners (literally to belong to the
fiscus).
This devree shows us that women as well as men might be miners by
heredity (corum autew earumque progenies). One is not astonished to find that women
worked in the mines; it is not long ago since they dragged trucks in the mines of this
country.
The same decree is slightly more lenient than one might expect towards
the miners who had managed to escape and had become coloni. If they have left the
mine five years before, they are allowed to go free, i.e. to remain cultivators of the
soil, and not be dragged back to the mine. The Treasury, however, is not going to
suffer loss in consequence for long: half the children of such escaped miners are to
become miners. From 424 no one is to be allowed to escape being a miner; even if
after 40 years away a miner is found, he is to be recalled to his mine.
A definite quantity of ore was demanded from them by the Treasury the
"canon metallicus". It was collected by the "susceptores canonis
metallic" and was very heavy. We are not informed as to the amount except in
the case of the gold miners in Pontica and Asia. These had to produce seven sorupuli
a year. The conditions must obviously have varied, but if a uniform rate was
demanded in the case of gold miners, it can easily be understood why some miners tried to
get to Sardinia; if the mines were not so exhausted there, it would be easier to get the
work done to procure the requisite amount. We know that in the case of gold, the
mines in Italy and Gaul were exhausted, and it is particularly from those countries that
the gold miners were seeking to escape.
That the amount demanded by the Treasury was very great, and that the
conditions in the mines were very miserable can be seen from the incident told of by
Anndenus Marcellinue. He relates that when the Goths were in Thrace, prior to the
battle of Adrianople, they were joined by many goldminers who were unable to endure the
heavy burden of their taxes. Here, as so often, the barbarism seemed less oppressive
than the Emperor's tax collectors.
The question of the amount of the canon metallicus is complicated by
the fact that the decrees dealing with it and with the tax on private individuals working
in mines and quarries are not clearly differentiated; both payments came under the heading
of "canon metallicus" and it is difficult to decide precisely to which
they refer. It is to be noted that it is the Thoracian miners whose recall is
commanded by the decree of 570 already referred to. The metallarii being grouped in
collegia the private property of numbers no doubt saved to make up deficits in the canon
metallicus like the proeprty of the armourers. Their private property may also
have helped to nourish them when they did not produce enough metal or stone for sale
beyond their tax.
S E C T I O N II
Encouragement to Private Individuals, and Arrangements as
Regards Private Mines and Quarries
One is not surprised to find that in spite of all the government
measures to keep hereditary miners and quarrymen at their work, insufficient supplies were
obtained. This is specially true as regards stone cutting from the quarries.
There are many indications of the amount of building, public and private, done in the 4th
century. Very many new churches were b uilt; Julian's restoration of the temples
occasioned the need for further supplies of marble, the general luxury and ostentation of
the century was fitly expressed in the erection of innumerable public buildings and
sumptious private houses. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks of even the soldiers wanting
marble houses. Every encouragement to building was given by the Emperors to
private individuals in the two capitals, witness the "panis aedificorum".
The large supply of lime required for the "public buildings" at Rome is further
evidence. The number of inscriptions of the "fabri" and "fabri
tignarii" all over the Empire - outstripping in numbers those of any other collegium
- further testify to the importance of the building trade. Lastly, the series of
laws about to be referred to show how great was the demand for marble, and how essential
the government considered it to ensure a plentiful supply. Constantine was only
concerned with the necessity of ensuring supplies, and decreed in 320 that all who wished
to cut marble might do so in any quarry and do with it what they pleased, either using it
themselves or retailing it. There is, in fact, to be no charge or tax on the product
of such voluntary labour.
Forty-three years later, Julian found that the demand for marble still
exceeded the supply. He speaks of the desire for marble having made the price rise
excessively, and in order to bring down the prices of the various qualities of the
"shining stone" he decrees that all who wish may cut marble in the Eastern
province, and so increase the supply. In 376 Valentinian seems to have tried to
arrange that private individuals should also be able to cut marble from private quarries
in Illyricum and Macedonia free of charge, taxation or custom duties. He only
proposes to do so if the Senate be willing -" . . . sed vobis patres conscripti
volontibus liberalius deferetur duo ut quisque susptu susque emolumonto, vectigalis operas
et portarli damna metueus, parlat oam copiam." Evidently the private owners or
the senate objected, for a law dated four years later (363) decrees that all those who
obtain marble by laborious digging in the territory of private persons are to pay one
tenth of the product of such labour to the Treasury and one tenth to the owner of the
quarry. They are allowed to keep the remaining eight tenths for their own use.
The same arrangement is again sanctioned two years later with the ---
command to the --------- that such private stone cutters are to have complete power of
disposal over eight tenths of what they produce. ". . . . videndi domandi et
quo voluntas suarorit transtorandi."
It is not clear whether this latter arrangement of one tenth to the ---
concerns private quarries only, and whether the original arrangements made by Constantine
and Julian, granting rights of cutting to anyone, refer to private as well as state
quarries. It may be inferred that then the State began in 362 to take one tenth of
the product of private quarries, it did the same for public ones. It may, it seems
to me, also be inferred that the earlier laws do not refer to private mines, since
Valendinian speaks of a possible arrangement for free excavation of private mines in 376.
This difficulty does not seem to have been considered. For instance W. A.
Brown merely states that laws are found encouraging the opening of new quarries by private
persons; that Constantine removed the earlier taxes and Julian confirmed to privatge
individuals the free right of quarrying. Soon, however, he says, the necessities of
the royal treasury proved too much for this enlightened policy, for in 382 we find a tax
of one tenth imposed on the product of all quarries worked by individuals. He seems
to think that the reference to "private" quarries merely means the companies of
private persons to whom the state quarries were farmed out.
It does not seem quite so simple as this; for the difficulty remains
that the earlier laws do not mention the word private, and that although in 376
Constantine and Julian's laws had not been cancelled, Valentinian refers to the old
conditions of cutting in private quarries in Illyricum and Macedonia. Likewise I
cannot see why the Emperors should refer to state quarries as "privatis
lapidioipis."
However, in 396 the government prohibited the working of any marble
quarries by the employees of private persons. Again it is doubtful whether this law
established a state monopoly of all marble quarrying, or whether it referred to state
owned quarries as distinct from privately owned ones. Anyone who secretly disobeys
the decree has the product of his labour confiscated by the Treasury, and there is no
mention of any private owner ---- any of this therefore, the prohibition must refer to
-------. Brown's view is accepted and all quarries were in the hands of the state,
the decree must mean that thenceforth, all of them are going to be exploited direct by the
State by means of its own work-people: collegiati, criminals and slaves.
The innocence of the laws means ------- there were in the 4th century
both state and private quarries, but the question as to whether this was so, or whether
the state owned all the quarries seems worthy of investigation.
As regards ---- the position seems clearer. Practically all, if
not quite all the mines were owned by the State. Gothefredus thinks some were
public, some private, but there is no reference to private ones, and all gold mines at any
rate were in the hands of the State. Private individuals were encouraged to mine.
In 365 Valentinian tells the Comes metallorum that, having carefully
considered the matter, he has come to the conclusion that a man who wishes to take part in
the excavation for metals serves both his own and the State's interest. These miners
who come of their own free will are to pay eight ounces of gold dust to the government,
and can then sell the rest of what they produce to the Treasury at a suitable price.
Obviously, there was no question of their selling to anyone else, and they would
have to be humbly grateful for whatever price they received from the government.
Two years later another decree speaks of the tax on metals and of 14
ounces of gold dust being paid for each pound. This does not seem to refer to
voluntary gold diggers but it seems possible that it refers to companies of exploiters of
mines. It may, of course, refer to the amount taken from the metallarii proper, but
there is the difficulty that a definite quantity of gold dust was demanded from them, not
a percentage of their takings. If a percentage of their takings was demanded, and
the cover scrupuli each year was merely a minimum, the percentage demanded (seven-eights)
is so high that there would be little left over for them to live on, and their discontent
would be explained. In the case of the miners in Thrace referred to by Ammianus
Narcellinus, the "canon metallicum" must have been a fixed amount which had got
to be produced each year. Perhaps the decree demanding seven scrupuli concerned Acia
and Fontica only and elsewhere a percentage of takings was demanded, sufficient incentive
being given to the miners by allowing them to --- nine ounces per pound. The whole
question of the working of the mines and quarries in the 4th and 5th centuries requires
much fuller consideration than it has been possible to give it here.
C H A P T E R III
Workers in the Mint
Closely allied to the miners were the workers in the imperial
mints. All making of money was in the 4th century in the hands of the Emperor and
there were 12 mints: six in the Eastern provinces and six in the Western. Like the
miners they were under the administration of officials dependent on the Comes Sacarum
Largitionum. This was natural since the metals were furnished by the contributions
brought in from the Mines as well as from the lingots of metals paid as taxes.
The work done in the mints consisted of the whole process of coining:
the engraving of the moulds the melting of the metal, the shaping and stamping of
the coins.
Of the large numbers of workers in the Mints some idea can be formed
from the circumstances of their revolt under Aurelian when 7000 soldiers were needed to
suppress them.
In that revolt they were led by a slave called Felicissimus who had
become the administrator of the Treasury and this tends to show that in the 3rd century
many of the workers were still slaves. But in the 4th century there are certain
proofs which show that they were free men though of course free men hereditarily bound to
their work.
In the first decree relating to them in the Theodosian code t hey are
found to be organised in collegia and Constantine says they are not to be given the titles
of perfectissimi and egregrii, cemtema or duccna. There
could have been no question of giving such titles to slaves. Furthermore their
possessions were tied to their service; slaves had no possessions in the eyes of the law.
Not only were they free, some few must have been moderately rich since
they were forbidden the grant of the above titles and there is further evidence for this
in the fact that Julian enrolled monetarii amongst the curiales at Antioch.
Constantine's law referred to above ties the monetarii down to
work in the mints all their lives, they are always to remain in their present employment.
Their children had to become monetarii after them (nexu
sanguinis pertinentium) and I have already mentioned that their possessions were similarly
bound to the service of the mints.
Some slaves must still have worked in the mints but they cannot have
been much worse off than the "free" workers. The low status of the latter
is clearly shown in a law of 380 relating to the Marriage of a woman of superior rank to a
monetarius. It decrees that if such a woman should so far forget herself as to marry
a worker in the mint she is to lose the glory of her native liberty (decus nativae
libertatis amittat) and become herself a member of the corpus of monetarii.
Her children are also to become workers in the mint.
The only way she can escape is to renounce her marriage immediately.
There can have been but little distinction between the status of a
slave and of a "free" hereditary state employee for such a decree to have been
issued. The terms used imply that a monetarius was regarded as almost, if not quite,
of servile condition, and a Christian Emperor could propose an easy divorce for a woman
who had demeaned herself by marrying one.
The monetarius was restricted in his choice of a wife even
amongst people of his own social status. He was not to marry a "colona":
if a serfwoman belonging to someone else married him she could be recalled by her master.
If she were not recalled she herself became a hereditary mint worker.
The daughter of a monetarius could not marry anyone but a monetarius.
It seems that these regulations would in practise make it impossible
for a mint worker ever to marry outside his collegium.
It is specially clear in the case of the monetarii that state
employees in this period were but little better treated than slaves, tied to their
employment for ever, with their children and their possessions, and practically forbidden
to marry anyone but the daughters of their fellow workers in the mint.
I have already referred to the passage in Sozomen regarding the two
collegis at Cyzicus, one of weavers and one of coiners of money, which shows that they had
to hand over a certain amount of newly coined money each year. They were probably
paid by the piece but may have been paid so much per day being kept to their work by the
necessity of providing a stated number of coins each year.
C H A P T E R IV
ARVOURERS (MABRICENSES)
Of the three classes of workpeople employed in connection with metals:
the miners, money coiners, and the makers of weapons, the last named were seemingly the
most prosperous.
They worked in the state arsenals which in the 4th century formed part
of the civil administration. These arsenals were situated in various parts of the
Empire and were under the praetorian praefect. There were 15 arsenals in the East;
in Thrace, Pontas, and Asia; and 20 in the West; in Ilyria, Italy and Gaul.
Different weapons were made in the different arsenals; for example shields and defensive
armour at Damasdus, spears at Irenopolis and so on. Each arsenal was directed by a
"praepositus fabricae', under him a head foreman (primicerius fabricae)
directed the work of manufacture. This foreman is called a tribunus fabricae by
Ammianus Marcellienus. There was also an intendant (biarcus).
The metals needed for the manufacture of the armour and weapons -- were
furnished from the revenues of the state mines and by the tax on private mines. It
is specially decreed that the actual metal is to be delivered at the workshops; money is
not to be payed in place of metal. The Emperor hopes thus to ensure that the best
quality metal, such as meets easily, will be supplied for the "public use" and
that there will be no fraud. The subsidiary services necessary to the carrying on of
the work: e.g. the preparing and furnishing of charcoal), were exacted from the
neighbouring townspeople, and formed part of the "sordida munera".
The workmen themselves, the fabricenses, were bound to make a
certain quantity of armour or weapons. The particular type of work and the amount to
be done was prescribed. For example at Constantinople each workman in the arsenals
had each 30 days to decorate with silver and gold six helmets, together with their mouth
and cheek pieces. At Antioch the amount of work demanded was greater.
We find no decrees intimating that punishment was inflicted on those
who failed to deliver their quota of work. But since they were held collectively
liable with their property for a defaulting member it may be presumed that any deficit in
the amount of work done was punished by a fine. This was the punishment in the case
of other offences which they might commit.
In each factory workmen formed a hereditary collegium, --- their
children after them being bound to their calling. Arcadius decreed that they were to
be branded on the arm in order that they might be recognised if they attempted to hide.
This however was not a mark of servitude, it was done in imitation of young
soldiers (ad initationem tironum) and Persson has pointed out that it was due to the
danger to the state of the loss of these armourers rather than to the especial irksomeness
of their task. Severe penalties are therefore threatened against those who receive
absconding fabricenses or their children. Ordinary people who hide them are
to be claimed by the factory, i.e. are to be made to come and work in it. Even those
who do not give their help in recapturing esca[ed fabricenses are to be roped in for this
"military service" i.e. are also to be made armourers. Landowners who
engage an armourer, as their intendant or bailiff (procurator or conductor) or as a simple
labourer or tenant (cultor) on their farms, are to have the land they confided to them
confiscated to the treasury (rei, quam contra Vetitum fabricensi crediterit in jungendam
proprietate privetur, ea videlicet fiscalibus calculissocianda). The armourer
himself is to be fined 2 lbs of gold.
That the trade of a fabricensis was not comparatively a bad trade is
proved, in spite of the above measures, by a decree of 412 A.D. concerning those who wish
to become armourers. Anyone who wishes to be elected to the "consortium"
of armourers must prove to the moderator of the province or to the defensor of the
municipality where he was born and where he lives, that he is not a curialis by
heredity and that he belongs to no "ordo" of the city and is subject to no civil
burden. In fact he can only become an armourer if he is entirely free from all
hereditary liens to any other collegium or to the cu ria. Whatever his rank or
however long he has been an absentee, a man who has managed to join the collegium of
armourers by stealth is to be recolleged to the collegium or 'ordo' to which he belongs.
Thus members of other collegia and even curiales were often anxious to
exchange their trades or civil duties for the trade of making armour and weapons.
The contrast between the conditions of the armourers as compared with
that of the gold miners is shown indirectly by Ammianus Marcellinus. For whereas he
relates that the miners in Thrace joined the Gothic invaders, he tells how these
same Goths were a short time before forced to leave Adrianople by the mob of the city and
by "a body of armourers of whom there were a great number in the place."
The special privilege of not having to provide quarters for soldiers
(metatus) was conceded to then all the armourers in 400.
The forman of a factory (primicerius) was discharged at the end of two
years service and was honoured by being placed among the "protectores".
We do not know whether the prfimicerius was elected by the other
armourers or appointed by the "praeposities fabricas".
Gothifredus refers to a tribunicus fabricae spoken of by Ammianus
Marcellinus in Bk. XIV, and VX. but I have been unable to trace the reference.
The man spoken of in Bk. 20, Ch. III.4. as being put to death by the Emperor
is called the praepositus fabricae i.e. the government official who was responsible for
the direction of the arsenal, not the primicerius who was a sort of foreman.
Ammianus relates how this praepositus had brought the Emperor an exquisitely polished
breastplate in expectation of a reward. Instead he was put to death by the Emperor
because the steel was of less weight than the latter considered requisite. The
praepositus was therefore responsible for the right use being made of the metals supplied
to the arsenal.
Still it need not be imagined that the toil of the fabricenses was
light; the desire of members of other collegia to become armourers is only explained by
the greated wretchedness of all the other workers.
In the 5th Century the law shows that the fabricenses had to be
strictly kept to their work and their children forced to follow their father's trade.
"It is provided by law that the fabricenses shall be so closely bound to their
appropriate duties that worn out at last by their toil, they shall die in the profession
to which they were born, both they and their children after them".
C H A P T E R V
GYNAECIA, DAPHIA, BARBARICARIA
It remains to consider the workers in the imperial weaving, dyeing and
embroidering establishments. The Emperors nourished the court, the administration
and the army and under the late Empire also furnished them with clothing. Some of
these establishments provided for the wants of the Emperor and his household, some for
those of the Civil Service, some for the weaving and preparing of garments, blankets,
cloth for tents and other furnishings of the army. The greater number of the
gynaecia, probably existed for th is latter purpose.
Raw material was furnished by the imperial officers: comites
commerciorum, who, one in each of the great divisions of the Empire, bought or
collected the necessary milk, wool, purple, skins, etc. and forwarded them to the several
factories. The imperial factories were situated with regard to (a) the suply of raw
material, (b) the needs of the army. This is also true of the other state workshops
and arsenals.
In the case of weaving and dyeing the supply of skilled weavers, dyers
and so forth had also to be considered, and so it is not surprising to find that the
imperial linen factories were all in the East. At Taraos not only fine stuff was
made but also a coarse weaving for coarse clothes and for tents. It was called
"cilicium" and it was used by the apostle Paul as a tentmarker. These
facts speak for the correctness of the supposition that the towns of Skythopolis, Tarsus
and Alexandria and probably Byblos and Laodikeia already possessed imperial linen
factories at the time of Diocletian.
As regards the woollen industry the following cities were the centres
of manufacture: Damascus and Laodikeia in Syria, Milebue and Kagnesia in Asia Minor;
Mutina, Canusium, Venusia, Trier and Postovia (Fettan in Steirmark) in the West. Of
these five towns in the West, three are known from the Not. Dign. to have been centres of
imperial manufacturers. These three are Carusium, Vemusia and Rrier.
Over each manufacture was an imperial "procurator" as we have
seen. He was responsible for the work done and for any loss or spoiling of the
materials. It has already been mentioned that in certain circumstances (i.e. when he
had himself procured his own appointment) the procurator of a dyehouse might be punished
by death if he had allowed material to be spoilt in the dyeing by a wrong admixture of
dye.
It may be imagined with what severity the procurator held responsible
for the slightest fault in the factory which he managed, treated the work people under
him. The weavers and dyers indeed belonged to the least respected and worst paid of
all the workers and the laws show that they all tried to get free of their trade.
The Three Classes of Workpeople
posted 2/8/01
We have seen that criminals were sometimes put to work in the “gynaecia” and Sozomen and Essehius leaves us in no doubt as to the painful nature of the work in these establishments. They speak of the persecuted Christians who had been robbed of their right of birth and thrown into weaving establishments to follow a hard and painful work. Persson remarks that the words (in Greek) show that the work in the weaving factories was as greatly feared as imprisonment. The fiscal weavers are spoken of elsewhere as I have already spoken of the story of the wife of Theodorus told both by John Chrysostom and Amm: Marcelluius.
To judge from the number of decrees relating to them more slaves were employed in the weaving establishments than in the other state manufacturies. Constantine in March 338 threatened with a fine of 5 lbs. of gold anyone who should not have produced before Sep.1. a slave of the gynaecium whom he might be hiding. The decree is repeated in 372. In 380 3 lbs. of gold only is the fine imposed for hiding a slave of the Gynaecium.
The “free” weavers and dyers being strictly bound to their calling and being of very low condition do not seem to have been of much more account than the slaves. For instance those who have detained linen weavers are fined 5 lbs. of gold, exactly the same amount as the fine for hiding a slave belonging to a weaving establishment.
Similarly marriage to a gynaecarius, that is to a non servile but hereditarily bound weaver, by a free woman is treated like the marriage of a free woman and a slave. That is to say that in such case the woman is made to adopt her husband’s condition unless she repudiates the “vile alliance”; it has already been seen that the same application of the law for slaves was being made to the workers in the Mints. It is only one of many instances of the gradual application and semi servile status to all the workers agricultural and industrial (coloni and corporati). In 372 and again in 371 severe penalties are threatened against those who solicit the hereditary linen weavers to go and work for them secretly. Such linen weavers are to be claimed at once for the making of such linen garments where they belong (“quin etiam opifices ipaos tasrinis lintsas vestis vindicari convenict”). In future the fine of 5 lbs. of gold shall always be imposed on those who try to take away those bound to a linen weaving establishment for the benefit of the public revenue (obnoxious linyfos publico canoue).
The members of the corpora of gynaecarii, lintaerii or linyfarii together with the monetarii and Hurlieguli were allowed to leave their work if they could produce substitutes as “idonsi” as themselves who would in turn become hereditary state employees. As already noted in Chap.1. this concession must have been an illusory one for the very reasons which made the weavers and dyers anxious to abandon their work would make others unwilling to take their places.
It does not seem that these hereditary “free” weavers worked in factories. They appear to have lived and worked in their own homes and to have been paid by the piece. The passage of Sozomen already referred to indicates that this was the case at Cyzicus. Although living at home the putting together of weavers and coiners in one category leads to the assumption that the weavers worked only for the state as coiners obviously must have done. Still it is impossible to say whether the workers were concentrated in factories or worked in their own homes to produce the due measure of clith. Person thinks everything points to their working in their homes. I would suggest that most must have worked at home, as in Western Europe before the introduction of machinery, but that those who were too poor to possess a loom may have worked like the slaves and criminals in the State workrooms.
It should be noted that, whereas Sozomen is referring to woollen weavers, the laws dealt with above all seem to refer to linen weavers. Possibly therefore woollen weaving was done in the worker’s home, and linen weaving in state workshops, but there seems insufficient reason for the distinction, except that the weaving of linen was harder and needed more skill and stricter supervision.
Both men and women were employed by the State, presumably the women spun and the men wove, as was generally the case before the late 18th century.
That the weavers and spinners were poor people and their work very arduous is not only shown by the laws, and by the fact that criminals were condemned to the Gynaecia, but John Chrysostom refers to the manufacture of robes as normally the work of the poor and of slaves: “Let us clothe ourselves with a robe not the manufacture of poor men or slaves but wrought by our Lord.” Yet the Th. Code implies that they sometimes had property (cum omnibus ejue qui ebsolvitur rebus obnoxism largitionibus asoris futuram easo non dubitet). This “property can have been little more then the worker’s petty savings; something like the peculiu of a slave. In deed it seems to me that in the case of the weavers their “res” may merely mean their tools, i.e. their looms. I have not been able to do more than deal very shortly with the workers in the weaving establishments. It seems to me that the whole question of weaving in the later Empire needs investigation and that it is difficult to treat the state manufacturies entirely separately. It would be interesting to discover how far the state factories were a result of the decline in home manufacture of cloth and linen and how far they were the cause of that decline. It is to be noted that “adaeratio” of the tax of militaris vestia was allowed long before “adaeratio” of the “indictio” food supplies. It is known that in the Byzantine Empire the state manufacturies came to supply the public demand and merchants are found who sell the state manufacturers and are exempt from taxation.
There is material in the inscriptions and in John Chrysostom relating to cloth and linen merchants and to home weaving and spinning which space has not allowed me to make use of in this study.
POSTED 3/14/01
BAPHIA
The dyers and fishers for the murex were in much the same position as the weavers. The Murilaguli and conchylioleguli who collected the murex fish or conchylium, from which the purple dye was made, were also hereditary state employees who could only leave their condition if they could find a substitute under the different terms mentioned above. They also had the servile law of heredity applied to them; the children of mothers who were the daughters of murileguli and of fathers of another origin belonged to their mother’s status, i.e. were Murileguli. It would seem that those purple fishers also worked in t he dye houses as dyers but the evidence for this is not certain.
BASTAGARII
Another group of workers who must be mentioned in connection with the state factories are the Bastagarii. The taxes in kind collected for the use of the imperial facgories and arsonals, and the raw materials bought for the same purposes, were transported from the central treasury of the Count of the Sacred Largesses or of the Court of the Res Privata, to the imperial workshops by these Basts agarii similarly they transported the finished products from the workshops t their destination. Two decrees deal with the Bastagarii. One of 368 A.D. relates to the provision by the Treasury of one in ten of the animals they used for their transport service but it is evidently a special measure for a particular occasion. The other decree, of 384, forbids the Bastagarii t leave their service which is called a Militaryam one (Militiam). Evidently some had been trying to become actual soldiers.
P A R T I I I
The Collegia in the Municipalities, and in Rome
and Constantinople, considered as municipalities . . .
CHAPTER I
The internal organisation of the Collegia, their aims
and their place in the local administration, accompanied
by some remarks on conditions of labour
In their final Part there remain to be considered the members of the various collegia of all sorts throughout the Empire who were not connected with the "Annona" and were not employed by the central government. These collegia were frequently employed by the municipalities in some public capacity and carried out duties in the local administration to correspond with those carried out in the Central administration by the "collegia" considered in Part I. This aspect of the "municipal" collegia will be considered separately at the end of this Chapter.
The epigraphic evidence for these collegia is abundant for the 1st and 2nd centuries and there seems no doubt in their case about the appropriate use of the word "collegium". They are the associations of natural growth which had long existed, either officially or unofficially, before they were finally transferred into strict hereditary associations in the 4th Century. The word "corpus" is rarely applied to them in place of collegium in the provinces though at Rome the names collegia and corpera seem to be used indiscriminately to designate all associations of merchants and artisans. This is explained by the fact that no sharp distinction is made between those who served the "annona" and those who performed the duties necessary to Rome considered as a simple municipality. Symmachus, in his opt quoted letter begging the Emperor not to impose the ‘collatio equorum’ on them, refers to the corporati negotiatores and under this designation refers to the pecuarii, suarii, pistores and other associations connected with the "annona" together with those who put out the fires, those who attend to the public baths, and the rest of those collegia who serve their "patria": - - "hie lanati pecoris invector est, ille ad victum pupuli cogit armentum, hos suillae carnis tenet functio, pars ureutia lavacris ligna conportat - - - per aleos fortuita arcentur incendia, Iam caupones et obsequia pistoria, frugis et clei bejulos multosque id genus patriae servientes enumerare fastidium est".
We know from inscription that most artisans had liked to group themselves into collegia from the earliest times and Lampridius says that all artisans and merchants at Rome were gathered together in official corporations under Alexander Severns. Whether this is so or not there can have been fre people by the 4th Century left outside a collegium or some similar association though opinions differ as to the existence of any number of artisans who never formed collegia at all.
I reproduce below a list of the industrial collegia which existed in the municipalities before the 4th Century according to the inscriptions collected by Waltzing. I have, however, added a few names not found in his list which does not include those at Rome even wh en they are not ‘Official’ ones. Where I have done so I have given reference to the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. I have not added any of those dealt with in Part I.
Collegium aquarisrum - water carriers, or workers on the aqueducts
Aurificos universi - gold beaters
Collegium mulionum et - muleteers and
Asinariorum - also mulliones ass drivers
Collegium aurariarum - gold miners
Collegium caplatorum - possibly coopers
Cuparii - ditto
Caupones - tavern keepers
Centonariorum, Collegium - patchwork dealers
(found almost everywhere) (see discussion in Ch. II)
Cisiarei - drivers of Hackney carriages
Clibanarii - bakers
Corarii (at Rome) - tanners
Coci - cooks
Culinari - cooks
Dendrophori (in 65 towns) - wood merchants (see Ch. II)
Diffusores olearii - wholesale oil merchants
Socii dissignatores - distributors of seats in theatre
Fabri, or collegium, Fabrum or
fabrorum (found in 75 towns) - builders
other Fabri navales ferrarii etc. - See Ch. II
Collegium farmac-op-olarum
publicorum - druggists
Collegium focariorum - heaters of the public baths
or makers of kitchen utensils
Forenses - merchants in the form
Socalicium fullonum and
fullones (at 4 places) also - fullers
Greek oesin about 4 other
places, also collegium lotorum
Ballinarii - game merchants
Collegium jumentariorum - drivers of draught animals who
also hired out their animals
Negotiatores salsari leguminari - pickle dealers
Negotiatores vinarii, Lugunduni
incanobia consistentes - wine merchants at Lyons
Offectores, dyers in East - dyers and purple dyers
Holitores - vegetable merchants
Collegium mercatorum
pequariorum - mutton dealers (see Pt. I)
Piscatores - fishermen
Pistores at Pompei & Sitifis - bakers
Pelliones - furriers
Pomari universi - fruit dealers
Propolae - retail dealers
Saccarii - porters
Sagari - makers of silk blouses
Servi publici (at Sarmizegetusa
in Dacia) - public slaves
Sintoniaci - weavers of fine material
Slave dealers and workers in
the slave market at Thyatira
in Lycia -
Collegium sutorum - shoemakers
Speclarii (at Rome) - makers of mirrors
Soliarii (at Rome) - sandal makers
Tabernarii - shopkeepers
Lanarii costerae,
Lunarii pectinari - workers in wool
Lanariorum carmin atorum
socalicium (also various Greek
associations of some workers) - carders of wool, etc.
Lani and laniones - butchers
Lapiderii (also a Greek Assoc) - stonecutters
Lapidari structurae - masons
Lecticarii - litter bearers
Lignari universi - wood merchants
Lignari plastrari - charcoal burners
Collegium lintionum, Lyntoarii - Linen weavers
Collegium munipum - ?
Manticularii negotiatores - retail merchants
Sodalicium marmorariorum - marble workers
Nautae (very numerous) - sailors on the rivers
Navicularii marini - ship owners
Collegium negotiantium - merchants
(of a town)
Negotiatores ortis vestiariasi -
et lintiariae - merchant sailors
Tonsores - barbers
Unguentarii - perfumers
Utricularii (found in many - makers of gourds or special
places) boatmen
Vinarii urbani - wine merchants
The large majority of these associations are found in the Western provinces; it was here where Roman civilisation prevailed that they formed naturally.
Presumably most of these collegia continued to exist in the 4th Century but there are very few in inscriptions of the late Empire, this dearth of epigraphic evidence is no doubt due to the increasing poverty of the collegia in that period.
Below is a list of the collegia which are specially mentioned as still existing in the 4th Century.
Collegium fabrorum (in all the cities)
Fabri subidiani
Centonarii (in all the cities)
Dendropheri (in all the cities)
Corpus saponariorum - soap merchants
Pistores
Honorius recalls the "collegiates, ut vitutiaris, nemesiacos, signiferos, cantaorarios, et singularium urbium corporates.
It is of course impossible to say whether all artisans and traders belonged to collegia but it would seem that by the 4th Century the government grouped all men of one trade or calling together for purposes of taxation and service, whether they had previously been members of collegia or not.
As regards the reason for the formatin of the Collegia before the 4th Century I have, in the Introduction, attempted a survey of their early history and have stated the generally recognised reasons for their formation.
To ensure burial to the members, to perform religious rites, and to gorm within the vast imensity of the Empire some small association of men of a similar kind where the individual might satisfy his social and even his political instincts.
The religious objects need not detain us; they have been fully studies elsewhere and do not concern this thesis. A few more words are necessary on the subject of the convivial or social aspect of the collegia of which the inscriptions give abundant evidence.
Frequently the members met for banquets, the cost of which was defrayed by the generosity of some individual benefactor or patron or even occasionally from the common treasury (arca) whose funds came from the subscriptions of the individual members. There were other meetings of a business nature for the election of the collegium’s officials and for transacting general business. The law only allowed one business meeting a month - this was no doubt a precaution against the collegia becoming political or treasonable bodies.
A very large number of inscriptions relate to legacies given for annual feasts to collegia by patrons and by strangers outside the collegia. The former would also give moneys during their lifetime and the grateful collegiati would th en put up a statue to their benefactor commemorating the gift. In the case of legacies from strangers or from wealthy members the gift would be on condition that roses and libations be scattered over the donor’s grave or that an annual feast of the members should be held there. If the members neglect to tend the grave the legacy is to be transferred elsewhere. The object of the gifts of richmen to the collegia was obviously to ensure that their tombs should be looked after. Such legacies were nearly always made to industrial collegia and very rarely to simple funerary collegia, the latter were presumably too poor to be trusted. The most legacies were left to the fabri and centonarii the most abundant and prosperous of the municipal collegia (see Chapter 2).
The inscriptions dealing with such legacies date mostly from the 1st and 2nd century - the collegia were too strictly under state control and too oppressed and there were too few rich townsmen for many such legacies to be possible in the 4th Century. There is however one very interesting 4th Century inscription in which it is recorded how P. Aelius Apellinaris Arlenius, a young man of good character and liberal education at his death beggedhis father, a virperfectissimus, to give a certain farm to the collegia of Praeneste on condition that from its revenues they should feast twice a year on the date of his birth and death. He also asked his father to buy up certain gardens to be given to the collegia. The grateful collegia put up a statue to him dressed in a toga.
Of courst there are other undated inscriptions which may belong to the 4th Century.
Until the funds of the collegia were confiscated by the state as being used for pagan purposes, the former legacies were presumably still applied to their original purpose of giving free banquets to members, but as the collegia became collectively responsible for these members to the State it is possibly that such legacies were used to defray their Corporate fines. Much property must also have been ruined in the 3rd Century, and so heavily taxed in the 4th Century, that it became almost valueless. Furthermore legacies of other kinds much have become almost valueless owing to the depreciation of the currency.
The collegia met in a special place of reunion, a ‘schola’ or temple, they sometimes had permission from the curia to assemble in a public place or temple, but the richer ones built their own.
When a banquet washeld, or money and food (aportules) distributed to the members, there were rules laid down as to how much each member was to receive and what was to happen to the unclaimed shares, in the case of the ebonarii and citriarii such unclaimed shares were divided between all the members at the end of the year
Some wax tablets found in the gold mines at Verespatak seem to contain a record of the cost of a banquet. The various foods bought show that on these special occasions even the miners, who were mainly if not only slaves and freedmen, thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Here are the items still legible:
5 lambs 18 deniers
1 milch abv. 5 deniers
White bread 2 or 3 deniers
Incense ditto
Pure wine 2 deniers
194 Homines of ordinary wine 97 deniers
Salad 1 denier
Salt or oil 1/4 denier
Other inscriptions record exactly what was given to the euinquennales, the magistri, etc., and what to the ordinary members, is a descending scale. That even the funerary collegia existed in large part to provide feasts and pleasant reunions for their members is shown in the illuminating History of Rome.
Although it concerns a funeral collegium it is worth quoting in full as it is evidence as regards the social function and internal regulations of all the collegia.
"It is unanimously voted that whoever wishes to enter this society shall pay an initiation fee of one hundred Sesterces and an amphora of wine and shall pay a monthly due of five ances.
"If a member in full standing dies there shall be drawn for his account three hundred Sesterces, one-sixth of which shall be divided among the attendants of the funeral. The funeral procession shall go on foot. Any member who commits suicide shall not be buried by the Society.
If any member who is a slave shall become free he shall provide the Society with an amphora of good wine. If an officer elected in due order does not give a dinner to the members, he shall be fined 30 Sesterces. The officers are each to furnish an amphora of good wine, 2 asses worth of bread for each member, four sardines, and provide for the service.
If any member causes a disturbance by changing his seat he shall be fined 4 Sesterces; if anyone insults another member the fine shall be 12 Sesterces; if he abuses the presiding officer the fine shall be 20 Sesterces.
PATRONS
Every collegium chose one or more patrons on the analogy of the municipalities in early times. Those patrons were obviously chosen who would be wealthy enough to confer benefits and largesses on the collegia. The patron usually gave a sum to provide for a banquet or for distributions of money and fod (sportulae) to members. In return the collegium set up a statue in gratitude and in anticipation of benefits to come. The patron himself might also defray the expenses of putting up the statue; "honors contentus impensa sua posuit, honore accepto impensam remisit." By the time of Theodosius II this had become so customary, owing no doubt to the poverty of the collegia, that it was degreed that any statue asked for should be set up at the expense of the one interested "ejue, eujus, ad honorem petitur expensis propriis statuam collocari praecipimus.
The inaugural banquet was sometimes attended not only the the members of the collegium but also by the decurions, the Augustales and the plebs of the municipality. In such cases the collegiati received more victuals or money than the plebs. In one case they even are known to have received more - than the decurions; this was at Antinum where the dendrophori had put a statue to their patron, and on the day of the dedication he distributed 8 Sesterces to the decurions, 6 to the Augustales and 12 to the members of the collegium in question. The plebs of the city received 4 Sestorces only.
There are also many cases of yearly anniversaries from the interest on capital given by patrons during their lifetime on the sole conditin of looking after their statue.
But the services of th e patrons were not only pecuniary, they sometimes helped the collegia to defend or to obtain privileges. This aspect of the patronatus concerns us particularly as it was very important in the 4th Century. In this century for instance the fabri tignarii of Rome set up a statue to their patron because his patronage had often been useful to them "multis in se patrociniis do. The patron in question L. Aelius Helvius Dionysius v. had been jucax of the sacred cognitiones of the whole Orient, praeses of Coclo Syria and so on down to curator of the public places and public works, and became praefectus urbi in 301. The fishermen and divers of Rome speak of their patron as having procured for them the right to navigate the river in their boats. The fabri tiguarii of Vienne give him the name of praesidium suum.
The patrons were municipal magistrates or high imperial functionaries who could support their clients in their relations with authority.
More closely in touch with the members of the collegia and nearer to those in social status were the "mothers" and "fathers" (patres, matres) found in some collegia. The dendrophori of Troemisus have the wife of a veteran for "mater" the fullersof Falerie the wife of their register.
The title conferred honour, but honour in recogniation of feelings of friendliness and gratitude to friends and old associates as contrasted to that shown to the powerful or wealthy strangers who were patrons. In some collegia, however, pater and mater is occasionally used to designate the people who were in the positin of patrons or patronesses.
The collegia could inherit wealth in other ways than from patrons or wealthy strangers. They could inherit from their freedmen when these died intertate, and without heirs. The navicularii since 354 and the fabricenser from 438 could inherit from their colleagues who died without heirs. This was of course the result of the hereditary lien on their property (Chapter IV, Part I). Rich members, magistrates, citizens all might give largesses in the form of houses, gardens, farms or temples and halls of meeting (secular) or paticoes and tombs. Besides the patrons and patronesses who were honorary officials, the collegia had active officials to deal with their internal administration. There was great variety in organisation. In the earlier ones the general assembly of all members (conventus) elected the officials and settled matters of importance. In the larger, such as those of the fuhri, the members were sometimes divided into decurine with a decuris at the head of each. The decuriones then decided matters in place of the assembly of members or at any rate took a more prominent part in settling decrees.
At the head of the whole collegium were 2 magistri or cuinquennales elected for five years, as their name implies. They presided at meetings, at the banquets and at the distributions of sportulae. Their function sometimes even included the duty of putting oil in the public baths for the use of members before a banquet. The following officials are also found in most collegia - Curatores, quaester, or arcarius - the Treasurer; Scriba, or tabularius - keeper of records, Secretary. Occasionally there was a Viator who took round the president’s messages to the members when he wished to convoke a meeting. It is obvious that the organisation of the collegia was modelled on that of a municipal government and indeed the collegia did form little states and satisfied the desire of the individuals for association with his follows, for honour and office and so forth. In fact the collegium did for the poor artisan or slave all that the Roman State failed to do.
posted 3/15/01
The interesting and controversial question now arises as to whether those collegia did in any sense resemble medieval guilds or modern trade unions. Was th3ere any idea of regulating methods of production, arranging apprenticeship, securing monopolies, undertaking enterprises in common, rendering help to sick members and so forth? Were those associations formed with a view to raising wages and obtaining better working conditions generally?
Although the answers to the above questions seem to be generally in the negative it would be unwise to conclude that no ideas of this sort were present.
The collegia are found mainly in the Western provinces; it was here where Roman civilisation had spread that they formed naturally. In the eastern provinces Greek civilisaiton prevailed and the ‘polis’ seems still to have satisfied man’s need for a group life. But may there not also have been an economic cause for the difference between the Eastern and Western provinces. The explanation may be found in the fact that the craftsmen in the Eastern provinces had never had to compete against large numbers of slaves exploited by individuals or companies. In the west and especially in Italy the collegia may have originally been formed to meet the competition of the servile companies exploited by rich contractors.
This is the opinion of Wallen, but Waltzing argues that if this were the case the union could only have been efficacious if the workmen had set up establishments like the servile workshops and undertaken enterprises in common. This they do not appear to have done and furthermore associations were formed in all professions whether there was servile competition or not.
I do not think that Waltzing’s arguments are conclusive. The case of the builder’s “union” and Sardis dealt with so fully by H.H. Buckler in his “Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia” seems to show that in this trade at any rate the members undertook work in common under a definite agreement between the Union and the employers. Similar communal enterprises may well have been undertaken by other collegia, for instance by the fullers.
The mutilated inscription of an unknown collegium found at Rome may possibly refer to some such communal enterprises, but this Collegium and its lex seem too vague to draw conclusions from.
Although the collegia were not associations of workmen formed to procure better conditions, there seems no doubt that they used the strength which association gives to defend their common interests. They generally approached the authorities through their patron and it is obvious that thus they would receive far more consideration than as individuals. At Brixia, for example, the dehdropheri thank their patron for that through him their immunities had been confirmed: “quod ejus industria immunites collegii sit confirmata”.
There is a very interesting inscription about a long case of law concerning the right of the collegium of fullers at Rome in the 3rd Century to use a public well, or the water of a fountain, supplied by an aqueduct. The said fullers claimed that they were exempted from payment to the Treasury for the use of the fountain. The collegium says it can prove that it has had immunity since the time of Augustus, (“ex, eo tempore, inquit, ex quo Augustus, rem publican obtinere cospit usque in hodiornum numquam hasc loon pensiones pensitesse”). The praefectus vigilum, Florianus having found that the place was sacred (to the gods of the fullers) granted them their case as evidently a locus sacer was always exempt from payments. Subsequent efforts to reverse his decision were defeated.
Such associations as the fullers must obviously have worked together sharing data, stretching apparatus buildings and so forth, as they shared the use of the fountain. It does not seem unwarrantable to conclude that the collegium of fullers must sometimes have contracted to sell so much cloth in a body.
As regards regulation of methods of production Waltzing quotes Choisy who thinks that they had such rules in the art of building and Gerard who extends Choisy’s conclusions to other collegia.
Waltzing himself says that nothing has been found to confirm this in the logos and secrets preserved and after considering the inscriptions it must be admitted that he is right. It is true the Pliny the Elder cites a “Lex metalls fulionious dieta” but this law, which is of Republican date only legislated against frauds by individual fullers and lays down the technical processes to be employed by them. It has nothing to do with the control of its members by the collegium or of the collegium as a whole by the state. It would however seem very probable that in the 4th Century such collegia as were held collectively responsible for the work of their members such as the fabricenses and the pistores, must have laid down rules about methods of production.
As regards apprentices, most authorities think the collegium did not supervise them. Krause indeed thinks that the scaols were schools for the apprentices but Maue, Boissier and Waltzing are convinced it was only the place of reunion of a collegium. The evidence to the contrary concerns the Eastern provinces where the conditions were peculiar and the collegium as we know them not indigenous.
In Eurapolis there is an ------- attached to the collegium of purple dyers. It has been thought that this was a corps of young workers, an apprenticeship workshop for poor children. If this is so, little can be argued from it as the dyers were mostly slaves and later hereditarily bound to their conditions in the state -----. The training of young workers in a sort of school is therefore extremely probable.
The other information I have found about apprenticeship also concerns the East and does not mention the collegi. John Chrysostom in one of his sermons spoke as follows: “For tell us if thou hadst commanded one of thy sons to learn some art and then he had continually stayed at home, or even missed his time somewhere else, would not the touched reject him? Would he not say to thee: Thou hast made an agreement with me and appointed a time if now thy son will not spend this time with me but in other places, how shall I produce him to thee as a ‘scholar’? (i.e. an artist)”
At Beneventure there were studies synonymous with collegia and in them were discentes. The meaning is very obscure and Waltzing thinks that these Collegia were not artisan collegia at all.
It seems fairly certain that apprenticeship was a matter for individual arrangement and that a father either taught his son himself or sent him to another man to be trained. A workman who had special skill or knowledge might give lessons or impart it to others. There is the poem ar Arles written by his daughter and wife to “he who had the greatest skill in making things, the greatest zeal, knowledge and modesty, he whom great artisans (artifices) always called their master; no one was more skilled (doetier) than he, no one could surpass him, who knew how to make all hydraulic works (organis – organs, mills, clepsydras, etc.) or to direct the course of the waters , he was a sweet companion and knew to cherish his friends, who taught others easily because of his zeal and who was kindly in spirit.”
His man must indeed have been an expert who gave instruction not only to young people but to experienced artisans. I have quoted the inscription in full as it is one example showing pride in good and expert workmanship.
In the 4th Century, when almost every man had to follow his father’s trade, it would naturally be a boy’s father who taught him. Even before the 4th Century most sons would follow their father’s calling and be taught by their fathers.
Whether or not the collegia undertook enterprises in common there is no trace of monopolies of a certain trade. The only exception is the porters at Rome and their case is quite peculiar – a necessary measure to ensure that a body of workers is essential so the “annona” should survive. Still, in other trades it is unlikely that any workman tried to stand alone. His desire for companionship, and for the security which combination with one’s fellows affords, would lend every worker to join a collegium. Trades were furthermore grouped together, such in their own quarter of the city, and a man’s neighbours would therefore generally be those engaged in the same trade. But it is well to bear in mind that most work before the introduction of machinery in modern times was individual, there were few trades which demanded the cooperation of large bodies of men. Hence even when the individuals occupied in one trade formed one collegium they continued to work as individuals, buying their own materials, selling their own goods, and making their own contracts for the performance of work. Of course a workman often had slaves working under him and he must also have had apprentices. Again a rich merchant might employ many slaves and freedmen in manufacturing the goods he sold, or might even contract with free men for the performance of so much labour. This must have been the case in the woollen and linen trades; the sellers of woollen and linen goods (lanarii and lintiari) must have made arrangements with individual workers, slave or free, to weave the cloth they sold, or have had factories where only slaves and freedmen were employed.
We know that a few individuals did sometimes combine by working together in one workshop and sharing profits: “and in the same manner as persons inhabiting the same shop carry on a separate traffic, yet put all afterwards into a common fund, as also let us act”.
It is also clear that free artisans did not all work on their own account. Many were employed at a wage and this wage varied according to whether the artisan lived with his employer or had to feed himself. In the former case the board was counted as part of a man’s wages, in the latter case the whole wage was paid in money.
There is not only the evidence of John Chrysoatom. The Tariff of Dioletian lays down wages for the various kinds of workmen and incidentally shows that the normal method was for the workman to live with his employer.
The following are a few of the rates laid down. They are all for workmen who are nourished by their employers:
Agricultural labourer 25 den
Lapidarius structor 30 den
Faber intestinarius 50 den
Caleis coctor 50 den
Harmorarius 60 den
Musaenius (mosaic worker) 60 den
Albarius (worker in stucco)
Pistor parisbarius 70 den
Pistor imaginarius 150 den
Sarpentarius 50 den
Faber ferrarius 50 den
Pistor 30 den
Naupego in navi maritimo 60 den
In navi munica 50 den
It would be very interesting to compare the status of the various kinds of workmen as reflected in their rates of pay. Obviously any artisan whose work was well connected with building was comparatively well paid.
The farm labourer, as always, was the worst paid of all.
What was the relation between employers and employed from the social point of view? Were they both members of the collegia? Unfortunately the information available about wages all concerns the Easten half of the Empire where collegia were few. It is possible that here the few collegia, which existed had only independent workers as their members and that in the case of men working for an employer there was no question of a collegium. How then was a man held to his hereditary status in the 4th Century? Artificial groupings, ‘corpora’ as opposed to collegia - may have been applied by the Government. The whole question needs far more consideration than can be given to it here. One thing it however specially to be noted; the producer is generaly also the seller. In other words there are vew middlemen except in so far as trade at a distance or overseas is concerned. The master workman of course sold the products of his employees but he was not a middleman in the strict sense of the word. J. Chrysoatom speaks of “the handicraftman, the sandal maker or the leather cutter or the brassfounder, or any other artificer when he sells any articles of his trade.” Of course merchants sold the products of the country in the town and vice versa and in the case of some articles, such as woven goods, they were also middlemen as regards home products.
From the evidence as to large scale production of pottery in the first centuries of the Empire one might have concluded that there would have been wholesale production of pottery in our period and merchants to sell it. No evidence however is extant. There are very few inscriptions of potters (figuli) and none that I have found of pottery sellers. From the Theodosian Code it seems that most pots were made locally; had the great factories of Gaul been destroyed in the3rd Century? I understand that no imported sumian ware is fond in Britain in the 4th century and that pots were of very inferior workmanship in this period.
The question as to the trades in which the workman who made the article also sold it is very obscure. There are many funerary inscriptions of individuals whose profession is formed by the name of an article with arius added, e.g. sericarius, coactiliarius Pomarius, etc. Sometimes the individual is obviously a seller of the article, e.g. the pomarius (apple seller) but sometimes he is the maker or workman, e.g. the coactilarius – felt maker, and the coriarius – tanner. Of course the makers may also have sold direct to the public and this would perhaps explain the double meaning of the termination arius.
It is time now to return to the other questions asked at the beginning of this chapter though it has not been possible here to consider all the evidence for and against the existence of rules about production, the undertaking of enterprises in common by the collegium, the question of monopolies and of the relation of employers and employed, the existence of middlemen in the smaller trades, the relatively well paid and badly paid trades and so forth.
Did the collegia ever act as charitable institutions or associations for mutual help? Waltzing says emphatically ‘No’ as there is no trace anywhere of gifts for this purpose and the “Sportulae” even where distributed on the principle of the most to the wealthiest (the parri and matres, the presidents and other officials) and the least to the ordinary members, i.e. presumably the most needy. I do not iknow whether the ordinary members need necessarily have been the most needy. The officials in most collegia were freely elected by all and need not have been the richest men. Their right to large amounts of “sportulae”
Can very well be considered as payment for their services. Still his other objection seems valid. People never seem to have left legacies to the collegia for the care of their poorer members as they left legacies to the municipalities for the care of the poor.
The epyos at Amisus referred to by Pliny seems to have been a religious association which also lent money free of interest to the poor. This is special and was forbidden in the cities under Roman law.
It seems to me that it is this latter case lies the explanation why the collegia never developed a charitable side like the Medieval guilds. Before the 3rd Century the government would have objected, and it would have objected because of the dangerous influence and power such charity would have given to the collegia.
In the 4th Century, when the collegia were entirely in the hands of the state, and there was nothing more to be feared from them, they were too poor and too heavily taxed to have funds for the purpose. (Part of their taxes were indeed distributed in free alms to the idle by generous emperors like Constantine; Waltzing remarks on the fact that thinfluence of Christianity does not seem to have influenced the collegia to become charitable, and concludes that probably many Christians left the collegia because of their religious character (common worship of a patron god, burial rites and so forth). This does not of course apply to the 4th Century, but as already stated the collegia more now too poor and too busy carrying out their public duties.
That to outsiders at any rate the collegia seemed mainly to exist to hold banquets and for the Members to meet together for riotous living is attested by the following passage of Tortullian:
“We have as presidents the most virtuous old men who have not obtained this honour for gold, but by their good name, for nothing that appertains to God can be bought. If we have a sort of treasury it is not formed by the contributions honoraria summa) paid in by the elected, as if religion were put up to auction; a modicum contribution is brought by each, every month or when one wishes, and if one wishes or if one can; for no one is forced, the contribution is voluntary. This one is like a depot of piety for one does not draw upon it to organise meals, drinking bouts and sterile feasts; but to nourish and bury the poor, the children of both sexes, indigents and orphans, then old serviators and shipwrecked folk; if one of our brethran is condemned to the mines to exile, to prison, so long as it is because of his faith; he is nourished by the religion he has confessed.”
The contrast between what is done by the Christians and what is done by the collegia is obious although it is implied, not stated.
I had hoped to deal in detail with the evidence relating to stricken, the inscriptions relating to which in Asia Minor have been connected by W.R. Buckler in his “Labour disputes in the Province of Asia”, but consideration of th is question must be postponed till Part III of this subject has been completed.
C H A P T E R I
SECTION 3
Role of the collegia in the local government and condition of their members in the 4th and 5th centuries.
- - - - - - - -
Each collegium belonged to its city; there is no question of one collegium comprising members from different cities. In the 4th and 5th Centuries they shape the municipal services with the coriales but their role is a subordinate one. “They execute by turns certain ‘corvees’ under the direction of the curiales and “the upkeep and care of their city are confided to them”. Just as the central government confided certain functions of the administration to the collegia dealt with i