[1786] mox cliens factus e tributario plebeiam potius incipiat habere personam quam colonariam.
[1787] He calls his solution compositio seu satisfactio. Esmein pp 364 foll shews that compositio was now a regular expression for the practice of avoiding the strict Roman Law, under barbarian and ecclesiastical influences.
[1788] See Index, [inquilini], and de Coulanges pp 65, 74, 85.
[1789] See de Coulanges pp 100-1.
[1790] See this question fully discussed by Esmein pp 370-5. Also the doubts of de Coulanges pp 101, 104.
[1791] For this point see Seeck, Schatzungsordnung pp 314-5.
[1792] Cod Th V 18 [10] si quis colonus originalis vel inquilinus ... etc. And below, originarius [419]. Cod Just XI 48 § 13 inquilinos colonosve, quorum quantum ad originem pertinet vindicandam indiscreta eademque paene videtur esse condicio, licet sit discrimen in nomine, ... etc, and § 14 causam originis et proprietatis. The limiting word paene may refer to difference in mode of payment of taxes. These laws, retained in cod Just, date from 400.
[1793] Seeck just cited. Weber, Agrargeschichte p 257.
[1794] E Meyer Kl Schr p 185 takes the words of Aristotle Pol I 2 § 5 ὁ γὰρ βοῦς ἀντ’ οἰκέτου τοῖς πένησίν ἐστιν as proving that even in Ar’s time the small farmer had to do without a slave. I think they prove that if he could not afford a slave he must do with an ox only. For the additional protection of the ox see [Index]. Cf Maine, Early Law and Custom pp 249-51.
[1795] E Meyer Kl Schriften p 179 will only use the word slaves of a part of these, but the distinction does not matter here.