Scanned text contains errors.
resemblances. Littleton^s Tenures, section 172, &c., and Bracton (fol. 6. 24), may be consulted as to the incidents of Villeinage.
This view of the condition of the Coloni is from Savigiiy^s Essay on the subject, which is translated in the Philological Museum, vol. ii.
The question of the origin of these Coloni is examined at great length by A. W. Zumpt, Ueber die Entstchung und historische Enttvickelung des Colonats (Rlteinischtis Museum fur Philologie^ Neue Folge, 1845). The author is of opinion that the origin of the institution is to be traced to the settlement of Germanic people by the Roman emperors within the limits of the empire. The earliest mention of Coloni, in the sense in which his essay treats of them, is, as he states, a constitution of Constantine a. d. 321 (Cod. Theod. 9. tit. 21. s. 1,2) which, however, gives no information about their condition. But a later constitution of Constantine, a. d. 332 (Cod. Theod. 5. tit. 9, de fugitivis colonis) does give some information. The condition of these foreign settlers being once established, the author supposes that poor Roman citizens might enter into this condition, partly induced by the advantage of getting land, and partly, as he states, though it is not clearly explained, by legal compulsion. A constitution of Theodosius the Younger (Cod. Theod. 5. tit. 4, de bonis militum, s. 3, ed. Wenck), contains some valuable information on the colonization or settlement of the barbarians, and declares them to belong to the condition expressed by the term Colonatus. The term colonus often occurs in the writers who are excerpted in the Digest (41. tit. 2. s. 30. § 5 ; 19. tit. 2. s. 3, 9. § 3 ; 19. tit. 1. s. 13. § 30, and elsewhere) ; but these Coloni are supposed to be merely a kind of tenants. The passage in the Digest (30. s. 112) which cites a constitution of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, is supposed, by Zumpt, to mean ordinary tenants (mieiher, pachter) ; but it must be admitted, that it is rather difficult to accept this explanation, as already observed. The word Colonatus, it is stated, does not occur in the Digest; but that negative fact proves little. The most probable solution of the question is, that the condition of the Coloni mentioned in the Digest was the model of the condition of the barbarians who were settled in the Roman empire ; and it is no objection to this, that the condition of the barbarians might be made more burdensome and less free than that of the Coloni, who already existed. Nor is it against this supposition, if the condition of the barbarian Coloni gradually became the condition of all the Coloni. The reasons for fixing the barbarian settlers to the soil are obvious enough. The policy of the emperors was to people the country, and to disperse many of the tribes whose union would have been dangerous. If the results of Zumpt's inquiry cannot be admitted to their full extent, it must be allowed, that he has thrown great light on the subject, and probably approached as near as possible to the solution of the difficulty, with the exception of his hypothesis, that the co-lonatus originated entirely in the settlement of these barbarians. It seems much more probable that the Romans modelled the barbarian settlements upon some institution that already existed, though this existing institution might not be precisely the same as that subsequent institution to which the term Colonatus was peculiarly applied. [G. L.]
COLONIA, a colony. 1. greek. The common Greek word for a colony is a-n-oiKta and for a colonist airoiKos. We also find, but not commonly, zirotKia and gttoikgs. (Thuc. ii. 27; Aristoph. Av. 1307.) The former words have reference to their being wanderers from their own home; the latter words to their settling in a new home. The term K\iipovxia indicates a division of conquered lands among Athenian citizens, and those who occupied such lands were called k\ij-pov^oi: but as they were thus colonists, we sometimes find the general term of &ttoikoi applied to them. (Thuc. v. 116.) (Vomel, De Discrimine Vocabulorum K\rjpovxos) &ttoikos, evroj/cos, Frankfort, 1839.)
The earlier Greek colonies were usually composed of mere bands of adventurers, who left their native country, with their families and property, to seek a new home for themselves. Some of the colonies, which arose in consequence of foreign invasion or civil wars, were undertaken without any formal consent from the rest of the community ; but usually a colony was sent out with the approbation of the mother country, and under the management of a leader (otKiarrTjs) appointed by it. But whatever may have been the origin of the colony, it was always considered in a political point of view independent of the mother country (called by the Greeks ^r^n-oAfs), and entirely emancipated from its control. At the same time, though a colony was in no political subjection to its parent state, it was united to it by the ties of filial affection; and, according to the generally received opinions of the Greeks, its duties to the parent state corresponded to those of a daughter to her mother. (Dionys. iii. 7 ; Polyb. xii. 0. § 3.) Hence, in all matters of common interest, the colony gave precedence to the mother state; and the founder of the colony (oi/atrrirjs), who might be considered as the representative of the parent state, was usually worshipped, after his death, as a hero. (Herod, vi. 38 ; Time. v. 11 ; Diod. xi. 66, xx. 102.) Also, when the colony became in its turn a parent, it usually sought a leader for the colony which it intended to found from the original mother country (Thuc. i. 24) ; and the same feeling of respect was manifested by embassies which were sent to honour the principal festivals of the parent state (Diod. xii. 30 ; Wesseling, ad loc.\ and also by bestowing places of honour and other marks of respect upon the ambassadors and other members of the parent state, when they visited the colony at festivals and similar occasions. (Thuc. i. 25.) The colonists also worshipped in their new settlement the same deities as they had been accustomed to honour in their native country ; the sacred fire, which was constantly kept burning on their public hearth, was taken from the Prytaneium of the parent city; and, according to one account, the priests who ministered to the gods in the colony, were brought from the parent state. (Schol. ad Thuc. i. 25 ; compare Tacit. Ann. ii. 54.) In the same spirit, it was considered a violation of sacred ties for a mother country and a colony to make war upon one another. (Herod, viii. 22; Thuc. i. 38.)
The preceding account of the relations between the Greek colonies and the mother country is elucidated by the history which Thucydidis gives us of the quarrel between Corcyra and Corinth. Corcyra was a colony of Corinth, and Epidamrms