FLAVIA DOMITILLA AS DELICATA: a NEW INTERPRETATION of SUETONIUS, VESP. 3* in This Way Suetonius Informs Us About Flavia Domitill
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FLAVIA DOMITILLA AS DELICATA: A NEW INTERPRETATION OF SUETONIUS, VESP. 3* Abstract: This paper proposes a new interpretation of the passage in Suetonius’ Life of Vespasian (Suet., Vesp. 3). The ancient historian, talking about Flavia Domitilla, the wife of Vespasian and the mother of Titus and Domitian, defines her as delicata of Statilius Capella, the Roman knight from Sabratha. Until now, scholars have thought that the relationship between Flavia Domitilla and Statilius Capella was sexual in nature, on the basis of the literary sources concerning the adjective delicatus/a and its meaning. Thanks to the epigraphic evidence about the delicati, not yet analyzed in reference to this pas- sage, it is possible to reach to new conclusions about Flavia Domitil- la’s status. The paper reviews her relationship with Statilius Capella, the sentence of the recuperatores who declared her ingenua and consequently Roman citizen (and not vice versa), and the role played in this trial by Flavius Liberalis. Inter haec Flaviam Domitillam duxit uxorem, Statili Capellae equitis R(omani) Sabratensis ex Africa delicatam olim Latinaeque condi- cionis, sed mox ingenuam et civem Rom(anam) reciperatorio iudicio pronuntiatam, patre asserente Flavio Liberale Ferenti genito nec quic- quam amplius quam quaestorio scriba. Ex hac liberos tulit Titum et Domitianum et Domitillam. Uxori ac filiae superstes fuit atque utramque adhuc privatus1. In this way Suetonius informs us about Flavia Domitilla2, the wife of Vespasian and the mother of Titus and Domitian. This evidence of Suetonius is of particular importance because it constitutes the only information about her. In fact, apart from the Epitome de Caesaribus, where we find a brief reference to Flavia Domitilla, Suetonius represents the only known source about her life. * I thank all of those with whom I have discussed my work: Francesca Cenerini (Uni- versità di Bologna), François Chausson (Université Paris 1 Panthéon – Sorbonne), Oliviero Diliberto (Università “La Sapienza” di Roma), Christian Laes (Universiteit Antwerpen, Vrije Universiteit Brussel) and H. Sigismund Nielsen (University of Calgary). Any mistakes are my responsibility. 1 Suet., Vesp. 3. Regarding the text, I followed the edition of the Belles Lettres, ed. Ailloud (1954). 2 On her, see: Stein (1909a) 2732 no. 226, (1943a) 187-188 no. 416; Raepsaet- Charlier (1987) 319-321 no. 367; Barrett (2005) 385-396; Cenerini (2009) 83-87. Furthermore, on the marriage and the honors attributed to her post mortem, see: Cuq (1884) 161-164; Veyne 1962 49-98; Ritter (1972) 759-761; Kienast (1989) 141-147; Rosso (2007) 143-146; and Wood (2010) 45-57. Ancient Society 43, 191-212. doi: 10.2143/AS.43.0.2992609 © 2013 by Ancient Society. All rights reserved. 996421_AncientSociety_43_06.indd6421_AncientSociety_43_06.indd 191191 33/10/13/10/13 113:023:02 192 V. LA MONACA The ancient historian tells us that, during the crucial years of his polit- ical rise3, Vespasian married4 Flavia Domitilla, a former delicata of Sta- tilius Capella5, a Roman knight from Sabratha, in Africa. Since she was of Latin status, she was declared ingenua and a Roman citizen by the body of recuperatores6. The lawsuit was brought by her father Flavius Liberalis7, a quaestorius scriba, in order to recognize her as his daugh- ter. Flavia Domitilla bore her husband three children, Titus and Domi- tian, who succeeded their father as emperors, and Flavia Domitilla, who, like her mother, died before Vespasian had been proclaimed Emperor8. Suetonius reports only three fundamental events of the life of Flavia Domitilla before her marriage to the future Emperor: 1. She had been a delicata of a Roman knight. 2. She was of Latin status. 3. She was declared ingenua and a Roman citizen by the court of recuperatores. Clearly Suetonius, in describing the life of Domitilla, did not consider her worth a more detailed focus; in fact, he presents her life as compa- rable to that of a common woman: birth, marriage, maternity and death9. This omission contrasts with the descriptions of the Augustae, whose vicissitudes are known thanks to Suetonius and other ancient historians, probably because Flavia Domitilla died before her husband had been proclaimed Emperor10. The women of the Flavian dynasty have been defined as “mujeres invisibles” because they do not show evidence of strong personalities. In particular, they do not seem to have had political power, because their role was perhaps obscured by an established 3 About this, see Suet., Vesp. 2: the incipit of the next chapter is bound to this pas- sage. On the problematic stages of the career of Vespasian: Weinand (1909) 2623-2729 no. 206; Braithwaite (1927) 23-30; Graf (1937) 11-21; de Laet (1941) 118 no. 621; Stein (1943) 180-183 no. 398; Homo (1949) 16-24; Chastagnol (1976) 253-256; Nicols (1978) 1-26; Levick (1991) 239-244, (1999) 4-64; Ramondetti (2008) 1363 n. 12. 4 On the date of the marriage, whose the terminus ante quem is the beginning of AD 39 (Titus was born on the 30th of December of the same year): Graf (1937) 115 n. 76; Homo (1949) 184. 5 There is no other information on him; about this, see De Rohden & Dessau (1898) 259 no. 592 and Stein (1929) 2190 no. 14. 6 See infra. 7 There is no other information on him: cf. Stein (1909b) 2604 no. 115, (1943c) 157 no. 302. 8 On the exact birth order of the children, on which the scholars are in doubt, see Townend (1961) 54-62, esp. 58 and Nicols (1978) 9. 9 On this matter of the life of the women, see Cenerini (2002) 11-28. 10 On this, see Cenerini (2002) 73-123. 996421_AncientSociety_43_06.indd6421_AncientSociety_43_06.indd 192192 33/10/13/10/13 113:023:02 FLAVIA DOMITILLA AS DELICATA 193 succession11. For Flavia Domitilla, the brief description of the life and the details about the lawsuit could suggest the possibility that Suetonius had access to official documentation, as demonstrated by analysis of some passages of his work12. Despite this meagre information, I believe that it is possible to get a better understanding of the status of Flavia Domitilla by examining a wider body of evidence. In the past, many scholars have dealt with the complex issue of the life of Flavia Domitilla. Although aware of the lack of documentation, they have proposed some hypotheses: in particular, they have focused on the reason why Domitilla was of Latin status. According to Braithwaite, Flavia Domitilla enjoyed free birth13. According to Ritter, the wife of Vespasian was manumitted informally without meeting the requirements of the lex Aelia Sentia, based on the passage in Epitome de Caesaribus14 in which it is said that Titus and Domitian were born to a freed mother. Flavia Domitilla would have achieved the Latinitas Iuniana, and subsequently the citizenship pleno iure, as soon as Flavius Liberalis had recognized her as his daughter15. Evans, Jones and Barrett16 assume that Flavia Domitilla fell into slavery during her childhood. Barbara Levick, however, in agreement with Gardner, suggests two possibilities: first, Levick conjectures that Flavia Domitilla was born of a relationship between Flavius Liberalis and an unknown concubine, who had been manumitted by the lex Aelia Sentia, and was therefore of Latin status. Levick herself, however, doubts this assumption, because Suetonius informs us about a claim of free birth17. Second, she assumes that Flavius Liberalis manumitted his daughter as Latin according to the lex Aelia Sentia. In order to enable Flavia Domitilla to marry Vespasian, Flavius Liberalis probably claimed a vindicatio ex libertinate in ingenuitatem18, which was absolutely neces- sary to overcome the restrictions imposed by the lex Iulia de maritandis 11 Hidalgo de la Vega (2003) 47-72; Barrett (2005) 385-386; Cenerini (2009) 83-84. 12 In particular, on the surveys about the birth of Vespasian, with related inspections: Tambroni (1931) 388; Ailloud (1954) ix and xxii-xxiii; Della Corte (1967) 146. 13 Braithwaite (1927). 14 Aur. Vict. 10,1 e 11,1. 15 Ritter (1972) 759-761; moreover the scholar sustains that what is affirmed in the Epitome may be a misunderstanding of the text of Suetonius. 16 Evans (1979) 201 n. 2; Jones (1984) 3 n. 10; Barrett (2005) 388. 17 Levick (1999) 12. See also Veyne (1962) 50 n. 2, who mentions a marriage between Flavius Liberalis and a Iuniana Latina, from whom Flavia Domitilla would have inherited the status. 18 Levick (1999) 12. 996421_AncientSociety_43_06.indd6421_AncientSociety_43_06.indd 193193 33/10/13/10/13 113:023:02 194 V. LA MONACA ordinibus19. However, Evans proposes that Vespasian might have been exempt from this law, thanks to his ties with the imperial court20. Levick also explains the marriage as a familiar strategy, through which the linage and property would have been preserved. She focuses on the origin of Flavius Liberalis who was from Ferentium21, a town between Reate and Cosa. Since the gens Flavia held some possessions there, she believes that the marriage was a union between relatives, as was custom among the aristocratic classes, with the aim to prevent the dispersal of assets22. A similar perspective is proposed by Gardner, to whom Levick refers: supposing that Flavius Liberalis was a Roman citizen, she empha- sizes that he cannot possibly have married a Latina Iuniana23 and begotten legitimate children from such a union. Therefore, she considers Flavia Domitilla to be an exposed child, who was then manumitted as Latina Juniana and claimed ingenua by the causa liberalis, which had been initiated by her father. Flavius Liberalis could have claimed the 19 This law which seems to have been enacted in about 18 BC prohibited the marriage and the engagement of a senator or his male descendants in a direct line to the third degree with a libertina, with a woman whose father and mother were actors, and with a prostitute; it also forbade the daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in male direct line (although adoptive) of senators to marry a freedman.