The term of most common occurrence is, of course, _villanus_. Although its etymology points primarily to the place of dwelling, and indirectly to specific occupations, it is chiefly used during the feudal period to denote servitude. It takes in both the man who is personally unfree and stands in complete subjection to the lord, and the free person settled on servile land. Both classes mentioned and distinguished by Bracton are covered by it. The common opposition is between _villanus_ and _libere tenens_, not between _villanus_ and _liber homo_. It is not difficult to explain such a phraseology in books compiled either in the immediate interest of the lords or under their indirect influence, but it must have necessarily led to encroachments and disputes: it has even become a snare for later investigators, who have sometimes been led to consider as one compact mass a population consisting of two different classes, each with a separate history of its own. The Latin 'rusticus' is applied in the same general way. It is less technical however, and occurs chiefly in annals and other literary productions, for which it was better suited by its classical derivation. But when it is used in opposition to other terms, it stands exactly as _villanus_, that is to say, it is contrasted with _libere tenens_[251]. [Villains personally unfree.] The fundamental distinction of personal status has left some traces in terminology. The Hundred Rolls, especially the Warwickshire one[252], mention _servi_ very often. Sometimes the word is used exactly as _villanus_ would be[253]. _Tenere in servitute_ and _tenere in villenagio_ are equivalent[254]. But other instances show that _servus_ has also a special meaning. Cases where it occurs in an 'extent' immediately after _villanus_, and possibly in opposition to it, are not decisive[255]. They may be explained by the fact that the persons engaged in drawing up a custumal, jotted down denominations of the peasantry without comparing them carefully with what preceded. A marginal note _servi_ would not be necessarily opposed to a _villani_ following it; it may only be a different name for the same thing. And it may be noted that in the Hundred Rolls these names very often stand in the margin, and not in the text. But such an explanation would be out of place when both expressions are used in the same sentence. The description of Ipsden in Oxfordshire has the following passage: _item dictus R. de N. habet de proparte sua septem servos villanos_. (Rot. Hundr. ii. 781, b: cf. 775, b, _Servi Custumarii_.) It is clear that it was intended, not only to describe the general condition of the peasantry, but to define more particularly their status. This observation and the general meaning of the word will lead us to believe that in many cases when it is used by itself, it implies personal subjection.