352 Group of six estates 



preceding one. It is a document of Hadrian's time. It refers to the 

 same group of estates as the above, and deals with the same matter, 

 the right to cultivate waste or derelict parcels of land. Indeed the con- 

 nexion of the two inscriptions is so close that the parts preserved of 

 each can be safely used to fill gaps in the text of the other. In a few 

 points this inscription, the earlier in date, supplies further detail. The 

 most notable is that another estate, a saltus or fundus Neronianus, 

 is mentioned in it, and not in the later one. Thus it would seem that 

 it referred to six estates, a curious coincidence, when we recall the six 

 great African landlords made away with by Nero. Another little ad- 

 dition is that waste lands are defined as marshy or wooded. Also that 

 the land is spoken of as fit for growing olives vines and corn-crops, 

 which supplements a mutilated portion of the Ain Ouassel stone. But 

 in one point the difference between the two is on the face of it difficult 

 to reconcile. In addressing the imperial proctiratores the applicants 

 base their request on the lex Manciana, the benefit of which they seek 

 to enjoy 1 as used on the neighbouring saltus Neroniamis. Here the 

 broken text is thought to have contained a reference to the enhanced 

 prosperity of that estate owing to the concession. In any case we may 

 fairly conclude that the lex Manciana was well known in the district, 

 and its regulations regarded by the farmers as favourable to their in- 

 terests. But the reply to their petition does not refer to it as the im- 

 mediate basis of the decision given. The communication (sermo) of 

 Hadrian's procurators is cited as the ground of the leave granted for 

 cultivation of waste lands. Yet the broken sentence at the end of the 

 inscription seems at least to shew that the rules of the lex Manciana 

 were still recognized as a standard, confirmed and perhaps incorporated, 

 or referred to by name, in the lex Hadriana itself. It is ingeniously 

 suggested that the farmers rest their case on the Manciana because the 

 Hadriana was as yet unknown to them; while the reply refers to Ha- 

 drian's statute as authority. Whether the saltus Q* fundus Neronianus, 

 on which the Mancian regulations were in force, is another estate-unit 

 similar to the five named both here and in the later inscription, is a 

 point on which I have some doubts, too little connected with my sub- 

 ject for discussion here. The general scope of the concession granted 

 by Hadrian is the same as the later one of Severus. 



If Hadrian issued a statute or statutes regulating the terms of 

 occupancy on the African domains, and some attempts to evade it 

 were met by its reaffirmation under Commodus, it is quite natural that 

 neglect or evasion of it in some other respects should be met by re- 

 affirmation under Severus. This consideration will account for the 

 identity of the concessions granted in these two inscriptions. And it 



1 lege Manciana conditions saltus Neroniani vicini nobis. 



