360 fundus. saltus. inquilinus 



tion 1 of the currency, influences that both played a sinister part in im- 

 perial economics, belong- properly to a larger theme. Even the writers 

 on land-surveying etc, the agrimensores or gromatici, only touch my 

 subject here and there when it is necessary to speak of tenures, which 

 cannot be ignored in relation to labour-questions. All these matters 

 are thoroughly and suggestively treated in Seeck's great history of the 

 Decline and Fall of the ancient world. Another topic left out of dis- 

 cussion is the practical difference, if any, between the terms 2 fundus 

 and saltus in the imperial domains. I can find no satisfactory materials 

 for defining it, and it does not appear to bear any relation to the 

 labour-question. The meaning of the term inquilinus is a more im- 

 portant matter. If we are to accept Seeck's ingenious conclusions 3 , it 

 follows that this term, regularly used by the jurists of a house-tenant 

 (urban) as opposed to colonus a tenant of land (rustic), in the course of 

 the second century began to put on a new meaning. Marcus settled 

 large numbers of barbarians on Roman soil. These ' indwellers ' were 

 labelled as inquilini, a word implying that they were imported aliens, 

 distinct from the proper residents. An analogous distinction existed 

 in municipalities between unprivileged 'indwelters' (incolae) and real 

 municipes. Now a jurist's opinion* in the first half of the third century 

 speaks of inquilini as attached (adhaerent) to landed estates, and only 

 capable of being bequeathed to a legatee by inclusion in the landed 

 estate: and it refers to a rescript of Marcus and Commodus dealing 

 with a point of detail connected with this rule of law. Thus the 

 inquilinate seems to have been a new condition implying attach- 

 ment to the soil, long before the colonate acquired a similar character. 

 For the very few passages, in which the fixed and dependent nature 

 of the colonate is apparently recognized before the time of Constan- 

 tine, are with some reason suspected of having been tampered with by 

 the compilers of the Digest, or are susceptible of a different interpre- 

 tation. It is clear that this intricate question cannot be fully discussed 

 here. If these rustic inquilini were in their origin barbarian settlers, 

 perhaps two conclusions regarding them may be reasonable. First, 

 they seem to be distinct from slaves, the personal property of indi- 

 vidual owners. For the evidence, so far as it goes, makes them attached 5 



1 This is fully treated by Seeck, bk in c 5. 



2 In the Ain el Djemala inscription we have them used indifferently. It is not clear that 

 the usage in various provinces was identical. See Vinogradoff Growth of the Manor pp 69, 

 70. 



3 Given in a long note, vol i pp 578-83. 



4 Marcian in Dig xxx ii2 pr . Cf L 15 4 8 (Title de censibus) si quis inquilinum vel 

 colonum non fuerit professus etc, where the mention of colonum is suspected of interpolation 

 by Seeck. 



6 Dig xxx H2 pr si quis inquilinos sine praediis quibus adhaerent legaverit, inutile est 

 legatum (Marcian). Esmein p 313 takes them to be really slaves, but I cannot follow him. 



