Squatters, not coloni 351 



answer to this is that the Roman law 1 recognized the right of a private 

 landlord to require of his tenants that they should not ' let down ' 

 the land leased to them : and proof of neglected cultivation might 

 operate to bar a tenant's claim for abatement of rent. What was the 

 right of an ordinary landlord was not likely to be waived by an 

 emperor: though his domains might be administered in fact by a 

 special set of fiscal regulations, he claimed a right analogous to that 

 recognized by the ordinary law, and none could challenge its exercise. 

 A big lessee might often find that parts of his holding could not be 

 cultivated at a profit under existing conditions. Slave labour was care- 

 less and inefficient ; it was in these times also costly, so costly that it 

 only paid to employ it on generous soils. The task- work of coloni did 

 not amount to much, and it was no doubt rendered grudgingly. He 

 was tempted to economize in slaves 2 and to employ his reduced staff 

 on the best land only. We need not suppose that he got an abatement 

 of his fixed rent from the fiscal authorities : he was most unlikely to 

 attract their attention by making such a claim. He had made his 

 bargain with eyes presumably open. That he had agreed to the canon 

 assures us that it must have been low enough to leave him a comfort- 

 able margin for profit. We may be fairly sure that he sat quiet and 

 did what seemed to pay him best. 



In the remaining text of this statute there is no reference to operae 

 due from the new squatters, and nothing is said of coloni. This does 

 not seem to be due to injury of the stone. The persons for whose 

 benefit the statute is enacted are apparently a new or newly recognized 

 element 3 in the population of these domains, not coloni. But the rights 

 offered to them are expressly referred to as rights granted by the 

 statute of Hadrian. If so, then the lex Hadriana contemplated the es- 

 tablishment of a new peasant class, not coloni, and the present statute 

 was merely a revival of Hadrian's scheme. The men are eventually to 

 pay shares of crops, and Schulten's 4 view, that they are on the way to 

 become coloni^ is possible, if not probable. When he remarks that they 

 might find the position of coloni a doubtful boon, we need not challenge 

 his opinion. 



(5) The inscription of Ain el Djemala 5 , a later discovery (1906) is 

 of special importance as belonging to the same neighbourhood as the 



1 See Dig xix 2 i 5 3 , 2 4 2 , 25", 51?', 54 i. 



2 Later legislation to prevent this neglect of poorer land. Cod Th v 14 34 (394 AD), 

 x 3 4 (383), xi i 4 (337), etc. 



3 Prof Buckland writes to me that he believes these squatters were to be owners, not 

 > coloni, owners in the only sense possible in non-Italic soil, paying tributum. The words/rui 

 ' possidere used to describe their right are the technical words for provincial ownership. Cf 

 . Gaius II 7. 



4 In Hermes xxix pp 215, 224. 5 Girard, part III chapter 6. 



