Treatment of a case of rape 431 



by birth; thus becoming his patron instead of his lord. The woman is 

 free already. And to give her the position of a wedded wife, and not 

 the plaything of caprice, there is but one way. Our scamp for whom 

 you intercede must become your Client 1 and cease to be a Tributary, 

 thus acquiring the quality of an ordinary Commoner rather than that 

 of a Serf.' Sidonius is as usual ready to make the best 2 of a bad job. 

 From his proposal I draw the following conclusions. First, as to the 

 nurses. The nutrix, like the Greek rpo^o?, held a position of trust and 

 respect in the household, consecrated by immemorial tradition. No 

 slave had a higher claim to manumission, if she desired it. It would 

 seem that Sidonius' 'mammy' was ending her days as a freed woman, 

 and hence her daughter was free. It looks as if the nurse of Pudens 

 were still a slave, and her son an inquilinus on the estate of Pudens. 

 He may very well have been tenant of a small holding, practically a 

 serf-tenant. Pudens is still his dominus. His quality of inquilinus 

 attaches to him in virtue of His origo\ that is, he is registered in the 

 census-books 3 as a human unit belonging to a particular estate and 

 taken into account in estimating taxation-units. Therefore he is tribu- 

 tarius*. Sidonius proposes to divest him of the character of serf and 

 make him an ordinary Roman citizen. The difference this would make 

 is probably a purely legal one. Being at present a Serf, probably in 

 strict law a slave also, his connexion with the girl is a contubernium. 

 His manumission 5 (for such it really is) will enable him to convert it 

 into a matrimonium^ carrying the usual legal responsibilities. The 

 practical change in his economic position will probably be nil. He will 

 still remain a dependent colonus, but he may perhaps enjoy the privilege 

 of paying his own share 6 of taxes. That Sidonius speaks of his present 

 condition first as Inquilinate and then as Colonate, is one of many 

 proofs that the two terms now connoted virtually 7 the same thing. Such 

 had already been stated as a fact in a law of Honorius, which was 

 retained by Tribonian in the code of Justinian. Whether the inquilini 

 were barbarian bondsmen (horige\ tenants bound to the soil like coloni 



1 mox c liens factus e tributario plebeiam potius incipiat habere personam quant colonariam. 



2 He calls his solution compositio seu satisfactio. Esmein pp 364 foil shews that compositio 

 was now a regular expression for the practice of avoiding the strict Roman Law, under bar- 

 barian and ecclesiastical influences. 



3 See Index, inquilini, and de Coulanges pp 65, 74, 85. 



4 See de Coulanges pp 100-1. 



6 See this question fully discussed by Esmein pp 370-5. Also the doubts of de Coulanges 

 pp 101, 104. 



6 For this point see Seeck, Schatzungsordnung pp 314-5. 



7 Cod Th v i8[io] quis colonus originates velinquilinus .. etc. And below, originarius 

 [419]. Cod Just XI 48 13 inquilinos colonosve, quorum quantum ad origtnem pertinet vindi- 

 candani 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. 



