The Economic Relationship Between Patron and Freedman in Italy in the Early Roman Empire

The Economic Relationship between Patron and Freedman in Italy in the Early Roman Empire

Alex Cushing

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Toronto

The Economic Relationship between Patron and Freedman in Italy in the

Early Roman Empire

Alex Cushing

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Classics

University of Toronto

2020

Abstract

The Economic Relationship between Patron and Freedman in Italy in the Early Roman

Empire explores how economic and productive relationships between patrons and freedmen continued after manumission in Roman Italy during the early Principate. This dissertation surveys a range of ancient sources, including inscriptions, literary sources, alimenta tables, and wax tablets, to show how Roman patrons deployed different social and legal mechanisms to continue to draw on the productive capacities of their former slaves in a range of economic sectors.

The techniques employed varied depending on productive context. Freedpersons who had been slaves in domestic familiae were redeployed as agents, not just associated with the urban households from which they originated, but also as agricultural procuratores overseeing the legal administration of rural properties. This indicates a recognition that unique skills and personal connections to their former masters could continue to be exploited after manumission for a variety of purposes. That mid-level domestic slaves were preferred for such posts instead of other, ostensibly better-suited skilled slaves, such as urban dispensatores or rural vilici , indicates a deliberate and concerted organization of both enslaved and freed workforces alongside each other.

This suggests that practical economic considerations played a role both in the direction of freed labour and in manumission itself. The procuratio , a form of agricultural agency, was also used in

Roman banking firms to facilitate flexible representation by freedmen, as evidenced by its repeated use by the Sulpicii from Puteoli. Efforts at patronal control were not necessarily to the detriment of the freed slaves involved, however, and sometimes could provide economic benefits and incentives to the latter. In urban manufacturing, the clustering of freedpersons in productive units enabled patrons to draw on services owed after manumission more efficiently, but also facilitated cost-sharing among skilled liberti and greater flexibility in the day-to-day management of their own businesses. In short, Roman patrons drew from a toolkit of strategies, including operae , personal links, forms of agency particularly suited to the freedman-patron relationship, and other social and legal mechanisms, to continue to draw on the productive capacity of their former slaves.

iii

Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to everyone who offered advice and support throughout the course of my PhD. A special and heartfelt thanks to the members of my advisory committee, first and foremost Christer Bruun, who, as supervisor, patiently and knowledgably helped me to navigate the many complications, snafus, and obstacles throughout the PhD. I am truly grateful for his support. I am incredibly indebted to Seth Bernard, who as both committee member and graduate coordinator supplied instructive and detailed feedback and also organized probably the most logistically complicated oral defense in the history of the department in the middle of a global pandemic. I am delighted that Katherine Blouin was on my committee. I was very fortunate to have benefitted from the breadth of her knowledge, her encouragement, and her unfailing consideration and compassion. My thanks also to Andreas Bendlin for his excellent and thought-provoking questions. Finally, I am enormously appreciative that Koen Verboven agreed to serve as external examiner and was able to offer his considerable insight and recommendations for the dissertation and my work going forward.

I am deeply obliged to all departmental faculty, but I would like to single out for specific thanks Ben Akrigg, Eph Lytle, and Boris Chrubasik for their particular contributions to my pedagogy and their general advice on finding an equilibrium between teaching and writing. My gratitude also to the departmental support staff, Coral Gavrilovic and Ann Marie Matti, whose ceaseless guidance, assistance, and tenacity in negotiating university bureaucracies and making sure I submitted forms on time is still much appreciated.

This dissertation would not have been possible without the strong community and solidarity of other graduate students in the Classics Department at U of T, too many to name. Our mutual support and friendship in the classroom, on the picket line, in the library, and at the bar were always valued and a great comfort to me. In particular, the epigraphic working group of Drew Davis, John Fabiano, David Wallace-Hare, and Jeff Easton provided an excellent opportunity to workshop ideas, arguments, and evidence and to appreciate and enrich each other’s work. My gratitude to Patrick Hadley and Paul Franz for years of friendship and a high tolerance for discussions about mundane specifics along the way to finishing this thesis.

Thanks to my wife Trish, whom I met and married while finishing this PhD. She believed in me and supported me even when that proved a challenge and I could not have completed this dissertation without her encouragement.

This dissertation is dedicated to two incredibly committed teachers who have had an immeasurable impact on my life: Stephen Low and my late mother, Barb Cassells. Steve introduced me to Latin and Ancient Rome as a bewildered high school student looking to fill out a timetable with what seemed, at the time, like a fun elective and has cursed me with a life-long passion. When a group of us wanted to learn Greek and it couldn’t be scheduled in the regular timetable, Steve offered to teach us during lunch hour. I will always aspire to his easy enthusiasm for Ancient languages and to the accessibility and breadth of his teaching.

My mother is the reason I am inquisitive, the reason I am eager for answers, the reason I want to explore and explain, the reason I can interrogate myself with clear eyes and persevere. I treasure her memory every day.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... VI

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... VIII

CHAPTER 1 ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 FREEDMEN AND THE ECONOMICS OF MANUMISSION ...... 1 1.2 OPERAE , OBSEQUIUM , AND PROCURATIO ...... 7 1.3 THE PROCURATOR AND THE PROCURATOR LIBERTUS ...... 12 1.4 DEFINITIONS OF THE PROCURATOR AND THE PROCURATOR LIBERTUS ...... 17 1.5 THE DYNAMIC OF THE FAMILIA AND THE USE OF PROCURATORES LIBERTI ...... 21

CHAPTER 2 ...... 24

FREEDMEN AND DOMESTIC OCCUPATIONS ...... 24

2.1 THE FAMILIA URBANA AND THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE DOMINUS ...... 24 2.2 THE FAMILIA URBANA AND MANUMISSION ...... 29 2.3 WHAT HAPPENED TO LIBERTI DOMESTICI AFTER MANUMISSION ? ...... 36 2.4 DOMESTIC OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS IN THE INSCRIPTIONS ...... 43 2.5 MANAGERIAL AND SECRETARIAL OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS WITHIN THE DOMESTIC HOUSEHOLD ...... 60 2.6 THE DISPENSATOR AND THE CONTINUED BONDAGE OF UPPER -LEVEL DOMESTIC SLAVES ...... 64 2.7 THE FAMILIA URBANA AND HORIZONTAL “P ROMOTION ” AFTER MANUMISSION ...... 77

CHAPTER 3 ...... 85

FREEDMEN AND ITALIAN AGRICULTURE ...... 85

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 85 3.2 FREEDMEN AGRICULTURAL PROCURATORES : EVIDENCE FROM THE VELEIAN ALIMENTA TABLE ...... 93 3.3 THE USE OF SLAVE MANAGERS IN ITALIAN AGRICULTURE AND THE ROLE AND STATUS OF VILICI ...... 105 3.4 QUESTIONS OF MANUMISSION AND ADVANCEMENT OF PRIVATE VILICI ...... 111 3.5 FAMILY GROUPS AND THEIR MANUMISSION AS POSSIBLE INCENTIVIZATION FOR UNFREE VILICI ...... 117 3.6 AGRICULTURAL PROCURATORES AND THE APPARENT ABSENCE OF VILICI ...... 121 3.7 EVIDENCE FROM THE VELEIAN TABLE COMPARED TO OTHER SOURCES ...... 131

CHAPTER 4 ...... 144

FREEDMEN IN BANKING AND TRADE ...... 144

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 144

4.2 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SULPICII FROM PUTEOLI ...... 145 4.3 THE USE OF PRIVATE PROCURATORSHIPS IN BANKING ...... 160 4.4 FREEDMEN BANKERS IN THE BROADER EPIGRAPHIC RECORD ...... 168 4.5 LOCALIZED ECONOMIC SPECIALIZATION IN BANKING AND ARGENTARII AND NUMMULARII ...... 179 4.6 NEGOTIATIORES , NEGOTIANTES , AND MERCATORES IN THE EPIGRAPHIC RECORD ...... 186 4.7 BETWEEN BANKING AND TRADING : MERCATORES AND NEGOTIATORES IN TPS ULP ...... 192

CHAPTER 5 ...... 202

FREEDMEN IN MANUFACTURING AND CRAFTS ...... 202

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 202 5.2 THE JURISTIC SOURCES AND OPERAE FABRILES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION ...... 211 5.3 FABRI AND SOME PROBLEMS WITH OCCUPATIONAL INSCRIPTIONS OF MANUFACTURERS ...... 224 5.4 METALWORKERS , LOCATION , AND COLLIBERTI GROUPS ...... 230 5.5 EVIDENCE OF ORGANIZATION AND FAMILIAL TIES AMONG IVORY -WORKERS AND GEMMARII ...... 239 5.6 PISTORES AND THE APPARENT ABSENCE OF INTRA -FREEDMAN COOPERATION ...... 249 5.7 COMMERCIAL TEXTILE PRODUCTION , SOCIAL GROUPS , AND OPERAE ...... 254 5.8 CONCLUSION ...... 269

CHAPTER 6 ...... 271

CONCLUSION ...... 271

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 282

APPENDICES ...... 307

vii

List of Appendices

Appendix 1a: Inscriptions of Dispensatores throughout the Empire

Appendix 1b: Personal Relationships mentioned in Dispensator Inscriptions

Appendix 2: Inscriptions of Cubicularii from Italy

Appendix 3: Other Domestic Occupational Inscriptions from Italy

viii

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Freedmen and the Economics of Manumission

Roman liberti provide a remarkably mutable subject of study for modern scholars. They have been characterized as capable, independent of any economic assistance, of achieving amazing local success and recognition. 1 They were also a “part of an economy that was controlled by a curial elite which had interests both in landed and urban production and trade”. 2 The libertus self- presents and is presented in epigraphic evidence as a prolific and energetic economic force. A plurality of Italian funerary inscriptions from the Late Republic and Early Empire that mention specific occupations represent freed slaves, 3 proud, presumably, of their capability in their skilled professions and their status as specialized workers. This can be viewed as partly as a function of the peculiar freedman epigraphic habit, but it also emphasizes the economic importance of freedman activity in Roman Italy. 4 Occupational inscriptions among freedmen provide some difficulty to scholars, not least because, while freedmen are overrepresented in funerary epigraphy generally, they seem also to have been more likely to list their occupations than free-born Romans. 5

Here, though, specialization also served to underscore the idea that the freed slave gained their freedom through their specific productive talents.

1 D’Arms 1981: 97-148, 175-181; Garnsey 1981; but cf. Los 1995: 1022, on the personal connections between Augustales and decuriones . 2 Mouritsen 2001: 12. 3 cf. Joshel 1992: 184. 4 Mouritsen 2011: 206, who rightly points out that we should be a little cautious about funerary epigraphy, since occupational inscriptions were “used only sporadically outside the freedman community” but also points to the ubiquity of freedmen on other media, such as amphorae stamps and wax tablets. 5 Joshel 1992; Verboven 2012: 92-93.

1 2

The idea of the grant of freedom to former slaves as something earned, but also given out of benevolence and recognition of the master, is a powerful one in Roman thought and has support in the writings of Seneca and Cicero, among others.6 In the Fourth Catilinarian , Cicero refers to freedmen as “having obtained the good fortune of this citizenship by their virtue” and emphasizes

(though just for rhetorical contrast) their loyalty to their new polity. 7 Suetonius, in his De

Grammaticis , provides another good illustration of this attitude, when he describes the life of

Lenaeus Pompeius:

Lenaeus, Magni Pompei libertus et paene omnium expeditionum comes, defuncto eo

filiisque eius schola se sustentavit; docuitque in Carinis ad Telluris, in qua regione

Pompeiorum domus fuerat, ac tanto amore erga patroni memoriam exstitit, ut

Sallustium historicum, quod eum oris probi, animo inverecundo scripsisset,

acerbissima satura laceraverit, lastaurum et lurconem et nebulonem popinonemque

appellans, et vita scriptisque monstrosum, praeterea priscorum Catonisque

verborum ineruditissimum furem. Traditur autem puer adhuc Athenis subreptus,

refugisse in patriam, perceptisque liberalibus disciplinis, pretium suum domino

rettulisse, verum ob ingenium atque doctrinam gratis manumissus .8

6 cf. López Barja de Quiroga 1993: 47-64. 7 Cic. Cat . iv, 16: Operae pretium est, patres conscripti, libertinorum hominum studia cognoscere qui, sua virtute fortunam huius civitatis consecuti, vere hanc suam patriam esse iudicant quam quidam hic nati, et summo nati loco, non patriam suam sed urbem hostium esse iudicaverunt ; “It is worth it, o conscript fathers, to recognize the enthusiasm of the freedmen, who, having obtained the good fortune of this citizenship by their virtue, truly consider this to be their country, while some who were born here, and born into the highest rank, have not just considered this not their country, but even an enemies’ city”; all translations in this work are my own unless otherwise indicated. 8 Suet. Gram . 15: “Lenaeus, a freedman of Pompey the Great and his companion in nearly all of his campaigns, after the death of his patron and sons supported himself by opening a school; he taught in the Carinae near the Temple of Tellus, in the neighbourhood where the house of the Pompeii had been and his love of the memory of his former master was so exceptional that he shredded the historian Sallust with the most vicious satire, because the latter had written that Pompey had an honest appearance, but a shameless character, calling him a pervert, a glutton, a worthless idiot, and a bar-fly and saying that his life and writings were monstrous and that he was, besides all that, a frightfully

His ability is commended by Suetonius and, combined implicitly with his unwavering and exceptional loyalty to Pompeius, it constituted the principal basis for his manumission. Lenaeus’ capability was not a typical one but was rather extraordinary and worth remarking on by Suetonius.

The particular details of the biography, that Lenaeus fled back to Athens of his own accord to receive an education before voluntarily turning himself back in to his master, warrant skepticism at a time when it was perfectly normal for other slaveowners to send their talented slaves to eastern centres to be educated. 9 Nonetheless, Suetonius’ point is that Lenaeus, through his ultimate loyalty, but above all his ability and productivity, earned his freedom from his former master. In the end, his skill as a man of letters counted more than the initial disloyalty of becoming a fugitivus and his master’s appreciation of that skill, manifested as manumission, presumably outweighed Lenaeus’ fear of punishment on his return.

Scholars have contended that the Romans saw manumission as a mechanism for incentivizing slave labour more effectively. 10 In his defence of Rabirius Postumius, Cicero compared the prosecutor and tribune of the plebs T. Labienus to a cruel slave-master by saying to the jury, “ …forte hanc condicionem vobis esse voltis quam servi, si libertatis spem propositam non haberent, ferre nullo modo possent ”.11 The idea that freedom – if a slave proved himself

uneducated thief of the phrases of Cato and the ancient writers. It is said also that he was brought from Athens when he was a boy and that he escaped back to his own land, from which, having learned literature and philosophy, he offered to pay back his price to his master and was manumitted because of his intelligence and thanks to his learning.”; “ob ingenium ” is also given as a reason for slave manumission by Suetonius: Suet. Gramm . 27. 9 Suet. Gram . 7, 1, though it is, admittedly, ambiguous whether he was sent before or after his manumission: M. Antonius Gnipho, ingenuus in Gallia natus sed expositus, a nutritore suo manumissus institutusque (Alexandriae quidem, ut aliqui tradunt, in contubernio Dionysi Scytobrachionis; quod equidem non temere crediderim, cum temporum ratio vix congruat) fuisse dicitur ingenii magni, memoriae singularis, nec minus Graece quam Latine doctus ; “Marcus Antonius Gnipho, a freeborn Gaul who was nevertheless exposed, was manumitted by the person who raised him and had him educated (at Alexandria, certainly, but not, as some report, in the company of Dionysius Scytobrachio, since I don’t believe this at all, because the timing doesn’t work) and he had a great intellect and a prodigal memory, no less learned in Greek than in Latin.” 10 cf. Findlay 1975; Hopkins 1981: 115-131; Fenoaltea 1984; Garnsey 1996: 97; Temin 2004: 522-538; Temin 2013: 124-135; for a more skeptical assessment of its overall impact, Bradley 1984: 81-112; Bradley 1988: 483. 11 Cic. Rab. Perd. 15: “…perhaps you prefer that condition which even slaves are in no way able to bear, if they had no hope of freedom offered to them.”

4 sufficiently industrious, clever, capable – was within easy reach, was thought to be an essential incentivizing constant of Roman slave ownership. Without it as an aspirational goal, intelligent slaves could potentially subvert an economic and social order that relied on their legal status. Yet we should perhaps be a little cautious in over-subscribing to the idea of manumission, which could be capricious in practice, as the overwhelming incentivizing factor for most Roman slaves. It does, after all, represent a reflection of the attitudes of the wealthiest Roman slave-owners and their own views about the institutions in which they maintained an absolute and authoritative position.

In reality, economic considerations undeniably remained a preoccupation in manumission.

The emperor Claudius’ grant of freedom to sick slaves abandoned at the Temple of Aesclepius in

Rome, while compassionate, critically only gave them Junian status 12 and ensured that their former masters, who were, in some fashion, being punished by the Emperor, still retained a claim over the freedmen’s property after their deaths. 13 This speaks to a basic tension within Roman manumission and the economic capacity of slaves after they obtained the beneficium libertatis . Fundamentally,

12 Though their status is not mentioned in the Suetonius passage, their Junian Latinity is confirmed in a much later Justinian rescript, where the emperor explicitly noted the return of their property to their masters; Cod. Justin . VII, vi, 3: Sed scimus etiam hoc esse in antiqua Latinitate ex edicto divi Claudii introductum, quod, si quis servum suum aegritudine periclitantem sua domo publice eiecerit neque ipse eum procurans neque alii eum commendans, cum erat ei libera facultas, si non ipse ad eius curam sufficeret, in xenonem eum mittere vel quo poterat modo eum adiuvare, huiusmodi servus in libertate Latina antea morabatur et, quem ille moriendum dereliquit, eius bona iterum, cum moreretur, accipiebat ; “But we also know that this was introduced, in terms of the ancient Latin right, by an edict of the emperor Claudius, that if someone should publicly eject his slave, suffering from an illness, from his house and not care for him or put him in the care of another when he had the unrestricted capacity, even if he did not have sufficient means to care for the slave himself, to send him to a public hospital or to help him in some other way, then the slave in this manner enjoyed Latin freedom afterwards and the master, though he abandoned him while dying, received his goods again when he did die.” 13 Suet. Claud . xxv, 22: Cum quidam aegra et adfecta mancipia in insulam Aesculapi taedio medendi exponerent, omnes qui exponerentur liberos esse sanxit, nec redire in dicionem domini, si convaluissent; quod si quis necare quem mallet quam exponere, caedis crimine teneri ; “When certain people were exposing their sick and worn-out slaves on the island of Aesclepius, because of their disgust of having to cure them, Claudius ruled that all those who were exposed would be free and would not return to the authority of their masters, if they got better. And if anyone preferred to kill rather than expose their slave, they would be charged with the crime of murder.”; on this episode, Levick, 1990, 124, is certainly being naïve when she says: “it shows Claudius sensitive to a change in attitudes towards slaves which, if loudly opposed by some senators, was accepted and promoted by the most humane men of the first century (many of Claudius’ best friends had been slaves)…”; cf. Faro 1996. This was simply a solution to a problem of public order and a potential impact on the slave market, rather than a demonstration of Claudius’ humanity; on their Junian status, Mouritsen 2011: 41-42; for a discussion of the legal basis of Claudius’ actions, Major 1994: 84-90.

“the act of freeing a slave meant giving away a piece of property”, 14 dispossession of the productive potential of a skilled worker, bonded to the dominus by law, in whom years of specialized training might have been invested. No longer legally owning a slave did not necessarily mean that masters lost all of the productive value of their former servi , however. Some scholars have taken the position that “masters rarely lost much in tangible terms – economic or political – by manumission and usually gained a great deal”. 15 While manumission for purely sentimental reasons undoubtedly occurred, 16 we should also consider the freedman’s status in light of the economic and legal bonds that were maintained by their patrons after they were granted their freedom. Legal ties like operae and obsequium served to ensure that a patron could continue to benefit from investments made in a slave long after he or she were freed. Existing economic relationships were supplemented by positions like the procuratio ,17 through which liberti could act as representatives for their patrons, despite no longer having the capacities of acquisition and agency that they had had as slaves. In essence, as Mouritsen wrote, “manumission can be seen as a more refined form of exploiting un-free labour in a developed urban economy, and as such it was clearly not a sign of humanity or an expression of any inherent decency in the slave system”. 18

This exploitation, though, was not simply limited to the urban economy, but extended to representation by freedmen involved in agricultural land management as well.

In this thesis, I will investigate the mechanisms Roman patrons employed to mitigate the losses – economic and institutional – that they necessarily experienced as a part of manumission.

14 George 2006: 19; cf. Mouritsen 2011: 146. 15 Patterson 1982: 247. 16 cf. Pliny Ep. VI, 3, mentioning a plot of land valued at 100,000 sesterces given to his former nutrix , whom he presumably also freed (though he doesn’t explicitly say so); also in Ep . VIII, 16, he mentions manumitting sick slaves on their deathbeds and allowing them to make “wills”, but, out of realism or self-congratulation, he adds: nec ignoro alios eius modi casus nihil amplius vocare quam damnum, eoque sibi magnos homines et sapientes videri . 17 Schäfer 1998. 18 Mouritsen 2001: 19.

I have catalogued and examined occupational funerary inscriptions from Roman Italy from the 1 st century BCE to the early 3 rd century CE in four areas of economic activity: the domestic household, agriculture, banking and trade, and manufacturing and crafts. In examining these inscriptions, I have organized them based on occupational title, legal status of the individual, any mention of family, patron, colliberti , or fellow slaves, as well as by any other significant characteristics, such as age at death and whether or not they seem to have had a peculium . Additionally, I have studied

Campanian archives, such as the Tabulae Sulpiciorum , and larger inscriptions like the Veleian alimenta tablet to provide supplemental information on freedman-patron relationships in actual practice. By using this broad epigraphic survey as a starting point, I have attempted to identify which major social and economic institutions influenced the financial and professional decisions of Roman freedmen and, in particular, what role the authority and pressure of patrons played in freedmen business.

The methodology I have employed is somewhat similar to that of Sandra Joshel in her thorough survey of occupational inscriptions from Rome. 19 I have, however, expanded the scope of my study beyond the sixth region to include all of Italy. Because I used EDCS for the initial searches of occupational titles and then confirmed my results by further examining individual published volumes, my catalogues also include inscriptions from non-CIL volumes and so my numbers, even for the city of Rome, do not correspond fully to hers. While some of my conclusions are broadly similar, due to the fact that Rome itself is such a conspicuous producer of occupational epigraphy, the focus of my examination is different from hers in that I have sought to examine the way specific relationships between patron and freedman are reflected in the epigraphic corpus.

While I am drawing on a sample group that is similar in some ways, an expanded corpus has

19 Joshel 1992.

7 allowed me to investigate the role of institutions like rural procuratorships and assess how patrons managed their freedmen, those who originated as enslaved persons in both the rural and urban familiae , as a larger unified group. This approach has allowed me to track some of the movement between the two groups, such as the employment of domestic slaves as rural agents after their manumission, and to draw a more comprehensive picture of how patrons organized and exploited the productive capacity of their freedmen.

1.2 Operae , Obsequium , and Procuratio

The most obvious and far-reaching economic impact that a patron had on his freedman occurred even before manumission, in the occupational placement and training of the slave within an economic unit. A libertus who had been trained for ten or more years as a goldsmith would no doubt be reluctant to simply embark on a different career after being freed, since the cost of establishing a completely new business or line of work would have been especially prohibitive for a former slave. While a patron might help to establish a freedman in a business, there was certainly no obligation that they do so. Beyond this, though, the particular work in which the freedman was most experienced was the surest path for their own economic success. It could be that freedmen with similar occupational titles grouped together as a self-selecting cluster of freedmen with similar economic goals, but it should be noted that these groups were frequently also composed of colliberti . This suggests the influence of patrons with interests in training and maintaining workforces in specific economic activities. Though I will largely pass over the rural enslaved, with the exception of vilici and agricultural procuratores , this is due more to my methodological approach and the lack of evidence and not because of any presumption that slaves and freedmen in the Italian countryside were immune from patronal authority or were economically insignificant.

The influence of patrons was most palpable in skilled manufacturing and craftsmanship, and yet it had consequences in other economic sectors too. The freedman bankers and shippers of the

Tabulae Sulpiciorum are characterized by comparable organizations of colliberti , trained in complementary skills, continuing to work together after manumission. Provision of training, infrastructure, and funding served as a continued link between these liberti and their patrons, but these ties were also supported by other institutions inherent in the status of freedmen.

Operae and obsequium , in all economic sectors, dictated both the obligations, in the form of services to be provided, as well as the general behaviour and attitude of the libertus towards his patron. Operae were typically provided in the form of a set number of service days, agreed upon at the time of manumission, which a libertus was then required to work for the patron. 20 These provided perhaps the most tangible expression of the link between patron and freedman. 21 This aspect of the relationship could potentially have implications in the appointment of a freedman as a business agent, who could fulfil his requisite service by conducting business for his patron, 22 but obsequium certainly also had a significant influence. Its broader implications are probably best summarized under the Digest heading De obsequiis parentibus et patronis praestandis , by Ulpian who says: “ liberto et filio semper honesta et sancta persona patris ac patroni videri debet .” 23

20 Ulp. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 9: Operae in rerum natura non sunt. Sed officiales quidem futurae nec cuiquam alii deberi possunt quam patrono, cum proprietas earum et in edentis persona et in eius cui eduntur constitit: fabriles autem aliaeve eius generis sunt, ut a quocumque cuicumque solvi possint. Sane enim, si in artificio sint, iubente patrono et alii edi possunt ; “ Operae are not things that exist in the nature of things. But personal services cannot be owed to anyone other than the patron, since the ownership of them is established in the person of the one doing them and the one for whom they are done; operae relating to a trade, however, or others of that sort, can be fulfilled by whomever for whomever. For, if they relate to some craft, they can be fulfilled for others by order of the patron.”; on the difference between operae officiales and operae fabriles , see section 5.2 below. 21 Masi Doria 1993a: 83: “Il rapporto patrono-liberto trova la sua espressione più concreta nella operae libertorum …” 22 Callist. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 38, 1: Quod si artificium exercere desierit, tales operas edere debebit, quae non contra dignitatem eius fuerint, veluti ut cum patrono moretur, peregre proficiscatur, negotium eius exerceat ; “Even if he stops practicing a trade, he will be obliged to render such operae as are not contrary to his dignity, such as, for example, remaining with his patron, going with him abroad, and conducting his business.” 23 Ulp. Dig . XXXVII, 15, 9: “The person of a father and a patron always ought to appear honourable and sacrosanct from the perspective of a son and freedman.”

Besides a general public deference to a patronus , it incorporates particular legal consequences for and restrictions imposed on freedmen in relation to their former master and if they violated obsequium , freedmen could receive restrictions of their legal status and be labeled “ ingratus ”.

What these penalties were in practice apparently varied widely, but they seem to have included exile, restrictions on legal and commercial activities, forfeiture of property, beating, and even re- enslavement.24 A passage of Modestinus in The Digest implies that there were multiple Imperial rescripts attempting to clarify the issue, but that the overriding precept was that the severity of the penalty fell largely to the discretion of the local magistrate in charge of carrying it out. 25

Despite these institutions, the relationship between a freedman and his patron was more tenuous, legally and economically, than the one between master and slave. The servus , as both someone legally under the control of his master and as property of his master, had the unique capacity to both represent the will of his dominus in transactions and to immediately acquire on his behalf. 26 Questions of the legitimacy of the slave’s agency were, in a broad sense, relatively straightforward to solve, since he effectively had no legal personality in the first place in Roman law and so liability fell to the master. 27 Freedmen, on the other hand, critically gained a legal

24 A passage in Tacitus records the Senate at the time of Nero debating and deciding against allowing re-enslavement of the libertus ingratus , though apparently exile beyond the hundredth milestone seems to have occurred; Tac. Ann ., XIII, 26: Quid enim aliud laeso patrono concessum quam ut centesimum ultra lapidem in oram Campaniae libertum releget?; cf. Wilinski 1971; at the very least, it seems to have resulted in restrictions on the legal capacities of freedmen; cf. Buckland 1908: 422-427. 25 Modest. Dig . XXXVII, 14, 7, 1: Mandatis imperatorum cavetur, ut etiam in provinciis praesides de querellis patronorum ius dicentes secundum delictum admissum libertis poenas irrogent. Interdum illae poenae a liberto ingrato exiguntur: vel pars bonorum eius aufertur et patrono datur; vel fustibus caeditur et ita absolvitur ; “It is provided by the decrees of emperors that even governors in the provinces, those who render judgments concerning the complaints of patrons, should impose punishments on freedpersons in proportion to the infraction committed. Sometimes these penalties are required in the case of an ungrateful freedman: either some of his property is confiscated and given to the patron; or he is beaten with clubs and discharged in such a way.” 26 Gaius Dig . XLI, 1, 10, pr.: Adquiruntur nobis non solum per nosmet ipsos, sed etiam per eos quos in potestate habemus, item per servos, in quibus usum fructum habemus, item per homines liberos et servos alienos, quos bona fide possidemus… ; “Things are acquired for us not only by ourselves, but even by those whom we have in our authority, such as by slaves, whom we have in our usufruct, and also through free men and the slaves of others, whom we possess in good faith…”; cf. Buckland 1908: 131. 27 cf. Buckland 1908: 82.

10 persona when they were manumitted. This meant that they could now initiate and represent themselves and others in legal affairs that they couldn’t previously. Yet their capacity to directly represent their patron’s economic interests as their principal was, in legal theory at least, not substantively different from any other legally independent individual. They had unique structural, social, and emotional ties to their former masters, but as agents were still subject to the same contractual constraints as any Roman not in the potestas of someone else. 28

This could lead to difficulties of communication and representation, especially in circumstances where the patron might not be capable of being more assiduously involved in the business. A slave as agent, whether they operated under an institorian or peculium -based arrangement, 29 was subject to asymmetries of information as well, but their accountability to their master was more direct. A passage from a letter of Cicero to Atticus, sent in 61 BCE, gives a sense of the asymmetry of information that could affect patrons whose freedmen were acting on their behalf:

Libertum ego habeo sane nequam hominem, Hilarum dico, ratiocinatorem et

clientem tuum. de eo mihi Valerius interpres nuntiat Thyillusque se audisse scribit

haec, esse hominem cum Antonio; Antonium porro in cogendis pecuniis dictitare

partem mihi quaeri et a me custodem communis quaestus libertum esse missum. Non

sum mediocriter commotus neque tamen credidi, sed certe aliquid sermonis fuit.

28 Kirschenbaum 1987: 127: “… the agency relationship between them [ie. patron and freedman] was governed by the same two or three formal contracts that governed free born agents who were sui iuris : If the agent was construed as a hired employee, the contract which governed his relationship with his principal was that of leasing and hiring ( locatio conductio ). If he was construed as a mandatary, his relationship with his principal was governed by the contract of the mandate ( mandatum ). And if, because of the circumstances involved, he was construed as an unauthorized manager, then the relationship was governed by the rules of negotiorum gestio .”; though he goes on to say that “quasi-familial relations, even more than formal contract, governed the behaviour of patron and freedman as principal and agent.” 29 Aubert 1994, passim , but especially 5-16; on the actio de peculio , cf. Buckland 1908: 207-227.

totum investiga, cognosce, perspice et nebulonem illum, si quo pacto potes, ex istis

locis amove. huius sermonis Valerius auctorem Cn. Plancium nominabat. mando tibi

plane totum ut videas cuius modi sit. 30

Here Cicero requests that Atticus look into a freedman ratiocinator , a freed accountant, whom the former suspected was helping his former co-consul Antonius, who was unlawfully collecting money from the provincials in Asia and claiming that Cicero, too, was involved. 31 The passage provides a good, if somewhat grandiose, example of the lack of control a patron might have over their freedman representative. Although we don’t know the precise authorization under which

Hilarus was acting on Cicero’s behalf, this situation partially helps to explain why the procuratio seems to have been adopted as an additional significant mechanism for freedman control in the

Early Empire. 32

Evidence of the employment of procuratores liberti does not appear in all sectors of the

Roman economy, but their use appears to have been prevalent in property management, banking, and commerce and they also seem to have been recruited frequently from among domestic slaves.

While freedmen certainly possessed close social and status-related links to their patrons, the

30 Cic. ad Att . i, 12, 2: “I have a freedman, a pretty much worthless guy – I’m talking about Hilarus – an accountant and a client of yours, concerning whom the interpreter Valerius announces the following and Thyillus writes me that he has heard the same thing, that Hilarus is with Antonius and further that Antonius, in exacting payment, maintains that a part is being collected for me, and that I have sent a freedman to look after our shared profits. I felt pretty annoyed, though I couldn’t believe it, but there has certainly been some report of this sort. Investigate the whole thing, figure it out, look into that worthless idiot, and, if you are able, get him out of the place. Valerius names Gnaeus Plancius as the origin of this gossip. I trust you to investigate the whole thing thoroughly and find out what exactly it is.” 31 cf. Treggiari 1969: 198-199; Mouritsen 2011: 57-58; 148-149. 32 Schäfer 1998: 198-201; for a catalogue of the epigraphic evidence, ibid.: 181-198; cf. Kirschenbaum 1987: 144 on the similarities and differences between institores , who “were often slaves; seldom freedmen”, and procuratores , who “were generally freedmen; rarely slaves”.

12 procuratorship facilitated representation through the breadth of its remit; it allowed the libertus sweeping administrative powers subject to post hoc ratification by their patron. 33

1.3 The Procurator and the Procurator Libertus

The jurist Gaius states that one legitimate exemption to the leges Aelia Sentia and Fufia

Caninia was manumission for the purposes of appointing the slave as procurator: “ iusta autem causa manumissionis est, veluti si quis… servum procuratoris habendi gratia…apud consilium manumittat ”. 34 The procurator was, in essence, a representative of another’s interests, whether economic or legal. Speaking in broad terms, Ulpian defines the office as follows: “ procurator est qui aliena negotia mandatu domini administrat ”. 35 To a certain degree, procuratio was a means of addressing the deficiency in Roman law that direct agency, as we conceive of it today, was not strictly possible. While personal agency within the Roman legal system did not progress to the degree of complexity it possesses today, commercial realities necessitated the ability to conduct transactions through trusted and skilled freedmen as factors and representatives. Though there were no systematic provisions for a principal acquiring possession or liability through an agent,

Roman lawmakers developed various mechanisms to overcome the problems of a representative acting on behalf of an absent principal. Chief among these were mandata and procuratio . Mandata were essentially commissions of a specific and, by necessity, gratuitous nature, typically to act in a particular, isolated matter or transaction, while the pre-Justinianic procuratio omnium bonorum consisted of a considerably broader, more general authority and the ability to engage in a variety

33 On general definitions, cf. Schäfer 1998: 28-36. 34 Gaius Inst . I, 19. 35 Ulp. Dig . III, 3, 1; cf. Klinck 2007: 29-30.

13 of transactions. These assignments were distinguished not only in scope of potential activity, but also of potential liability, the former being subject to the actio mandati and the latter the actio negotiorum gestorum .36

In late Republican sources, the term “ procurator ” appears most often to designate someone, typically chosen from among amici , assigned to administer affairs on behalf of an absent principal. In Cicero’s correspondence, in particular, there are numerous instances of upper-class

Romans acting as procuratores for their friends and associates. Atticus, for example, is said to have acted as procurator for a number of illustrious Romans, both Ciceros and Cato the Younger among them. 37 In fact, the majority of these relationships in the late Republic were characterized by the relative parity of the social status of the two participants. It is, indeed, this characteristic that seems to underlie and support many of these relationships. As Verboven notes, “…in Cicero’s work we see that ordinary procurator -managers… were usually chosen from among a man’s amici .” 38

However, there does appear to be a major shift in the social constitution of the procurator between the late Republic and the Empire, a fact which a number of scholars have noted, pointing to the lex Aelia Sentia as a watershed in hastening the development towards a dramatic increase in the employment of freedmen as procurators. Schäfer sees the reasons for such a significant difference between the statuses of procurators in the two eras as two-fold. 39 First, the majority of

Imperial sources are epigraphic. Secondly, he points out that the lex Aelia Sentia contained an explicit carve-out that allowed slaves under thirty to be freed specifically to fulfill such a duty.

36 Watson 1961b: 36-51 gives a detailed account of the distinctions and legal historical problems of the two institutions; cf. Gordon 2001: 61-72. 37 Nepos Att . 15, 3. “… quo fiebat ut omnia Ciceronum, Catonis Marci, Q. Hortensi, A. Torquati, multorum praeterea equitum Romanorum negotia procuraret .” 38 Verboven 2002: 244 for a detailed list of examples. 39 Schäfer 1998: 199.

This suggests that slave-owners had a preference for the longer and more certain tenures of the post that could come with freedmen occupying the position. Though it certainly had an impact in easing the process of slave manumission and promotion, we should be careful not to overstate the significance of the lex in this regard. The inclusion of such a stipulation should be seen as evidence that the employment of freed slaves as commercial representatives was frequent enough even before the passage of Augustan social legislation, despite the relative silence of the evidence on the role of freedmen procurators in the historical sources of the late Republic. Rather than viewing it as one of the chief causes for the proliferation of freedmen procurators under the Empire, it should perhaps be considered more as an indication of more general trends in commercial and domestic administration.

Nonetheless, there is no question that the evidence clearly points towards precisely this sort of development, the expanded employment of freedmen as procurators in the early Empire, to the extent that the post seems to become almost completely the domain of liberti . It is in this period that the assertion that “ procuratores were generally freedmen” 40 is emphatically confirmed. Unlike the late Republican sources, which are mainly literary, most of the Imperial sources are epigraphic, though a few literary excerpts also document procuratores .41 It is particularly in the collection of epigraphic sources that the dominance of freedmen in procuratorial appointments is most obvious.

In thirty of the forty inscriptions from the Imperial period, the procurator is clearly identified as the freedman of the principal. The other significant change that can be observed is that the majority of freedman procurator activity is centered on the Italian peninsula. Of the thirty inscriptions treating procuratores liberti , fewer than a third come from the provinces, the majority of these

40 Kirschenbaum 1987: 144. 41 These are chiefly in agronomist works: Varro, RR , III, 6, 3; Columella, IX, 9, 2; I, 6, 7; I, 6, 23; but Pliny also mentions his own procuratores in Ep ., III, 19 and Ep ., VII, 11; cf. Carlsen 1995: 159-161.

15 from North Africa. 42 As a result, most of the conclusions that can be drawn about freedmen procurators are somewhat geographically limited. In addition to this, most of the Italian inscriptions seem to date from the first and second centuries of the Principate, with only a few from the early third century. It is also worth mentioning that a significant majority of freedmen alluded to in the sources are from upper-class Roman families, twelve of them senatorial freedmen.

This remarkable change of status among procurators in the evidence is, of course, partly due to the change in the types of sources in which they appear. It is not entirely surprising that the correspondence of Cicero, as a reflection of a complex system of favours and amicitia within the contemporary Roman political class, should emphasize gratuitous, reciprocal relationships between social peers. Conversely, liberti are probably over-represented in Imperial inscriptions, a fact especially true of epitaphs, 43 the source of virtually all attestations of freedmen procurators.

However, in analyzing the epigraphic and literary sources from the Empire, it becomes clear that these freedmen procurators are fulfilling a distinctly different role from the upper-class procurators of the late Republic. Theirs are generally more long-term positions, and positions that are also more permanently geographically fixed, than what can be inferred as normal within the context of

Cicero’s letters or earlier juristic sources. That a freedman might self-identify as a procurator, from the epigraphic evidence, seems to require that they held the position for an extended period of time. Especially in the agricultural sector, we see evidence of freed procuratores associated with the management of a particular estate or plots in the same vicinity indefinitely. That being said, we do find some isolated examples of procurators in Italy, likely also freed, acting as estate managers before the Augustan Principate. Nevertheless, the evolution and entrenchment of a more

42 Schäfer 1998. 43 cf. Mouritsen 2004 for the particularly extreme example of Ostia, where at least two thirds of those who were commemorated were expressly identified as liberti or servi .

16 elaborate system of administration of landed property in late Republic and early Empire helps to explain the fact that freedmen appear so frequently as procurators.

The Imperial evidence would also appear to indicate that domini increasingly chose procuratores based more on the priorities of promotion within the household and development of human capital, rather than social or political considerations. 44 In a number of cases, we see that patrons selected freedmen who had occupied positions of considerable authority in the household while they were still slaves. The appointment of a trusted and experienced libertus , whose capability had already been proven, guaranteed certain obvious benefits that an amicus might not provide. The potential abilities of an individual could be assessed and developed before manumission and, in the hierarchy of servile occupations within the upper-class Roman familia , it is clear that procurator ranked very near the top. That being said, skill of administration seems to have played less of a role in the selection process than one might suppose, accessibility to and contact with a master being a more important motivation. Additionally, the legal relationship and obligations that existed between every former master and slave would have, to some degree, imbued the libertus procurator with a certain enhanced authority. Pre-existing internal social dynamics between the two also meant that the arrangement was, in some ways, capable of more flexibility than one made between coequals. What seems to occur, then, in the first three centuries of the Empire, is that the procurator libertus in Italy coheres into a much more professionalized and often permanent position, one which is situated much more definitively within the familia , and one which seems to have been more attractive.

44 cf. Schäfer 1998: 198-201.

1.4 Definitions of the Procurator and the Procurator Libertus

It is perhaps best to start by more comprehensively defining the Roman procurator in legal and historical terms, since this will also help to account for some of the apparent social disparity in the evidence and better place the procurator libertus of the Imperial period in its proper social and traditional context. The term procurator appears in a non-technical sense as early as Plautus.

In the Pseudolus , the eponymous slave describes himself as a procurator , which causes his interlocutor Harpax some bemusement. 45 Harpax’s confusion aside, it was certainly an essential precondition that the procurator be free or freed if he were to represent his principal in initiating any legal matters. But the notion that the procurator might be recruited from among a principal’s household also seems to be quite an old one. Some scholars, most notably Watson and Serrao, have suggested that the institution actually originally developed through recruitment from among freedmen at a relatively early period in Roman history, perhaps from the mid-Republic,46 though

Verboven has disputed this interpretation. 47 The former suggest the procurator’s historical origins should be placed securely within the framework of the familia , that its legal capacity develops to facilitate an older social arrangement, and, further, that this fact helps to explain the scope of its authority. 48 In following this model of institutional evolution, it already becomes less remarkable that we continue to see freedmen occupying such a position in the Empire. At any rate, if the procuratorship did originate as a sort of estate management position within the familia , it

45 Plautus, Pseudolus , 608-610: PS : Condus promus sum, procurator peni. // HA: Quasi te dicas atriensem. / PS: Immo atriensi ego impero. // HA: Quid tu, servosne es an liber? / PS: Nunc quidem etiam servio ; “PS: I am the provisioner and the distributor, the procurator of food stores. HA: You’re saying you’re like the steward, then? PS: Ha! I boss that guy around. HA: What are you, are you slave or free? PS: Well, at this exact moment I am a slave.” 46 Serrao 1947: 3-9; Watson 1961b: 6-9. 47 Verboven 2002: 239-243. 48 Watson 1961: 52, “… the procurator is a social phenomenon, usually a freedman bound to the house of his master, and this accounts for his wide powers.”

18 subsequently acquired more sophisticated aspects of legal representation. It seems that the procurator could acquire possession for the principal at an earlier date than those subject to other forms of “agency”, specifically the mandatarius , who never really fully obtains this legal capacity. 49

It is in the last century of the Republic, though, when the procuratorship first emerges much more clearly as a legal office, with Cicero providing by far the most evidence of its use and by which time any free person could undertake it. He provides the earliest general definition of the function of procuratio in his pro Caecina : “…is qui legitime procurator dicitur, omnium rerum eius qui in Italia non sit absitve rei publicae causa quasi quidam paene dominus, hoc est alieni iuris vicarius... ”50 Cicero likely placed his geographic emphasis on Italy specifically to elevate the traditional agricultural role of the procurator in the context of a forensic speech revolving around ownership of an Italian farm. In fact, it seems that by the first century BCE most procurators were engaged in business outside of Italy on behalf of their principals, regardless of their social status.

This is especially true of the few freed procurators who appear in Cicero’s works. As Fabre observes, “ces procuratèles d’affranchis devaient jouer avant tout dans les provinces…”, though he concedes that there were probably a number of freedmen who continued to be active in Italy as agricultural procurators in the first century BCE. 51 In Cicero’s correspondence, especially in his letters of recommendation, we see several allusions to freedmen procurators active in the provinces, in places like Sicily, Asia and Achaea, 52 but rarely does he provide any examples of their activities within Italy. Of course, this is not to say that there were no instances of procurators active in Italy during the late Republic at all. In many ways, the procuratorship probably never

49 Watson 1961: 9. 50 Cic. Caec . 20, 57; cf. Klinck 2007: 27-28. 51 Fabre 1981: 351. 52 Cic. ad Fam . XIII, 33; ad Fam . XIII, 72; ad Fam . XIII, 21; ad Fam . XIII, 27.

19 really loses the fundamental property management associations it possessed originally, especially in Italy and it is, indeed, exclusively in such an agricultural capacity that they are mentioned. In a letter to Atticus, Cicero alludes to his own vilici , slave overseers, and procuratores (almost certainly also his liberti ) on his properties around the Bay of Naples. 53 As mentioned already, the geographic sphere of activity is another area where we see a stark change in the evidence between the Republican and Imperial periods. In the latter, such appointments largely occur in Italy and generally appear to be longer-term engagements. However, even in the Republican period, it is difficult to imagine that freedmen procuratorial appointments possessed such a temporary character, above all since the impression from certain Ciceronian passages is that the liberti mentioned were mostly active in a certain place exclusively for indefinite periods of time. 54

In the juristic sources, the procurator is treated fairly extensively, though its treatment is complicated by the fact that the term is most frequently used in the Digest as shorthand to designate a procurator ad litem , specifically a representative who brings a suit. It is additionally often difficult, especially in dealing with procuratores , to figure out which Digest passages are later

Justinianic interpolations and which concern Classical definitions of the office. In the early and mid-twentieth century there developed considerable debate among Roman legal scholars concerning the juridical nature of the legal term procuratio as it applies to private business arrangements; specifically whether the distinction between mandatum and procuratio and between the different types of procuratio , the procurator omnium rerum , procurator unius rei , and procurator ad litem , were made in the Classical or Justinianic periods. 55 A passage of Ulpian where he offers a general definition provides a good example of the source of some of the confusion. He

53 Cic. ad Att . XIV, 16: “… cum Piliae nostrae villam ad Lucrinum, vilicos, procuratores tradissem .” 54 Cic. ad Fam . XIII, 21 and ad Fam . XIII, 27 treat the freed procurator C. Avianus Hammonius, who seems to have been a permanent caretaker of his patron’s house at Sicyon. cf. Fabre 1981: 352. 55 Serrao 1947; Watson 1961a; Watson 1961b.

20 states that “ procuratorem eum accipere debemus, cui mandatum est, sive huius rei tantum mandatum susceperit sive etiam universorum bonorum .” 56 By “ procurator universorum bonorum ” it seems clear that Ulpian intends the procuratores omnium rerum , despite the fact that the latter did not receive mandata . This debate is less relevant for the purposes of examining freedmen procurators, since it seems to be the case that in every detailed historical example from the

Classical period they all functioned as procuratores omnium rerum .

A fairly strong distinction should also be made at this point between private freedmen procurators and freedmen of the familia Caesaris who also hold the titles of procuratores . While there are a number of freed Imperial slaves who appear as procurators in the historical record in various areas of the Roman world, their administrative function and capacity for action was quite different from their private counterparts. Their employment, which seems to have been primarily

(though not exclusively) in the agricultural sector, was typically characterized by the supervision of Imperial holdings in a certain region and of a fairly large number of lower-level imperial officials, other members of the emperor’s familia , acting as their staff. 57 Alternatively, they might also be effectively administrative “heads of departments” within the Imperial bureaucracy. 58 Not only were they engaged in administrative duties that were very different from other procuratores , but the relationship with their nominal principal and patron, namely the emperor, was very much different from the less mediated relationships most other procurators had with their own principals and patrons. At any rate, it is assuredly clear that the procurator existed in the Roman world from

56 Ulp. Dig . XLVI, 7, 3, 2. 57 On this difference, see further below in Chapter 2; cf. Carlsen 1995: 162-165. 58 Weaver 1972: 267: “The freedmen procurators are found not only in the administration of the emperor’s estates, villas, and other property in Italy and elsewhere throughout the empire, but also in the smaller departments at Rome as well as the main administrative centres in the provinces… The procuratorial posts on the other hand, whether carrying the responsibilities of sole or auxiliary head of a department, or whether exercised in a minor Imperial villa or a major province, make up the normal senior freedman career.”; cf. Boulvert 1970: 387; Boulvert 1974: 127-149; cf. Eck 2000: 238-265.

21 a very early date and that the institution was fundamentally a form of agency heavily reliant on the status of the individuals involved, and further that it likely developed from the agency provided by freed slaves for their former masters. Despite the large numbers of socially equivalent procurators in Cicero, there was unquestionably a status distinction traditionally inherent in the institution of procuratio . These historical developments and legal definitions help to establish what the procuratorship was and how it originated but do not fully explain why freedmen seem to have been preferred for this post during the Principate. The qualities necessary for this sort of representation were easily coupled with a patron’s existing social and legal ties with freedmen. While I will explore this point further in the first two chapters, it is worth briefly highlighting how some of these ties relate to procuratores liberti .

1.5 The Dynamic of the Familia and the Use of Procuratores Liberti

A number of scholars have pointed to social and ideological motivations as a major contributing factor in the general preference for freedmen procurators in the Empire, and this certainly comes across in the evidence from the period. 59 Naturally, a freedman who had held a position of authority in his patron’s household would possess a considerable pre-existing insight into the financial situation and commercial objectives of his former master. Further, a dominus could rely on the abilities and competence of a freed slave, assured by long-term domestic training and proven through years of service while still enslaved. 60 Promotion of a slave to a procuratorship from within the household would clearly have facilitated training in specialized sectors. In addition to this, the

59 Mouritsen 2011: 217; Schäfer 1998: 200. 60 cf. Schäfer 1998: 33: “Zunächst war er jedoch in erster Linie eine soziale Erscheinung, die sich aus dem Bedarf der Senatorenschaft oder auch großer Unternehmer aus dem Ritterstand ergab, welche für die Verwaltung ihrer Güter meist entsprechend kompetente Freigelassene heranzogen.”

22 unique jurisprudential and social relationship the freed slave enjoyed with his patron also imbued the procurator libertus with a particular authority and legitimacy that others less directly associated with the household did not possess. The institutions of operae and obsequium , which governed the interactions of the manumitted slave with his dominus , would also have reinforced the former’s position as procurator. 61

While he does not explicitly include procuratio , Paulus states that a freedman who refused to manage the property of his patron could be considered to breach obsequium and be labeled ingratus .62 Along these same lines, there has been some debate concerning whether or not a freedman was obligated to assume a procuratorship on request of his patron, which has been confused by the use of the terms “ voluntarius procurator ” and “ invitus procurator ”. These distinct categories may either be post-classical or the “ voluntarius procurator ” could refer to someone who acted as a procurator without receiving any express appointment or instruction. 63 A passage of

Ulpian would appear to suggest that freedmen were obliged to act as their patrons’ representatives, though it is not entirely clear whether he means this to apply exclusively in a courtroom environment. 64 It seems that a procurator who refused to defend his patron in court without just cause could potentially be stripped of his right to bring suit himself. 65 It is clear that, under such circumstances, the procurator was obligated under law to render accounts to their principals based

61 Schäfer 1998: 200. 62 Paul. Dig . XXXVII, 14, 19: Ingratus libertus est, qui patrono obsequium non praestat vel res eius filiorumve tutelam administrare detractat ; “An ungrateful freedman is one who does not provide obsequium to his patron or who refuses to administer the affairs of his patron or the guardianship of his patron’s children.” 63 cf. Fabre 1981: 350; Buckland 1908: 709. 64 Ulp. Dig . III, 3, 35, pr.: Sed et hae personae procuratorum debebunt defendere, quibus sine mandatu agere licet: ut puta liberi, licet sint in potestate, item parentes et fratres et adfines et liberti ; “But the following persons, for whom it is permitted to act as a legal representative without mandate, acting as procurators will be obligated to defend (their principals): that is to say, children, so long as they are under authority, and similarly relatives and brothers and neighbours and freedmen.” 65 Paul. Dig . III, 3, 43, 4: Poena non defendentis procuratoris haec est, ut denegetur ei actio ; “The punishment for a procurator who does not defend (his principal) is that the right of action is denied to him.”

23 on good faith. 66 Nonetheless, the legal structures that bound the freedman to his patron would likely have inspired greater confidence that the transactions they undertook as procurators would be ratified by their principal.

So operae and obsequium , as well as the generic social and institutional ties that bound freedmen to their patrons, helped to support the exploitation of procuratorships of liberti as a major form of economic agency for them, particularly in the early Empire. In manufacturing, where the simple use of operae and the arrangement of interconnected freedmen workforces were usually sufficient to bind the product of freedman labour to their patron, procurationes were not really necessary. In other economic sectors, however, the procuratorship could serve to enhance economic links when it was bolstered by other legal and relational qualities that the freedman possessed. It is not my intention to overstate the general importance of procurationes for freedmen- patron relationships in Roman Italy. As a legally complex institution, it deserved some detailed introductory explanation. Its employment, like other methods of patronal control, was wholly dependent on how applicable it was to individual circumstances. The commercial concerns of patrons and freedmen and their economic connections varied greatly even within similar occupational categories. Merely, I wish to point out how the procuratorship functioned as a mechanism, one among many, for former masters to continue to exploit the experience and productive capacity of their freedmen as a potential source of labour. As we shall see, there were a wide variety of additional organizational, legal, and social strategies that patrons deployed in different commercial contexts to achieve this aim as well.

66 Gaius Dig . III, 3, 46, 4: Procurator ut in ceteris quoque negotiis gerendis, ita et in litibus ex bona fide rationem reddere debet ; “The procurator ought to give a rendering of accounts in good faith in judicial affairs just as he ought to also do in other types of business.”

Chapter 2

Freedmen and Domestic Occupations

2.1 The familia urbana and their proximity to the dominus

It has long been held that slaves originating in the familia urbana could expect the best opportunities, not simply for manumission, but also, ultimately, for professional advancement. The urban slave, by simple proximity to their master, benefitted from recognition, from the fundamental fact that they could rely on a “dépendence vécue et acceptée, fait de subordination totale et de quasi-intimité à travers un système d’étiquette”. 67 Such an intimate dependence may have assured loyalty to a certain degree while still a slave, but suggestions that this familiar relationship, in and of itself, was the exclusive overriding motivator for Roman slave owners to make economic decisions related to manumission and the extent to which this had an impact on freedman economic should be approached cautiously. It’s difficult to argue that slaves who had greater contact on a personal basis with their masters could not anticipate that this might potentially be repaid in the form of both manumission and, potentially, future employment as recognition of their abilities. Indeed, Gaius – perhaps unintentionally – recognizes precisely this sort of domestic preference in the Digest when speaking generally of manumission. In his citing of examples of hypothetical slave occupations named in testamentary manumission, all are not just within the urban household, but are also those with daily contact with their masters. 68 In what seems to be the only complete Roman will preserved in a public inscription, the so-called Testamentum

67 Veyne 1961: 215-216. 68 Gaius Dig. XL, 4, 25, “ Nominatim videntur liberi esse iussi, qui vel ex artificio vel officio vel quolibet alio modo evidenter denotati essent, veluti, “dispensator meus”, “cellarius meus”, “cocus meus”, aut “Pamphili servi mei filius”.

24 25

Dasumii , the majority of slaves testamentarily manumitted are remarkable for their professional propinquity, including two secretaries, a cook, a chamberlain, a personal dresser, and – perhaps the most intimately of all – a dropacator .69

That a master might naturally feel a particular affinity for those slaves with whom they had the greatest personal and professional contact should not really be that surprising. Demonstrating just how indispensable close professional contact might be, Pliny the Elder described his domestic staff just as though his servi were extensions of his own body by saying, “ alienis pedibus ambulamus, alienis oculis agnoscimus, aliena memoria salutamus… ”. 70 It is almost certain that manumission rates were higher for urban and personal slaves. 71 For all of the frequent elite posturing about active and conscientious farm management, there is little doubt that disjunction and disassociation from the subtleties of the rural setting is in part to blame for this. Reliance on others, not simply to act as the most expeditious commercial and authoritative representatives, but also as administrative evaluators of individual capability and merit, would frequently have placed an unbridgeable distance between slave owners and the field slaves they owned. In most cases, there would necessarily be less of a sense of how things were occurring on a day-to-day basis in individual agricultural settings, of which slaves were distinguishing themselves, on the part of the master.

Generally speaking, slaves who were in direct contact with their master were perhaps more likely to eventually be freed by the same masters, whether we base such assertions on a careful assessment of the evidence or on simple common sense. What is perhaps more debatable are the particular qualities displayed because of which urban slaves might expect their manumission or

69 CIL VI 10229; for more on this inscription, see page 28. 70 Pliny NH XXIX, 8, 19; on this, cf. Blake 2013. 71 Harper 1972: 341-342; Alföldy 1986: 305-307; Mouritsen 2011: 131 outlines distortion of manumission figures by differences in urban and rural epigraphic trends.

26 what motivations, either personal or economic, stimulated their master to free them. Certainly “the personal demonstration of loyalty and obedience over the years” 72 had some effect on slave prospects. A master’s direct observation of faithfulness may well be, in and of itself, sufficient to resolve the discrepancy between urban and rural manumission. 73 Such an acknowledgement of loyalty was not unobserved by masters, but one of the more frequently cited passages in support of this idea is Cicero’s suggestions for whom Terentia might free in his absence. He writes:

De familia liberanda nihil est quod te moveat: primum tuis ita promissum est, te

facturam esse, ut quisque esset meritus; est autem in officio adhuc Orpheus,

praeterea magno opere nemo; ceterorum servorum ea causa est, ut, si res a nobis

abisset, liberti nostri essent, si obtinere potuissent, sin ad nos pertineret, servirent

praeterquam oppido pauci .74

Shackleton-Bailey chose to translate “est… in officio ” as simply “is loyal”, 75 as though the quality that made Orpheus, a slave of his wife’s, outstanding to Cicero was his faithful temperament alone. As minor points of translation go, it may be a small one, but should we not better translate that particular clause as “Orpheus, though, is so far dutiful” or “is up until now consistent in his service”? Likewise, we’ve already seen Suetonius’ Lenaeus, a grammarian and freedman of Pompey, whose status as a runaway ought to have proven his disloyal and seditious

72 Bradley 1984: 83. 73 On the role of fides in consideration of manumission, see also Wiedemann 1985: 162-175; more generally, Bradley 1984: 33-39; and there is a fairly thorough collection of literary examples in Vogt 1975: 129. 74 Cic. Ad Fam . 14, 4: “Concerning the freeing of the slaves, it is no use that you get worked up. First, the promise made to yours was that you would treat them as each deserved. So far Orpheus, has been dutiful, but no one else besides him notably. With the rest of the slaves, if my property should be forfeited, let them be freedmen, if they are able to obtain that under law, or if my property remains mine, let them remain slaves except for very few.” 75 Translation from Shackleton-Bailey ( Loeb Classical Library ); cf. Mouritsen 2011: 138.

27 character to his master. Despite this, he was manumitted by Pompey “ ob ingenium atque doctrinam gratis ”. 76 Though it invites some skepticism, the emphasis of Suetonius’ anecdote would nonetheless seem to be on a reliable utility and productiveness, rather than simply a devoted and compliant personality. This is, of course, not an assertion that Roman masters did not take into consideration the personality of the slave in making the decision to liberate; it’s simply worth bearing in mind that the way a slave effectively demonstrated their loyalty was necessarily as a function of their economic productivity.

As such, it should also be noted that this proximity, the constant scrutiny of a household slave’s dutifulness and efficiency, could of course also have negative consequences for a domestic slave that would not necessarily exist for any other type of slave. These particular servi would equally be more subject to “personal inclination at work on the master’s part, to the disadvantage of the slave” 77 ; if they incurred the anger or displeasure of a dominus , they might be all the more likely to suffer targeted consequences. Naturally, every slave was subject to physical punishment, regardless of their position within the household, but domestic slaves would have been most likely to be subjected to penalties of a different character – relegation to harsher jobs, separation of slave families, and also specified interdictions against manumission, as examples. Seneca pityingly acknowledges the destructive psychological effects of reassigning an urban slave to harsher work in the fields. 78 In the Digest , Paulus makes it fairly clear that prohibitions against manumission of specific slaves, either as conditions of sale or as instructions in wills, were viewed as completely

76 Suet. Gram . 15: Traditur autem puer adhuc Athenis subreptus, refugisse in patriam, perceptisque liberalibus disciplinis, pretium suum domino retulisse, verum ob ingenium atque doctrinam gratis manumissus. 77 Bradley 1984: 97. 78 Sen. De Ira III, 29, 1: Turpe est odisse quem laudes; quanto uero turpius ob id aliquem odisse propter quod misericordia dignus est, si captiuus in seruitutem subito depressus reliquias libertatis tenet nec ad sordida ac laboriosa ministeria agilis occurrit, si ex otio piger equum uehiculumque domini cursu non exaequat, si inter cotidiana peruigilia fessum somnus oppressit, si rusticum laborem recusat aut non fortiter obiit a seruitute urbana et feriata translatus ad durum opus!

28 legitimate in Roman law. 79 Pomponius also mentions the testamentary practice of stating that a slave’s death was a pre-condition for their freedom, saying, “I know that many people, wishing to bring it about that their slaves may never receive liberty, are accustomed to write the following:

“Let Stichus be free when he dies”. 80 Both Pomponius and Julianus saw this as a particularly transparent intention to impede, rather than grant freedom. Indeed, the Testamentum Dasumii seems to contain just such a prohibition for two particular slaves. The will instructs the heir never to manumit two specific slaves, Menecrates and Paedaros, because of their relationship with their deceased master. 81 While their occupations are not mentioned, it’s reasonable to conclude that such animus would only arise if they had some sort of regularized contact with their dominus .

Generally speaking, though, membership in the familia urbana provided rosier prospects for Roman slaves in most instances. The Testamentum Dasumii also mentions a number of specific slaves to be manumitted, nearly all of whom have occupations placing them clearly within the sphere of the urban household. 82 In some cases, the instructions go beyond basic individual grants of freedom and even include the freeing of the “families” of the slaves in question. 83 This also points to a greater freedom of association, a broader latitude of movement, and other social allowances granted to familiar household slaves. In many circumstances, a license to mingle freely

79 Paul. Dig . XL, 1, 9: Servus hac lege venditus, ne manumittatur, vel testamento prohibitus manumitti, vel a praefecto vel a praeside prohibitus ob aliquod delictum manumitti ad libertatem perduci non potest. 80 Pompon. Dig . XL, 4, 61: Scio quosdam efficere volentes, ne servi sui umquam ad libertatem perveniant, hactenus scribere solitos: "Stichus cum moreretur, liber esto". Sed et Iulianus ait libertatem, quae in ultimum vitae tempus conferatur, nullius momenti esse, cum testator impediendae magis quam dandae libertatis gratia ita scripsisse intellegitur . 81 CIL VI 10229, ln. 80-82; cf. FIRA III, 148, 80-82: … Menecraten et Paedaro[tem rogo ne manumittas, sed in eodem o]pere illos habeas donec vi[vent, quo habui ego… quoniam n]ullo merito meo tam valde [offenderunt…] ; cf. Eck 1978: 277-295; Champlin 1991: 37-39; Tate 2005: 166-171. 82 CIL VI 10229; the piscatores Arrus and Venegus (ln. 36) and possibly the cursor and actor Encolpius (ln. 86) seem to be the only slaves whose domestic connections are ambiguous. 83 As in ln. 41, “ …cum cont[ubernalibus…] ”; more on this specific passage below.

29 with both their conservi and even people outside their household would actually have been an occupational imperative.

In other, additional ways, the nature of these domestic occupations themselves suggests a greater likelihood for liberti from this background to engage in particular commercial pursuits. For many slaves originating in the familia urbana , the post-manumission economic opportunities provided by the nature of their specialized training would have been apparent and manifold.

Positions like those of scribes, secretaries, and dispensatores , did not simply presume numeracy and literacy, but actually demanded a high degree of proficiency in these areas. 84 In these cases, the transferability of skills is fairly evident. It’s not as clear, though, how this might transfer to other specialized occupations within the household. From the perspective of a freed slave, what professional options existed for someone who had spent most of their lives as a cook, a child- minder, an atriensis , or a cubicularius ?

2.2 The Familia Urbana and Manumission

There are two issues which should be made clear before proceeding, though. First, an occupational epigraphic approach obscures the role that enslaved women and children played in the domestic household. Studies of columbaria and individual households have determined that the ratio of male to female domestic slaves favoured males probably in the range of 2:1. 85 In

84 Cic. Rep . V, 3, 5: emphasizes the need for dispensatores to be educated for rhetorical effect: … ergo, ut vilicus naturam agri novit, dispensator litteras scit, uterque autem se a scientiae delectatione ad efficiendi utilitatem refert, sic noster hic rector studuerit sane iuri et legibus cognoscendis …; “…and so, just as the overseer knows the nature of the field, and the dispensator is educated, and each applies himself to a pragmatic usefulness rather than just the pleasure of the knowledge, so, undoubtedly, should our political leader take pains to know the legal system and legislation…”; cf. Purcell 1983: 142-145. 85 Treggiari 1975a: 395; Hasegawa 2005: 65.

30 addition to this, even though enslaved women were most likely to have an occupational title within the household than anywhere else, 86 the instances of title-bearing ancillae and libertae are low proportionate to their likely overall number. We do see women memorialized with occupational titles in more prestigious “female” domestic roles, particularly as nutrices , but rarely in other positions with more technical designations, especially those involving literacy and numeracy. 87

This may in part be due to a general reluctance on the part of Roman slave-owners to train women in certain specialized domestic tasks. 88 Childbearing and nursing have been cited as a reason for a lack of investment in specialized training of women in the antebellum American South. 89 Though they were often employed as field-labour on North American and Caribbean plantations, when women did have more specialized roles, these often centred around the supervision of children engaged in lighter tasks 90 or generalized domestic responsibilities that were considered unskilled by their masters. 91 This is probably broadly similar to the sort of work that domestic enslaved women in the Roman world would have been engaged in and it would probably not be have been specifically named in the epitaphs. More than anything, though, the gendered attitudes of Roman slave-owners probably led to a lack of specification and undervaluation of female domestic labour 92 and these attitudes were reflected in the funerary epigraphy.

The second issue is that this sort of occupational examination necessarily only applies to senatorial and upper-class households, where the structure of employment within the urban

86 Joshel 1992: 98. 87 In general, Treggiari 1976: esp. 77: “Not for women are jobs for stewards, cashiers or accountants”, though she does note that sometimes “women occur on the lower, clerical levels, as librariae and a manu or amenuenses ”; Hapate, a notaria Graeca mentioned in CIL VI 33892 and discussed below, provides such a rare instance; an interesting gender distinction also appears among pedisequi/pedisequae , the majority of whom seem to be women; more on this below. 88 The major exception here is domestic textile work done by female slaves, which had a significant economic impact, but would not always lead to an occupational title; Treggiari 1976: 81-82; cf. Harper 2011: 131-143. 89 Jones 1982: 243; cf. Wood 2010: 514-515. 90 Rosenthal 2018: 34; for comparable situations in the Roman context, Laes 2008: 246-248. 91 Wood 2010: 515. 92 Perry 2013: 44.

31 household was more complex and where a distinction between urban and rural household could actually be made. The extensive specialization in domestic tasks occurred really only among elite households, exclusively where both the expense of keeping a large familia could be sustained and where scale might create a greater expediency for more concentrated forms of labour. It is also worth bearing in mind that specialization in equestrian and senatorial households, particularly in a domestic context, would have had a function that went beyond purely economic concerns. This professional variety and diffusion probably served an important elite social function, as well, by demonstrating the wealth and status of the household in question. It is almost certainly accurate to propose that “rank, wealth,” and “family connections” all served to dictate the “numbers of slaves and the variety of their functions”. 93

Mouritsen is partly correct in suggesting that “the notion of ‘profitable’ manumission would have been out of tune with the ideology of the Roman elite, for whom the ability to make generous gestures with little concern for the economic consequences was a reflection of wealth and status,” though it probably goes too far to suggest that this necessarily means that “the long- term sustainability of household was unlikely to have been a major concern for the elite”. 94 It is of course true that wealthy domini were in better a position to manumit freely, yet this does not necessarily translate to a normal habit of ignoring the stability of their servile workforce. It is also worth considering whether public reception of such “generous gestures” by the wealthy towards their own slaves – both by their peers and the general population – would have been so uniformly affirmative as to substantively shape regular decision-making. Many individual “unprofitable”

93 Treggiari 1975b: 48. 94 Mouritsen 2011: 196.

32 manumissions, if we can call them that, were probably motivated more by personal affection and esteem for the slave, rather than a demonstration of status.

Nonetheless, there are certainly numerous literary illustrations of the arbitrariness of privileged Roman domini , particularly with an eye to domestic slaves, but these are often either presented as exceptional examples or contained within patently moralizing digressions. As an example, the prosecutors of Apuleius pointed to his manumitting three slaves at the same time as a sign of his “ opulentia ”. 95 The context of the passage seems to suggest that these slaves, who were accompanying him on a trip to Oea, were likely to have been his personal attendants. Similarly,

Dionysius of Halicarnassus speaks incidentally of slaves freed because of their owners’ frivolousness and vain desire for fame 96 and goes on to describe the calculated use of undeserving, posthumously-manumitted liberti in funeral processions. It is questionable, though, how much credence should be given to the regularized practice of his various claims, not least because he makes them in the midst of a pretty censorious exegetic digression on the practice of manumission, itself. Of course, Dionysius, speaking in general terms, does not specify domestic origins for these particular slaves, but those who were readily at hand would be most apt to benefit from a master’s

“κουφότης”. Precisely this sort of ostentatious flippancy towards grants of freedom is displayed by Trimalchio and other characters, expressly within the household, in the Satyrica , with very little question of what, satirically, it is meant to represent. 97

95 Apul. Apol . 17, 5: Ne illud quidem credibile fuisset, cum tribus uenisse, omnes liberasse. Quod tamen si ita fecissem, cur potius tris seruos inopiae signum putares quam tris libertos opulentiae? 96 Dion. Ant. Rom . IV, 24, 5-6: … οἱ δὲ διὰ κουφότητα τῶν δεσποτῶν καὶ κενὴν δοξοκοπίαν… 97 Petr. Sat . 54: In vicem enim poenae venit decretumTrimalchionis, quo puerum iussit liberum esse, ne quis posset dicere, tantum virum esse a servo vulneratum ; cf. Satyr ., 30, where a dispensator cavalierly gives his slave to Encolpius (presumably to be freed); Roth 2016 provides an excellent and comprehensive analysis of manumission in the Cena , though she does not mention this more ambiguous “manumission”; cf. Andreau 2009: 121.

But the burlesque whims and pretensions of Trimalchio are perhaps not the best measure of conventional Roman household management. 98 In many ways, there are clear signs of rational economic decisions at play in the management and manumission of domestic slaves from an extensive range of different skill levels and vocational fields. Though the sample size for evidence of privately-freed domestic slaves is actually relatively small, there are certainly discernable trends in the employment and commercial activities of liberti familiae urbanae . Among the domestic group, these activities appear most noticeably as the promotion of freedmen to administrative positions within the existing structure of the household, the commercial representation of their patrons, and continued, homologous employment on the periphery of the familia . This last is particularly true of freedmen like coqui and ornatrices , whose narrow but highly-involved skill set may have been somewhat limiting. For the most part, though, and to a far greater extent than other freedman groups, the commercial actions of domestic freedmen seem to have been distinguished by the maintenance of proximity either to their former masters or to other members of the familia urbana .

The logic underpinning this broad characterization seems fairly clear. In the first place, the importance and centrality of the familia urbana as a social unit and as a notional community for domestic servi is evident in both epigraphic and literary sources. Yet it was not simply that they would mostly have had social interactions with other conservi , but also that for household slaves, more than for any other slaves, the focus of production was concentrated on the dominus . Though the foppish, Trimalchionesque Calvisius Sabinus described by Seneca is intended as a bit of an epistemological patsy, there is probably a hint of the genuine attitudes of some masters towards their household slaves in his account. Commenting on Sabinus’ use of comprehensively educated

98 Bodel 1984: passim , but esp. 237-238.

34 literary slaves to impress his dinner guests, Seneca writes, “ cum dixisset Sabinus centenis millibus sibi constare singulos servos, ‘minoris’ [Satellius Quadratus] inquit ‘totidem scrinia emisses’. Ille tamen in ea opinione erat ut putaret se scire quod quisquam in domo sua sciret ”. 99

Notwithstanding Seneca’s general disapprobation, Sabinus’ view “that anything his slaves knew, he knew by extension”, should probably not just be dismissed as simple arrogance. The idea of the master, themselves, as the ultimate locus of the productive output of the household, whether that production was material or intellectual, was doubtless one often shared by master and slave alike.

It follows that the post-manumission extension of this economic perspective would typically be a continued professional engagement or relationship with the central household.

Another distinctive quality, specifically of the management of the familia urbana , also helps to explain this general trend. A master had the most unadulterated awareness of the quotidian ingenuity and regular exceptionalism of the familiar slave. If an individual household slave demonstrated exceptional talent or potential, the observant master at-hand would be best positioned to promote or relocate the servus to a different, more serviceable position. This seems to be precisely what happened to L. Voltacilius Plotus, the grammarian and future instructor of

Pompey the Great. Suetonius suggests he originated not just as an ostiarius , but as a chained one, 100 meaning that he had a previous history of resistance to his master. We may be suspicious of

Suetonian hearsay here, but the impression he gives is that Plotus’ literary capabilities were somewhat serendipitously noticed by his master, who then manumitted him and reallocated his

99 Sen. Ep . XXVII, 7: “When Sabinus said that each slave cost him one hundred thousand sesterces, Satellius Quadratus replied, ‘You could have bought as many book-boxes for less.’ The former was nonetheless of the opinion that he himself knew whatever anyone in his household knew.” 100 Suet. Rhet. III: L. Voltacilius Plotus servisse dicitur atque etiam ostiarius vetere more in catena fuisse, donec ob ingenium ac studium litterarum manumissus, accusanti patrono subscripsit. Deinde rhetoricam professus, Cn. Pompeium Magnum docuit… ; “Lucius Voltacilius Plotus is said to have been a slave and even to have been a door- keeper, chained in the old-fashioned way, until, manumitted because of his intelligence and his facility with letters, he prosecuted (or helped to prosecute) his accused patron. Then, having become a teacher of rhetoric, he instructed Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.”; cf. Treggiari 1969b: 264-266 for a somewhat skeptical analysis of Plotus’ biography.

35 talents into legal matters. Of course, even certain slaves could be in positions of authority which allowed them to redistribute and maximize the efficiency of the workforce, but only the dominus had the authority to manumit 101 and only the dominus could institute a representative on their own behalf. Manumission of one slave by another seems to have been entirely impossible. 102 In cases where libertas was a requirement of such an occupational change, where, for example, representation of the patron in court might be necessary, then really only the slave’s owner was in a position to make such a decision and effect it. In all likelihood, it is this more pragmatic consideration, rather than simply “ ob ingenium ac studium litterarum ”, that resulted in Plotus’ being freed. Of course, his natural aptitude was a necessary precondition, but the legal faculties implied in “ accusanti patrono subscripsit ” suggest a competence in court, even if the former ostiarius eventually used his proficiency against his patron. To benefit from his forensic abilities,

Plotus had to be manumitted.

Needless to say, a master did not necessarily have to notice the potential of a domestic slave themselves. In fact, in most instances it would probably have been another member of the familia urbana , someone in a position of domestic management, for instance, who drew their attention to a particularly promising or skillful slave. Of course, this specific sort of promotion to representational status would have been of limited quantitative consequence when considered in the context of universal trends of manumission and, indeed, even in the context of domestic manumission on the whole. Nonetheless, the appointment of freedmen as representatives, especially long-term ones, was not something that Roman patrons generally did injudiciously and

101 The validity of manumission by representative is a bit of a grey area in Roman slave law. Manumission may have been legally possible if it were explicitly authorized by the master beforehand and carried out by a third party qua nuntius ; cf. Buckland 1908: 457-458. 102 Modest. Dig . XL, 9, 19: “ Nulla competit libertas data ab eo, qui postea servus ipse pronuntiatus est ”, although whether Modestinus has in mind a specific set of fraudulent circumstances or is stating a general rule is not clear.

36 without solicitude. Thus, the fact that the urban household was probably a significant fountainhead of potential commercial, legal, and administrative representatives is another reason why the notion that even aristocratic masters were entirely economically and administratively disinterested in the repercussions of the manumission of domestic staff should perhaps be qualified. In this and the subsequent chapter I will show that, in the epigraphic record, only domestic liberti , and, exclusively, only those from particular occupational backgrounds, seem to have been appointed as rural procuratores . That individuals with a specifically domestic professional experience seem to have been predominantly chosen for a rural post involving land and legal management is not insignificant as a marker of the degree of consideration given to administrative arrangements, even, apparently, among some of the loftiest consular familiae .103

2.3 What Happened to Liberti Domestici after Manumission?

Without a doubt, certain highly-specialized, less versatile domestic positions – in particular posts like those of pedisequi , cooks, housekeepers, or personal servants – give the impression that these sorts of “ libertini were not well qualified for work outside the household where they had worked as slaves” 104 and so, consequently, would presumably remain employed in their old servile professions even after manumission. On the face of it, it seems quite sensible to suggest that the qualities of many of these positions would have meant that their skill sets would be less adaptable to a variety of economic possibilities and that “a tailor-made position in the patron’s household or business must have been hard to refuse”. 105 It should be determined a bit more precisely, though,

103 See below, for example, the case of Aemilius Pudens, page 80, or the Roscii, page 125. 104 Treggiari 1969c: 143. 105 Treggiari 1969c: 87.

37 what conditions, restrictions, and conventions existed for both masters and freed slaves in such an arrangement and whether, in fact, we can categorically say that such an arrangement was indeed the norm. Liberti domestici were, legally at least, under no obligation beyond those normal constraints of the freedman-patron relationship. There would seem to be little to prevent the freed tonsor from striking out on his own, setting up his stool on a busy Ostian street and attracting private customers from the crowds, particularly since most others in his trade probably also worked without shops. 106

In many cases domestici who were manumitted may well have remained more or less professionally fixed in their patron’s house, though such circumstances are very difficult to confirm in the epigraphic record. Besides the documentation of continued relationships with colliberti and servi from among their familia , their use of familial columbaria , and reference to their patrons – all of which might occur whether or not such liberti continued to work within the household – there are no real explicit indicators of prolonged domestic employment among the inscriptions. Continued association with former members of their household, if not a categorical assertion of collaborative economic activity, is nevertheless an indisputable indication that fairly close social ties remained. This is not nothing, since these contacts evidently carried with them considerable importance for the parties involved, even if they do not always make clear continued professional activity within the household. That the freed a manu Titus Statilius Optatus and the still-enslaved dispensator Iucundus share a niche in the columbarium of the Statilii may simply indicate a close friendship that endured when one’s status changed, but the urban familia and its members would undeniably appear to have a fairly conspicuous centrality for Optatus. 107

106 Toner 2015: 94. 107 CIL VI 6273; for further on this inscription, see page 63.

Be these impressions as they may, the inscriptions, in and of themselves, do not really provide any incontrovertible evidence of a consistent trend of continued freedmen employment inside the household. This does not in any way refute the assertion that this happened quite regularly. To be sure, literary sources make it clear that it was in no way unusual for living arrangements to remain fairly unchanged for particular freedmen. Rights of habitation extended, significantly, not just to a spouse’s slaves, but also to their freedmen. 108 Ulpian may well have domestic freedmen in mind when he explicitly says that anyone, regardless of status, can cohabit if they are employed “in the place of slaves”. 109 The question of whether or not rents were collected from freedmen is less clear, but Ulpian, quoting Proculus, suggests that they could not be considered tenants, in a legal sense at least, if they also continued to work and live in the same house as their patron. 110 Another passage implies that patrons providing free lodgings for freedmen was common enough that it was worth establishing that the former were liable for waste dumped from windows. 111 Pliny the Younger, in giving Gallus an epistolary tour of his Laurentine estate,

108 Ulp. Dig. VII, 8, 2, 1: Domus usus relictus est aut marito aut mulieri: si marito, potest illic habitare non solus, verum cum familia quoque sua. An et cum libertis, fuit quaestionis, et Celsus scripsit, et cum libertis… ; “The use of a house is left to the husband or the wife: If a husband, he can live there not just by himself, but also with his slaves. But the question arose whether he could do so with freedmen and Celsus wrote that he could…”; Domus usus here refers to the ability to use a house and was similar to usufruct, but with a scope narrowed effectively just to use; cf. Gaius, Dig. VII, 8, 1: Nunc videndum de usu et habitatione. Constitur etiam nudus usus, id est sine fructu: qui et ipse isdem modis constitui solet, quibus et usus fructus; “Now let us look at use and habitation. Even a simple use can be established, that is one without advantages. This is usually established in the same way as usufructs.” 109 Ulp. Dig . VII, 8, 4, pr.: … Quid enim si tam spatiosae domus usus sit relictus homini mediocri, ut portiuncula contentus sit? sed et cum his, quos loco servorum in operis habet, habitabit, licet liberi sint vel servi alieni ; “For what if the use of a large house was left to a man of moderate means, so that he be content with a small portion of it? But even here it is permitted that he can live with those whom he has in his service in the place of slaves, whether they are free or the slaves of others.” 110 Ulp. Dig . VII, 8, 4, pr.: Ceterum sine eo ne hos quidem habitare posse. Proculus autem de inquilino notat non belle inquilinum dici, qui cum eo habitet ; “Otherwise these people [ie. freedmen and clients] are not able to live there without him. Proculus, however, when discussing tenants, notes that they cannot be considered tenants if they live with him in this way.” 111 Ulp. Dig . XI, 3, 5, pr.-1: Si vero plures diviso inter se cenaculo habitent, actio in eum solum datur, qui inhabitabat eam partem, unde effusum est. Si quis gratuitas habitationes dederit libertis et clientibus vel suis vel uxoris, ipsum eorum nomine teneri Trebatius ait: quod verum est ; “If several people live in an apartment divided up among themselves, an action is granted against he alone who inhabits that place from which the pouring occurred. If someone gives free lodgings to freedmen or clients, either their own or those of their wife, then Trebatius says that he himself is liable on their account and this is correct.”

39 indicates that it included designated rooms reserved permanently for both slave and freedmen use.

Notably, these rooms were elegant enough that he had no problem putting free-born guests in them if need arose. 112 Perhaps even more relevant is the fact that Tacitus, when describing the death of

Pedanius Secundus, indicates senatorial anxiety about the freedmen “ qui sub eodem tecto fuissent ” when the murder had been committed. 113 That the question of what to do with them was debated before in Senate suggests that there were more than one freedman being dealt with.

While continued co-habitation within the patron’s household was probably in no way unusual, 114 there is nonetheless no indication in the literary sources as to what commercial or economic functions these manumitted slaves would have fulfilled. It seems unlikely that they would have been simple boarders, living in the administrative core of the familia and yet engaged in their own independent, external commercial activities. It is certainly possible that some freedmen may have resided in their patron’s house and worked autonomously outside of it, but that they might do so indefinitely, with no economic participation in it all, was probably an unusual arrangement. A passage from the Digest hints at the occasional usefulness of having a freedman in the house from a patron’s perspective. In illustrating a point about two patrons simultaneously benefitting from their operae liberti , Gaius describes a freedman librarius who could both write

112 Plin. Ep . II, 17, 9: Reliqua pars lateris huius servorum libertorumque usibus detinetur, plerisque tam mundis, ut accipere hospites possint ; “The remaining part of this wing is reserved for the use of slaves and freedmen and most are so well-equipped that they can receive guests.”. 113 Tac. Ann . XIV, 45: Censuerat Cingonius Varro, ut liberti quoque, qui sub eodem tecto fuissent, Italia deportarentur. Id a principe prohibitum est, ne mos antiquus, quem misericordia non minuerat, per saevitiam intenderetur ; “Cingonius Varro moved that his freedmen, too, who had been under the same roof, should be deported from Italy. This was vetoed by the Emperor, so that an ancient custom, which pity had not diminished, not be further extended due to savageness.”. 114 Mouritsen 2011:149-151, who concedes that “Roman writers rarely discuss where freedmen live” but goes on to provide a number of reasons why “the former slave must have been expected to remain in the household”, including Tacitus’ statement at Ann . 13, 26 that the main remedy against ingrati liberti was to send them away, depriving them, presumably, of cohabitation.

40 books for one patron and look after the household of the other while the latter was away. 115 The extent of domestic administration implied by “custodia domus” is not clear, but presumably Gaius does not simply mean that the freedman was watering his patron’s plants. Because of his legal status, a live-in freedman would be able to manage the house more effectively in the absence of their patron. However, this would also require that they be personally capable of taking that responsibility on, of having a basic knowledge of legal and contractual issues, and of understanding the financial intentions of their patron fairly well. While the advantages and convenience of this sort of assignment are pretty apparent, it would also only explain the one or two freedmen necessary to fulfill such a role and does not help to clarify why many more domestici liberti might continue to live in their patrons’ households.

There is another, fundamental problem in attempting to identify and evaluate domestici based on occupational criteria, one that exists in any case of attempting to assess any servile population based on professional titles. Despite the fact that the household was “the setting in which women were most likely to name their work”, 116 very few women, relative to their probable overall numbers, are identified by occupational titles in the inscriptions. That so many women seem to have unnamed occupations in a domestic context has led some to conclude “that the usual job of a slavewoman was ‘marriage’ ( contubernium ) and childbearing.” 117 This, too, could help to explain why liberti might continue to inhabit their patron’s house. If the functional purpose of a great number of female slaves in the domestic household was exclusively to reproduce and supply

115 Gaius Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 49: Duorum libertus potest aliquo casu singulis diversas operas uno tempore in solidum edere, veluti si librarius sit et alii patrono librorum scribendorum operas edat, alter vero peregre cum suis proficiscens operas custodiae domus ei indixerit: nihil enim vetat, dum custodit domum, libros scribere. Hoc ita Neratius libris membranarum scripsit ; “A freedman who has two patrons can perform different services for each at the same time in some cases, such as if he is a copyist and performs services for one writing books and also fulfils services to the other by looking after his house while he travels with his family; for nothing prevents him, while he is looking after the house, from writing books. Neratius wrote this in his books on the parchments.”. 116 Joshel 1992: 98. 117 Treggiari 1975a: 395.

41 the next generation of vernae , then if their contubernales were manumitted, compassionate and practically-minded masters might allow them to continue to live together. In such circumstances, the mother would obligatorily have to remain enslaved, yet it was far more common, in cases where the legal status of servile couples differed, that the female slave had been freed while the male domestic slave she was partnered with remained in slavery. 118 In a number of cases where the opposite is true, as with the a manu Grapte who was commemorated by her former conservus

C. Egnatius Arogus, 119 the professional value of the female slave is fairly self-evident. Of course, a compassionate master might be disinclined to separate a libertus and liberta who had had vernae while slaves, though they were also under no legal obligation to keep slave families together.

At any rate, it is difficult to imagine that, for a large number of female domesticae , their only responsibility to the household was reproductive and that they fulfilled no economic function beyond this. It should be noted that, in general, occupational titles are far more rarely applied to women than to men. 120 There are a number of factors to account for this imbalance. Naturally, more Roman men than women worked in professions that could be named. This is probably equally true in the context of the familia urbana , but it does not mean that female slaves who lack occupational title were economically unproductive. A vast range of essential domestic tasks are unrepresented in the titles of household slaves. Only four weavers, for instance, are found in a possible domestic context in the entire epigraphic record, three coming from the columbarium of the Statilii, 121 and there are surely a wide variety of other domestic odd jobs that make no

118 For more on this point, specifically in the context of dispensatores , see section 2.6. 119 CIL VI 9540: Dis Manib(us) / Grapte / Egnatiae Ma/ximillae / a manu / coniugi karis/simae C. Egn/atius Arogus ; cf. Haines-Eitzen 1998: 635. 120 For numbers at Rome, see Joshel 1992: 69; she lists a ratio of 1,262:208. 121 CIL VI 6360; CIL VI 6361: [S]alvionis / text(or) ossa / hic sita sunt ; CIL VI 6362: Ossa / Italiae textric(is) ; CIL VI 33371; cf. Jones 1960: 184, who suggests, largely based on this, that there was very little domestic textile production.

42 appearance in the epigraphic record. While male slaves were frequently assigned specific, designated jobs, it doubtless fell to female household slaves to discharge a more diverse assortment of incidental domestic tasks. This may also help to explain why so many servae who do have a named occupation were recorded as pedisequae , an occupation that involved some of the most variable duties of any in the familia urbana .

Before analyzing the inscriptions in detail, though, I should add a brief note on the methodology used. There is a large variety of domestic titles attested in the inscriptions of the Late

Republic and Early Empire, particularly from Rome. In cases where a domestic title had fewer than ten attestations, I have elected, for the most part, to pass over these occupations entirely.

Although these occupational groups may contain individually significant or informative inscriptions, there are few broader conclusions that can be drawn from such small, potentially unrepresentative sample sizes. Where attestations are few, but duties or skill sets are relatively similar, as with a manibus and notarii , I have treated them together. I have also omitted slave actores , since, even if they are sometimes categorized among domestic occupations, they were not necessarily directly tied to the household in the same way as other slaves. Finally, due to the nature of the preservation of the evidence, a large number of epigraphic information on domestic occupations inevitably comes from two sources, the monumenta of the Statilii and the Volusii, and from the former especially. This means, unfortunately, that the household administrative preferences and idiosyncrasies of the Statilii will unavoidably be disproportionately and perhaps inordinately influential on the general conclusions.

2.4 Domestic Occupational Groups in the Inscriptions

Yet, imperfect as it may be, if we turn our attention back to one of the occupational groups in which female slaves predominate, there are altogether thirty-one inscriptions documenting private pedisequi or pedisequae from Italy, making them one of the better-attested domestic professions in the epigraphic record. As with most occupational groups, they are predictably geographically clustered in Rome, with only three inscriptions coming from elsewhere in Italy. 122

Though the office might suggest wide-ranging movement, the necessary focus of it on the master or mistress required a near-constant attendance to them in public.

How loosely the duties of the pedisequi were categorized in practice is not clear, but they probably included a range of responsibilities accompanying their master, publicly and outside of the household, in particular. The area of activity of pedisequi may have been entirely limited to the public sphere, providing general support within a personal retinue while a master or mistress traveled. One columbarium plaque memorializes a pedisequa and an ad impedimenta together. 123

The latter’s function was unquestionably related to her mistress’ travels outside of the domus in a very utilitarian way, but sharing a niche does not necessarily represent any sort of strict professional equivalency. That the nature of their functions was quite broad and diverse is hinted at in a passage of Cornelius Nepos. In it, he describes Atticus’ management of his household,

122 CIL X 1949 (Puteoli): D(is) M(anibus) / M’. Poblici Dionysi, / M’. Poblici Nicerotis pediseq(ui), / bene {e}merenti fecer(unt) / duo fratres, Poblicius Clemens et / Apsyrtus, alumni, / tatae ; “To the Divine Shades of Manius Poblicius Dionysius, attendant of Manius Poblicius Niceros. Two brothers, nurse-mates Poblicius Clemens and Apsytus made this for their well-deserving caregiver.”; CIL XIV 3560 (Tibur): Optatus pedis(equus), Eumachus marma(rarius?). / Lares de sua peq(!)(unia) posuerunt ; “Optatus, attendant, Eumachus, marble-seller (?), placed the Lares from their own money.”; and AE 1933, 153 (Brixellum): D(is) M(anibus) / T. Vibio / Vibiaes(!) lib. / Iusto, / qui vixit an/nos XLVIIII me(n)s(es) / XI, et Camplan(a)e / Afrodite praepo/sitis posuit(!) / Fortio pedise/cus(!) et Chrysostomus pedisecus(!).. .; “To the divine shades of Titus Vibius Iustus, freedman of Vibia, who lived 49 years and 11 months, and to Camplana Aphrodite, (both) praepositii . Fortio and Chrysostomus, attendants, placed this…”; On the last, cf. Niedermann 1933: 363-370. 123 CIL VI 9775: Doris Statiliae Mino[ris] / pediseq(ua) / Erotis ad impediment[a] / vixit an(nis) XXIIII.

44 saying that he ensured that his familia contained “ pueri litteratissimi, anagnostae optimi et plurimi librarii, ut ne pedissequus quidem quisquam esset, qui non utrumque horum pulchre facere posset ”. 124 While Nepos clearly means to convey an exceptional assiduousness on Atticus’ part, there was evidently a certain utility in having servile retainers who were literate and capable of executing a wide variety of tasks associated with their position, or Atticus would not have bothered providing them with such extensive training. More likely, the term pedisequus is something of a catch-all term for a personal assistant, a sort of a private aide, whose duties probably could combine multifarious aspects of those of pages, footmen, messengers, in addition to proficient, wide- ranging gofering. 125 Thus, it makes sense that this title might embrace a more comprehensive demography if its responsibilities were less delimited than others.

Indeed, pedisequi show a broader range in age and gender than practically any other domestic occupation. This is surely in no small part because of this variety of the functions they might fulfill. Although I have not counted it among the broader group, an inscription from the columbarium of the Statilii shows just how heterogeneous those occupying this position could be.

It commemorates Logas, the pedisequa of Messallina. Though unconfirmed, this is probably the

Statilia Messallina who was the third wife of Nero,126 and so I have chosen to omit it from the tally of private inscriptions, despite the fact that she probably served her mistress before the latter joined the Imperial house. What is remarkable, is not only that Logas is female, but that she is also

124 Nepos Att . XIII, 3: Usus est familia, si utilitate iudicandum est, optima; si forma, vix mediocri. Namque in ea erant pueri litteratissimi, anagnostae optimi et plurimi librarii, ut ne pedissequus quidem quisquam esset, qui non utrumque horum pulchre facere posset, pari modo artifices ceteri, quos cultus domesticus desiderat, apprime boni ; “He employed the best group of slaves, if usefulness is to be judged, though in outward appearance it was scarcely mediocre. For in it there were well-educated slaves, the best readers and numerous copyists, so that there was not even a pedisequus who could not perform either of these duties very well, and in a similar manner his other skilled workers, whom domestic care require, were exceedingly good. 125 See for example Treggiari 1975b: 53-54, for a general description; and Mano 2012: 314-315, on the wide-ranging duties of pedisequae . 126 Raepsaet-Charlier 1987: 605.

45 relatively young, only 16 years old, and is memorialized by her surviving mother Aphrodisia, probably a slave herself. 127 Reference to this sort of a personal connection is not entirely unexpected, since eight of inscriptions document either verified or probable relationships with other members of the familia . More importantly, of the thirty-one pedisequi or pedisequae , fifteen can be confirmed as women, fourteen as men, with another two whose gender cannot be ascertained. 128 This represents an extremely high ratio of female slaves in this particular occupation. Also notable is the fact that in the four instances where the dominus or domina of a pedisequa is named, they were all attendants to female mistresses. 129 This distinction of gender is a further indication of the personal nature of the duties involved and reinforces the suggestion, too, that it may have served as a title encompassing general domestic assistance.

The other remarkable thing about the post is how few pedisequi appear to have been manumitted. Of the thirty-one inscriptions, only one records a free Roman, a libertus incertus .130

Six have ages at death, with the eldest being twenty-seven, and a collective mean of twenty-three years old, 131 with none over thirty. Unsurprisingly, then, none of the aged pedisequi can be confirmed as freed and, in fact, most were undeniably still slaves when they died. Significantly, no pedisequus who names their profession was unequivocally identified as a libertus . There is only one incertus whose probable status is libertine, but who does not self-identify as a freedman. 132

Otherwise, all who appear in the epigraphic record are either certain or likely slaves. This fact,

127 CIL VI 6335: Logas / Messallin(ae) / pedis(equa) v(ixit) a(nnos) XVI / Aphrodisia mater / fecit. 128 The two ambiguous cases are CIL VI 6334 (from the columbarium of the Statilii) and CIL VI 7012; the latter is now lost. 129 CIL VI 6336 ( Posis / Statiliae s[erva] / pedisequa ); CIL VI 9774 ( Chloe ped(isequa) / Apollonidae f[ecit] ); CIL VI 9775 ( Doris Statiliae Mino[ris] / pedisequa… ); and AE 1945, 110 ( Cledo Aeliae s[erva] / pedisequa ). 130 Manius Poblicus Dionysus of CIL X 1949, whose text appears above; also a possibility is CIL VI 6333: Felix pediseq(uus) / Gabinianus , though “Gabinianus” is probably adjectival here, meaning Felix was still a slave. 131 CIL VI 9779; the others with ages are CIL VI 7410; CIL VI 9770; CIL VI 9772; CIL VI 9780; and CIL VI 9776; on the erasure and correction in the age of the latter, see Geraci 1975: no. 52. 132 CIL X 1949.

46 combined with the relatively young ages at death, argues fairly convincingly that direct manumission from the post of pedisequus was quite unusual.

Of course, this is not to say that they had no prospects for manumission whatsoever. It is noteworthy that none have recorded ages over thirty, the age at which they could be manumitted without requisite iusta causa under the lex Aelia Sentia . Although average ages at death for many slave groups are in the mid-twenties, 133 that there are no ages older than twenty-seven at all is indicative of a comparatively young professional cohort; if pedisequui never obtained manumission tout court , then it would be reasonable to expect at least one or two substantiated as still enslaved over the age of thirty. On the other hand, if it were a low-level, though moderately specialist, domestic duty, which could potentially lead to better prospects if a slave proved themselves capable, this might help to explain the striking lack of manumission as well as the relatively low ages where specified. The near-complete absence of manumission among pedisequi , despite their rather isolated appearances in the epigraphic record, is certainly suspicious. That no definite freedperson can be confirmed among this group is significant, since this reveals the possibility that pedisequi might be promoted to other domestic positions before they obtained their freedom. While it is true that none are attested as having held any additional occupation, servile or otherwise, which might verify this sort of advancement, the humbler status of this posting within the household may have precluded references to it if a higher-status position had been acquired later by the slave in question.

Lecticarii provide a roughly comparable domestic occupation in that they were employed in the same nominal geographical field of activity outside of the house, though they probably occupied a slightly lower position of professional esteem within the household. Twenty-nine

133 cf. the ages for cubicularii and, for a contrasting trend, dispensatores , below.

47 different litter-bearers are evinced in the inscriptions, 134 a sample size approximately equivalent to that of the pedisequi . Unlike the latter, though, thirteen come from the monumentum Statiliorum , so any interpretation is necessarily a bit distorted. Nonetheless, some of the previous conclusions seem supported by the data from the lecticarii . First, three of the twenty-nine (~10%) were manumitted, though this presumes that the libertus named in a badly fragmentary Praenestine inscription documenting a collegium lecticariorum was himself a litter-bearer 135 and further includes the supra lecticarios T. Statilius Spinther. 136 Another does not provide explicit libertination. 137 So only a certain Hesiodos from the monumentum Arunceiorum 138 and Statilius

Spinther can be definitively affirmed to be lecticarii liberti . It should be noted that the latter is the only private superintendent of litter-bearers documented in the epigraphic account. Though there are no details on the rest of his servile career, it can be inferred that his position of managerial responsibility at the very least provided some slight justification for his manumission, especially compared to other regular lecticarii . While these other twenty-five (~86%) are likely slaves, only eleven (~38%) can be confirmed as such from the evidence, compared to just nine (29%) pedisequi who were certainly servi .

Where the two groups diverge most noticeably, though, is in the few ages identified. Only three lecticarii supply ages and remarkably all were forty-years-old at death. 139 Though it is

134 I have included in this group the supra lecticarios T. Statilius Spinther of CIL VI 6301. 135 CIL I 3066: [Conlegi]um lect[icar(iorum)] / [--- Fab]rici(us) C. l. [---] 136 CIL VI 6301: T. Statilius Tauri l. / Spinther, supra lec(ticarios), / T. Statilius Crescens, f(ilius). 137 CIL VI 5865: Diogenes Pomp(eianus)lectic(arius) / Iole Pomp(eiana) tonstr(ix). 138 CIL VI 13402: Hesiodos lect(icarius) l. / Ambactus tect(or) l. / Syntropus hor(rearius) l. / Prima ornat(rix) l. / Alcim(us) polit(or) l. / Faustus pist(or) l. / Secundus l. / Protomachus l. / Primigenius min(or) l. / Primigenius mar(morarius) l. / Veneria l. / Chresimus faber l. // Faustus Rust(icianus) l. / Chares l. / Her(a)clida l. / Anteros l. / Dromo l. / Fausta l. / Eros Mahe(tianus) l. / Primigenia Mah(etiana) l. / Fortunata Ant(erotiana) l. / Saturnina / Medusa Anterot(iana) l. / Mystes horr(earius) [l.] / Lychi Terti(ani) [l.] // Ano[---] / Hilar[---] / Her[---] / Dio[---] / Gi[---] / E[---. 139 CIL VI 6304: Alcimus / lecticarius / [vix(it) a]n(nos) XXXX ; CIL VI 6305: Ascla lecticar(ius) / vixit ann(os) XXXX ; CIL VI 6307: Bithus / Tauri lect(icarius) / v(ixit) a(nnos) XL .

48 entirely possible that all three did in fact die at forty, this seems far too coincidental to be ignored. 140 This may be an epigraphic practice peculiar to the columbarium Statiliorum , from which these inscriptions come, but, with the repetition of the round number, it certainly seems as though there is some sort of a formula in use in these cases. 141 It is perhaps not inconsequential that forty is exactly ten years above the age limitation in the lex Aelia Sentia . This may serve as a sort of stock number of years to indicate moderate seniority among unfreed domestic slaves. In any case, these advanced ages relative to other groups, combined with a modest manumission rate and the fact that many more lecticarii were identified by their servile status, all suggest that there might be a greater sense of professional immutability among this particular occupational category.

There are other indications of long-term social ties within the familia . It is a little surprising that one lecticarius was memorialized by his own vicaria ,142 a sign that certain litter-bearers had some degree of economic independence. None can be confirmed as vernae and, in point of fact, many display slave names that are quite strongly suggestive of foreign origin. 143 Of course, slave names were entirely arbitrary, but there is, at the very least, a revealing and noticeable habit in the naming of lecticarii . Two coniuges can also be positively identified 144 and another three may well also obliquely document spousal relationships. 145 One of these pairs a probable slave with a

140 Cf. Mouritsen 2013: 49-51, who, in analyzing ages in the monumenta Statiliorum and Volusiorum , notes that the sense of mors acerba in epitaphs seems to diminish after forty years, at which point few ages are recorded. 141 On age-rounding or “age-heaping” and mortality, Duncan-Jones 1990: 79-104; Bagnall and Frier 1994: 44-47; Scheidel 1996a: 53-91. 142 CIL VI 6303: Agathoni lecticar(io) / Tauri fecerunt / Caliste vicaria et / Philologus et Felix. 143 CIL VI 6302 ( Aba ); CIL VI 6305 ( Ascla ); CIL VI 6307 ( Bithus ); CIL VI 6310 ( Medus ); and CIL VI 6313 (Trugunda ). 144 CIL VI 9505: Eros / Paullinae / lecticarius / Leucadis vir ; “Eros, lecticarius of Paullina, husband of Leucas.”; CIL VI 9506: D(is) M(anibus) / Eufrae Ti. n. / servo lecticario / Tytyche Fausti/naes coniugi suo / b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) et sibi pos/terisque suis ; “To the divine shades of Eufra, slave and lecticarius of our Titus. Tytyche, slave of Faustina, made this for her well-deserving husband and for herself and their posterity.” 145 CIL VI 5865; CIL VI 6308: Iucundus Tauri / lecticarius. quandi/us vixit vir fuit et se et alios / vindicavi. Quan/dius vixit honeste vixit. / Callista et Philogus dant. (the re-appearance of Philogus and Callista of CIL VI, 6303 probably “suggests a subgroup within the familia that revolved around the litter-bearers” according to Joshel 1992: 90); CIL VI 9512: Seleucus / lecticarius / Arruntia / L. l. Storge .

49 freedwoman and in another inscription, the likely freedman Lucius Volusius Philocalus paid for the plaque of Nicephor. 146 These continuing links to freed slaves with whom they had previous social relationships reinforces the impression that lecticarii might remain enslaved for slightly longer than other household groups.

Other lower-level named domestic occupations seem to reveal characteristics in many ways more comparable to the pedisequi , however. While there are quite a large number of ostiarii from the Imperial household, there are only five men using this occupational title attested in private service. 147 While only two of these have confirmed slave status, all were likely still servi , based on the context in which their epitaphs are found, mostly in columbaria . An ostiarius , Musaeus, for example, is attested among the Statilii in CIL VI, 6215 and CIL VI, 6217, in both cases as a member of a collegium commorientium .148 This indicates a small measure of social and financial freedom, since Musaeus must have possessed some amount of peculium in order to be a participant. It is notable, though, that some of those commemorated alongside him, such as Statilia Ammia and the colorator Amaranthus, 149 do possess indicators of a libertine status, but Musaeus does not. With the ostiarii , it is more difficult to make inferences about their position in any sort of a domestic career path, since none cite ages at death. Nonetheless, the apparently rapid promotion of

Suetonius’ Plotus, who ascended from ostiarius to a freed historian and teacher of Pompey the

Great, likely represents an exceptional case of precipitate vertical movement from this position

146 CIL VI 7292: Nicephor / lecticar(ius) / L. Volusius Philocal(us) / de suo fecit 147 CIL VI 6215 and CIL VI 6217 (the same ostiarius , Musaeus); CIL VI 6326 (Optata Pasaes (!) ostiaria ); CIL VI 9737 (Cilliba); CIL VI 9738 (Zethus); AE 2006 234 (Macedo). 148 CIL VI 6215: Statilia Ammia hic / sepulta est, quoius sepult(urae) / curam egerunt conleg(ium) / commorient(ium): Cerdo, inṣ(ularius), / vir eius, Bathyllus, atriens(is), / Musaeus, ost(iarius), Eros, ins(ularius), Philocaḷ[us], / unctor ; CIL VI 6217: Chius l. Sisennae / silentiarius / ex conlegio hic situs est. / Curatores / Musaeus, ostiar(ius), dec(urio), / Amaranthus, colorat(or), l., / Eros, insular(ius), dec(urio), / de suo dant. 149 He appears in the same capacity with the same status in CIL VI 6216: Statilia Ammia hic / sepulta est, quoius sepult(urae) / curam egerunt conleg(ium) / commorient(ium): Cerdo, ins(ularius), / vir eius, Bathyllus, atriens(is), / Musaeus, ost(iarius), Eros, ins(ularius), Philocaḷ[us], / unctor.

50 within the household. In most instances, professional advancement must have been more gradual and gradated.

Similarly, there is little specific information that can be gleaned about atrienses from the

Italian epigraphic record. Of nineteen inscriptions, none record an instance of an unambiguous libertus , while only three are free incerti . The other sixteen were either definite or probable slaves.

As with the ostiarii , there is virtually no information on age at death given for atrienses . Only one has a terminal age, and a relatively low one at twenty. 150 It may be that, similar to the pedisequi , the atriensis was a visible but transitory junior position in which younger slaves could be evaluated and then either elevated to more important administrative tasks, demoted, or otherwise moved around to a more productive role. The sample of one, though, is too small to draw a firm conclusion. Nevertheless, there is other evidence that suggests some identifiable characteristics of the position. First, two were memorialized by their brothers, both of whom seem also to have been slaves. In the first, a fairly fragmentary plaque from the Monumentum Volusiorum , the brother was a vestiplicus , certainly also of servile origin, whose name is now lost, and in the second, the brother of Zethus only identifies himself as Amphio, without status or occupational indication. 151 That the last two brothers were named after mythological twins suggests not only that they were both slaves, but that they were probably twin vernae as well. 152 If Titus Vinius is indeed the partisan of Galba much-maligned by Tacitus, 153 then the contrived naming choice would be fairly typical of the self-

150 CIL VI 9199; cf. the fragmentary CIL VI 7301: if the age applies to the unidentified atriensis , then he was at the very least 40 years-old. 151 CIL VI 7301: ---]us vestipli[cus] / [- Vo]lusi Saturnini, si[bi et] / [---]ho, atriensi, fratr[i] / [---] vixit ann(is) XXXX[---]; and CIL VI, 9199: Zethus T. Vini / atriens(is) v(ixit) a(nnos) XX / ossa sub hoc tumulo pia / sunt sed acerba parenti. / Amphio, mi frater, hoc / titulum posuit. / Parcite, fata, meis, / valeant fratresque / sorores, sit tamen / in vestro pectore cura mei. // Antistia Nicopolis ; “Zethus, atriensis of Titus Vinius, lived 20 years. His faithful bones are under this tomb, bitter to his relative(s). Amphio, my brother, placed this plaque. Fates, spare my family, let my brothers and sisters be well, let there be care for me in your breast. Antistia Nicopolis.” 152 Solin 1990: 81. 153 Tac. Hist . I, 48; cf. Solin 1990: 13.

51 indulgent swagger of a Neronian courtier. Thus, it is entirely plausible that both sets of brothers had been born in the household of their master.

There are other incidental signs that some atrienses enjoyed their master’s favour or an elevated social position within the familia . In addition to the two brothers, five inscriptions gesture toward relationships with other confirmed or likely conservi ,154 though only one lists a spouse. 155

In that case, it is noteworthy that the enslaved atriensis commemorates his coniunx liberta .

Although she does not have an occupational title, she clearly also originated from the same household, and the association with the colorator Amarantus also discloses further social links with distinctively professional traces; Amarantus and Philologus assuredly worked together on a daily basis. That the two slaves also provided for her burial suggests some discretionary peculium for atrienses and altogether four inscriptions show evidence of a likely peculium arrangement. 156

More importantly, though, among the atrienses there is some evidence of the position’s situation in a larger framework of domestic servile promotion. Two inscriptions give clear indications of a complex structure of professional advancement not expressly corroborated in the other occupational groups already considered, though both come from the familia Statiliorum . In the first, the probable slave Lentiscus lists two domestic posts: ex horteis and atriensis .157 The professional connection between the duties of a gardener and a household steward are not immediately obvious. In dealing with holdings as extensive as those of the Statilii, both jobs probably involved careful management of both property and other slaves. It can be inferred that

Lentiscus was first ex horteis and then atriensis , which would be a logical progression from a less

154 CIL VI 6215; CIL VI 6240; CIL VI 6250; CIL VI 9193; CIL VI 9195. 155 CIL VI 6250: Statiliae T. l. Hilarae / Amarantus colorat(or) / Philologus atrie(n)s(is) coniugo posuer(unt). / bene adquiescas, Hilara. Si quid sapiunt Inferi / tu nostri memento; nos numquam obliviscemur tui ; The ornatrix Sperata and the atriensis Eunus of CIL VI 9195 may have been contubernales , but this is not confirmed by the inscription. 156 The others are CIL VI 9192; CIL VI 9193; and CIL XIV 2875. 157 CIL VI 6241: Lentiscus ex horteis / atriensis.

52 prestigious post adjacent to the central household to a more important one in the core of the familia urbana itself. The other is a tabula set up by Hilarus for the atriensis Felix, whom the former refers to as his “magister ”. 158 It is possible that the inscription represents a vicarius memorializing his slave master. If this were the case, however, it would be an utterly unique use of the term

“magister ” found nowhere else in such a context in any inscription anywhere in the Empire, since vicarii seem to only ever exclusively apply the term dominus to their slave masters. 159 The other alternative is that, in his capacity as atriensis , Felix oversaw other slaves who served under his professional authority. This may be terminology borrowed from the Imperial household, where, for example, an Imperial freedman is identified as the “ magister a bibliotheca Latina ”. 160 Since it is not a regularized title in the Imperial household, however, it is difficult to get a sense of what duties, precisely, this additional title might have signified. Felix had added authority and the responsibility of managing other slaves, but the term evokes some role in training as well; if he were simply an overseer of servi , it is curious that he is called “ magister ” and not something like

“supra atrienses ”. At any rate, there was a clear professional stratification at play among the household stewards in upper-class familiae urbanae .

One of the most frequently attested domestic positions, the cubicularius , share many of the characteristics of both the pedisequi and the atrienses . Based on the epigraphic evidence, a total

158 CIL VI 6240: Felici atrie(n)si / Hilarus / mag(istro) suo ; cf. CIL VI 6254 and 6255. 159 As in CIL X 7588 and CIL II 957; cf. Ulp. Dig . XV, 1, 17: Si servus meus ordinarius vicarios habeat, id quod vicarii mihi debent an deducam ex peculio servi ordinarii? Et prima illa quaestio est, an haec peculia in peculio servi ordinarii computentur. Et Proculus et Atilicinus existimant, sicut ipsi vicarii sunt in peculio, ita etiam peculia eorum: et id quidem, quod mihi dominus eorum, id est ordinarius servus debet, etiam ex peculio eorum detrahetur: id vero quod ipsi vicarii debent, dumtaxat ex ipsorum peculio: sed et si quid non mihi, sed ordinario servo debent, deducetur de peculio eorum quasi conservo debitum ; “If my ordinary slave has vicarii , can I deduct from the peculium of my ordinary slave what the former owe me? And the first question is, whether their peculia are included in that of the ordinary slave. Proculus and Atilicinus think that as the vicarii belong to the peculium together with their own peculia , and indeed, what their master owes me can be deducted from their peculium, but that, however, which the sub-slaves themselves owe, can only be deducted from their own peculium. Moreover, if they are indebted, not to me but to the ordinary slave, the amount due will be deducted from their peculium as owing to a fellow-slave .”. 160 CIL VI 963.

53 of sixty-seven private a cubiculo or cubicularii are attested in private service in Italy.161 Of these, nine (~13%) were liberti , four (6%) were free incerti , twenty-five (~37%) were definite slaves, twenty-seven (~40%) were probably-servile incerti ; the last two, mentioned in the testamentum

Dasumii , were commemorated while being manumitted by testament, 162 and so should perhaps be included along with the nine certain liberti , bringing that group up to ~16% of the total number of cubicularii . If confirmed liberti and free incerti are combined – a less unreasonable proposition for domestic occupations than other groups – this would bring the share of freed cubicularii up to

~22%, a percentage which would finally confirm that domestic manumission was more frequent.

But even if we don’t resort to this sort of grouping, it is beyond question that more cubicularii can be established with certainty as liberti than any other professional category already mentioned.

Thirteen inscriptions give ages for cubicularii – all of them either certain or probable slaves and none manumitted – ranging between 36 and 18 years old, 163 for an average age of 27.3 years. While three list an age of thirty, only one had an age over thirty at death, implying that, unlike vilici or dispensatores ,164 for example, an elderly cubicularius was probably fairly rare and that many were probably freed before or around the time they reached the minimum age for manumission.

The professional and social ties of cubicularii were also more complex than other groups.

Eight inscriptions show evidence of a peculium arrangement. 165 There are two cubicularii who are clearly identified as vernae .166 Three are identified as supra cubicularios , two of whom were

161 See Appendix 2 for cubicularii . 162 CIL VI 10229, ln. 68 and 78. 163 AE 1905, 66; CIL VI 977; CIL VI 6254; CIL VI 6255; CIL VI 6261; CIL VI 6262; CIL VI 6263; CIL VI 7604; CIL VI 7605; CIL VI 9286; CIL VI 9291; CIL VI 9298a; CIL VI 9302; and CIL VI 34272. 164 On vilici , see next chapter; on dispensatores , see section 2.6. 165 AE 1975, 416; CIL VI 33843; CIL VI 9310; CIL VI 9301; CIL VI 9291; CIL VI 9285; CIL VI 6595; and CIL VI 6258. 166 CIL VI 6262; CIL VI 9286: Primige/nius / verna / vix(it) annis / XIIX / Philinus / verna / a cubiculo / vix(it) ann(os) XXVII .

54 manumitted, 167 while one was certainly still a slave when he died. 168 Another, the freedman L.

Volusius Heracla, lists two occupations; he was both a capsarius and an a cubiculo .169 That this same Heracla also married his own freed slave, Volusia Prima, further substantiates the idea that he benefited from a long-term career and had the personal means to acquire his own slave. As with

Lentiscus, the ex horteis and atriensis , Heracla’s occupations seem to be listed in chronological order, further reinforcing the impression of the relative significance of the cubicularius . The other inscription in which multiple occupational titles were cited, the epitaph of the a cubiculo and procurator L. Volusius Paris, confirms this, since it, too, must list them in the sequence in which they were held. 170 The prestige and legal requirements of the procuratio aver that Paris served in that capacity after he had been manumitted, and so probably after he had ceased to be an a cubiculo , as well.

In Paris’ case, he may have been freed for a specific economic purpose, but the apparently higher rate of manumission more generally among cubicularii would seem to suggest that this was a more of terminal domestic position than others. This makes sense, since it was one of the more intimate positions within the domestic service and so these servi might be more likely to benefit from an appreciative dominus . Yet, potential for additional advancement beyond the post of cubicularius does not seem self-evident, since, unlike slave accountants or secretaries, their technical skills would presumably be more difficult to employ in juridical or commercial settings.

In fact, a number of cubicularii may well have continued to hold their positions after manumission.

167 CIL VI 6645; CIL VI 9287. 168 CIL VI 33842. 169 CIL VI 7368: Diis Manibus / sacrum / L. Volusio Heraclae / capsario idem / a cubiculo L. n. / Volusia Prima patron(o) / suo piissimo idem / coniugi benemerenti fecit ; “To the divine shades of Lucius Volusius Heracla, capsarius and also a cubiculo of our Lucius. Volusia Prima made this for her most faithful patron and also her well-deserving husband.”; it is additionally notable that he also freed his wife. 170 For a much lengthier discussion of this inscription, see page 77.

This would appear to be the situation of T. Statilius Phileros. 171 There is also no reason to suppose that the two supra cubicularios might not have continued in their elevated positions of authority after manumission. Thus, it is surprising that Paris was appointed as a procurator, since the skill set of a cubicularius was not evidently appurtenant to economic or administrative representation.

This evidence hints strongly that, for lower-status domestic slaves in particular, it wasn’t necessarily a sense of generosity, but sometimes economic expediency which dictated manumission, even within the urban household. This becomes even more apparent if we turn attention to technically-skilled domestic staff, such as tonsores and ornatrices , where some of the results of the analysis of the inscriptions are quite interesting. First, in the twenty Italian inscriptions 172 which mention private barbers, only one tonsor can be confirmed as free-born. 173

Of the remaining nineteen, five are certainly slaves, 174 four are probable slaves, 175 three are free incerti ,176 and seven are definite freedmen. 177 When compared to other domestic groups, it is not insignificant that nearly a third of all barbers can be confirmed to be liberti . Though the inscriptions are too few to be fully representative, it is nonetheless clear that barbering was an occupation that employed ingenui , slaves, and freedmen alike, but that the last two groups had a significant presence in the industry. Of course, the title tonsor (and even ornatrix ) is not an unambiguous indication of a slave’s membership in the familia urbana . It is equally possible that some of the servile barbers mentioned in the inscriptions had been established in their occupations by their masters outside of the household, that, even as slaves, they were installed in quasi-independent

171 CIL VI 6264: [T.] Statilius Phileros / Corneliaes / cubicularius. 172 I have omitted CIL IV 743, an endorsement of an aedile by tonsores from Pompeii. 173 AE 2003 656. 174 AE 1948, 71; CIL VI 9938; CIL VI 9939; CIL X 1963; CIL X 1964. 175 They are single-named incerti , two of whom are from the columbarium Statiliorum : CIL IV 8619a; CIL VI 6366; CIL VI 6367; CIL VI 31900. 176 CIL IV 8741; CIL VI 9937; CIL VI 37822. 177 CIL V 4101; CIL VI 6994; CIL VI 9940; CIL VI 37811; CIL XI 1071; AE 1982, 259; AE 2000, 585.

56 businesses and had no domestic background at all. 178 Here, again, the problems of identifying such an occupational arrangement based on the funerary inscriptions are difficult to overcome. This is not to say that tonsores were not employed within the household, itself. It is quite reasonable to conclude that two from the columbarium of the Statilii, one of whom was commemorated by his mother, 179 were domestic tonsores in exclusively private employment. Zethus and Pistus both seem to have been the personal barbers of senators.180 The latter was also commemorated as inpubis , an indication that he was still very young and perhaps being trained with the intention of a long term of household service. 181

The title ornatrix is perhaps more likely to be found in a domestic context, though, again, not exclusively. A now-lost lead defixio from Ostia listed nine ornatrices , all still slaves and all those with named dominae belonging to different mistresses. 182 In this instance, a group of slaves appear to have been installed in a joint-venture business by a consortium of owners. Generally, though, they mostly demonstrate close ties to the domestic household. The nineteen-year-old

178 The Ostian example provided by CIL XIV 5306 and mentioned below is clearly a case where various slaves were employed as hairstylists in an independent shop; although it probably dates to the reign of Constantine, a slave-collar says that the slave of a grain official should be returned to a barbershop: CIL XV 7172: Asellus se/rvus Praeiecti / officialis praefec/ti anon[e]s, foras mu/ru exivi, tene me, / quia fugi, reduc / me ad Flora / ad to(n)sor/es ; “I, Asellus, a slave of the official of the praefectus annonae Praeiectus, have gone beyond the wall. Seize me, since I have run away, and return me to the barbers by the Temple of Flora.”; it is not clear whether this was simply a convenient place to return the slave or whether he was employed there; on the other hand, Cassius Dio 68, 15 relates that Trajan showed up at Licinius Sura’s house and demanded that Sura’s private, probably enslaved, barber shave him as a sign of trust; of course private domestic barbers would only have been employed in more affluent houses. 179 CIL VI 6366: Cadmi tonsoris / mater fecit filio suo / et Poplari; CIL VI 6367: Primus / tonsor. 180 CIL VI 9939: Zetho A. Plauti / tonsori ; Dessau ILS 7414, n. 1 identifies him with the conqueror of Britain; CIL VI 9938: Pistus / N. Vibi Sereni tonsor / Pistus et inpubis situs hic: crudelius ultra / quid quaeris? Forma nec minor ipse sua. / in lachrumas dedit ossa novas: revocatus in iram / surge, dolor, tacite ne cadat hora gravis ; cf. CIL VI 9937: L. Calpurnius / Idris // Gemini et / Gemelli tonsor. 181 The language of the epitaph also suggests perhaps a dual role of tonsor and deliciae ; on young slaves and the relationship between skilled work, training, and the household, Laes 2008, esp. 258-263; for hairdressers and barbers, specifically, Hermann-Otto 1994: 335-336. 182 CIL XIV 5306: Agathemeris Manliae ser., / [Ac]hulae Fabiae ser. ornatrix, / [C]aletyche Vergiliae ser. ornatrix, / Hilara Liciniae [ser. orn]atrix, / Chreste Corn[eliae] ser. ornatrix, / Hilara Seiae ser. ornatrix, / Moscis ornatrix, / Rufa Apeiliae ser. ornatrix, / Chila ornatrix ; cf. Kampen 1981; Herzig 1983: 82; Kolb and Campedelli 2005: 137; Cébeillac-Gervasoni et al. 2010: 128-129, §24.

Morphe, for example, was remembered by her coniunx Felix, who was a nomenclator .183 Both an ornatrix and an a speculum (sic) were memorialized as the contubernales of Spendo, probably himself a domestic slave among the Volusii. 184 Thirty ornatrices can be attested in inscriptions from Italy. Of these, eleven (~37%) were definite slaves, another eleven (~37%) probable slaves, while five (~17%) were confirmed liberti , and three (10%) free incerti . A full third of the ornatrices have attested ages at death, a far higher proportion than any other domestic group. As with other occupational titles, no freed or free member has a listed age. This is probably, again, because ages typically only appear on the epitaphs of those who died young. The youngest age is nine, the oldest twenty-seven years, with an average age of 20.3 years. That three ornatrices were thirteen years-old or younger when they died connotes both a preference for vernae or ancillae who might hold the position for a long period of time and also that the position probably involved a great deal of hands-on training from a very young age. This may be precisely the circumstances in which the young Pieris had been engaged. 185

Interestingly, even though they may begin in their domestic trade quite early, there are a number of inscriptions that do point to these freed slaves occupying independent (or seemingly independent) shops. A columbarium plaque from Rome recorded two liberti , a tonsor and an ornatrix , who set up a shop together in the city. 186 Besides the fact that they were both freed, there is no explicit social relationship between the two, with each coming from a separate family. They may have been a husband and wife team or simply business partners. In another, the ornatrix

183 CIL VI 9690: Morphe ornatr(ici) / vixs(it) an(nos) XIX / Felix nomencl(ator) coinugi / libens et meritae. 184 CIL VI 7297: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Panope ornatrix / Torquat(a)e Q. Volu/si [uxoris] vixit annis XXII / et Phoebe a specu/lum(!) vixit XXXVII / Spendo contu/bernalibus suis / bene merentibus / fecit et sibi / loc(us) d(atus) dec(reto) decu(rionum). 185 CIL VI 9731: Pieris ornatrix / vixit an(nos) VIIII. / Hilara mater posuit. 186 CIL VI 37811: Pollia C. (mulieris) l. / Urbana ornat(rix) de / Aemilianis ollas II / M. Calidius M. l. to(n)sor / Apol(l)oni(us) de Aemilianis.

58 liberta Nostia Daphne seems to have run a shop along with her own freed hairdresser and an aurifex .187 The personal connection between Nostia and Marcus Nerius is not clear, although other scholars have taken it for granted that they were married. 188 Here, it is also less obvious that

Daphne originated in a domestic context. Evidently she had trained her own freedwoman in her trade and so it may be that she had been independent for quite some time. At any rate, it is not unusual to see evidence of ornatrices libertae establishing their own commercial enterprises.

There are twenty-two private cooks in the Italian inscriptions. They, too, would have been in a position to establish themselves more independently of their patrons. Despite – or perhaps because of – the fact that they are a small cohort, they have a higher proportion of liberti than any other domestic group. Eleven are definite liberti ,189 three are confirmed slaves, 190 seven are probable slaves, 191 and one is a free incertus .192 There is no proof that any of these freed cooks set up their own tabernae , although one inscription shows that a cocus libertus , having been manumitted from his original household, served in another. 193 Less confidently, the fact that the freed cook P.

Caecilius Felix was entombed along with other members of the household of the Caecilii, may be an indication that he continued to be employed in his patron’s domus .194 Both Caecilius and

Genicilius may provide tenuous confirmation that coqui , at least, might continue in domestic service after obtaining their freedom.

187 CIL VI 9736: Nostia ((mulieris)) l. / Daphne / ornatrix de / vico Longo // M. Nerius M. l. / Quadratus / aurifex de / vico Longo // Nostia / Daphnidis l. / Cleopatra / ornatrix de vico / Longo. 188 Groen-Vallinga 2013: 308. 189 CIL VI 6248; CIL VI 7433; CIL VI 9263; CIL VI 9270; CIL VI 9271; CIL X 5211; CIL XI 3850; AE 1928, 8; NSA 1914 378, 6; CIL VI 10229 (two different coqui ). 190 CIL VI 6246; CIL VI 7602; CIL VI 8755. 191 AE 1994, 441; AE 1980, 151; CIL VI 6249; CIL VI 9265; CIL VI 9266; CIL VI 9269; CIL VI 9272. 192 CIL VI 9268. 193 CIL VI 9271: C. Genicilius / C. l. Domesticus / Sex. Lartidi cocus . 194 CIL VI 7433: Caecili P. l. / Felicis coci .

Other specialized household occupations, on the other hand, show very little concrete evidence of manumission or independent economic activity. Of thirteen domestic spinners, the quasillariae ,195 none are freed and only one is a free incerta .196 It is notable that eight of these originate from the monumentum Statiliorum , although this should not necessarily be viewed as a reflection of the family’s commercial interests in textiles or as indicative of manufacture for external trade. 197 In fact, in a number of these inscriptions, relationships within the domus are quite conspicuous. The union between the quasillaria Italia and the tabellarius Scaeva, as an example, highlights the domestic priority of her work. 198 Granted, there is nothing to have prevented the

Statilii from shifting resources in the form of experienced slaves between industrial and domestic production if the situation demanded it, but Italia’s primary placement was clearly in the familia urbana .

As mentioned earlier, textile workers in private service are comparatively scarce in the record. No private vestifici and only one lanipenda from Corfinium may have been manumitted. 199

The epitaph of Italia, vestifica of Cocceia Phyllis, suggests why this may have been the case:

“Italiae / Cocceiae Phyllidis vestificae / veixsit (!) anneis (!) XX / Acastus conservus pro / pauperie fecit sua ”. 200 Many dometic cloth workers occupied an undistinguished position in the household and so probably rarely benefitted from a peculium or the magnanimity of their master in the same way other domestici did. Vestiarii , on the other hand, appear to have been manumitted quite frequently, but their productive activity, even more than tonsores , places them outside of the

195 BCAR 1923 76, n. 19; CIL VI 6339 - 6346; CIL VI 9495; CIL VI 9849; CIL VI 9850; AE 1928, 9. 196 CIL VI 6343: Messia Dardana / quasillaria / fecit Iacinthus / unctor Dardanus . 197 Treggiari 1976: 84. 198 CIL VI 6342: Italia quasillaria / vixit ann(os) XX / Scaeva tabellarius Tauri / coniugi suae fecit . 199 CIL IX 4350: Lucilia / Benigna / lanipen[d(a)] / viva sibi et Urb[---] / argentario [---]. 200 CIL VI 9980.

60 economic unit of the domus and so they will be treated in a subsequent chapter. 201 By and large, there is little evidence of efficient exploitation of technically skilled domestic labour after manumission in Italy. Again, this is not to suggest that it didn’t happen, but simply that it is not corroborated by the epigraphic record.

2.5 Managerial and Secretarial Occupational Groups within the Domestic Household

It would be fair to assume, conversely, that the top-tier clerical and secretarial domestic staff ought to be most often selected for manumission and, subsequently, as productive commercial representatives of their patrons. On the one hand, their servile positions represented a crucial economic and administrative contribution to the functionality of the household and so a persistent demonstration of their competence in these important and rather conspicuous duties would surely be all the more likely to be requited by the beneficium libertatis . More to the point, though, their training in these specialized areas, their accumulation of financial and intellectual experience, and their more frequent contact with economic actors external to their household, would all establish such slaves as ideal candidates either to commercially represent their patrons or to enjoy business- related successes independently.

Numerous literary examples would seem to confirm such an assumption. The Satyrica ’s

Trimalchio publicly recognizes and celebrates the actuarial skills gained while holding high-level domestic slave posts, emphasizing their influence on his subsequent prosperity. 202 Tiro, the long- serving secretary of Cicero provides one of the most prominent examples. His activities before and

201 See section 5.7. 202 Petr. Sat . 29.

61 after manumission extended far beyond the narrow purview of an ordinary copyist. Some sources give the impression of literate slaves who were not simply proficient, but also responsive to their masters in ways that verge on the preternatural, as the eyes and percipient intellectual crutch of the

Elder Pliny, for example. 203 Pliny the Younger, in describing how his uncle routinely travelled, gives a fairly clear indication of a certain reliance on their literate domestic attendants by the wealthy: “ In itinere quasi solutus ceteris curis, huic uni vacabat: ad latus notarius cum libro et pugillaribus, cuius manus hieme manicis muniebatur, ut ne caeli quidem asperitas ullum studii tempus eriperet .” 204 These notarii that Pliny mentions were essential to the daily functions and effective production of his uncle, not simply as an upper-class Roman, but (and this is certainly the younger Pliny’s point) also as a scholar and writer. 205

Despite this apparent importance in the literary sources, only eight notarii appear in the inscriptions, and lower-level secretarial staff are equally obscure. Tabellarii 206 and capsarii 207 in private service are too poorly attested to draw firm conclusions about the economic impact of their professional experience once freed. The career of L. Volusius Heracla, mentioned earlier, and the fact that the only age attested for a private capsarius was seven years, suggest that it was a novitiate or, at most, an intermediate position in the system of domestic administration. At least two (and probably three) notarii were mentioned in the testamentum Dasumii .208 That they seem to have been expected to render accounts before manumission is an interesting detail and suggests that

203 Pliny NH. XXIX, 8, 19; cf. Teitler 1985: 39-46; Blake 2013. 204 Pliny Ep . III, 5, 15: “While travelling, he freed himself of other cares, and devoted himself to this one thing; at his side he kept a scribe with a book and tablets, whose hand was protected with long sleeves in winter, so that the harshness of the weather would not rob him of any moment of application to his work.” 205 Blake 2013: 193-211. 206 CIL VI 6342; CIL VI 6357; CIL VI 6869; CIL VI 9915-9917; CIL X 1961. 207 CIL VI 6245; CIL VI 7368; AE 1946, 128; CIL V 3158; Not. Sc. 1923, 361. 208 CIL VI 10229, ln. 40-44: [--- e]t Sabinum notarium et My[---] / [--- rat]ionibus redditis cum cont[ubernalibus --- ] / [---]m cocum et Grammicum c[---] / [---] et Diadumenum notarium [---] / [---]onem sumptuarium ration[ibus redditis ---].

62 their role in that household, at least, went beyond simple notation. These are the only notarii who were definitely manumitted. Another, M. Fabius Colendus, who was probably freed, held the titles of both librarius and notarius and was nineteen-years-old at the time of death. 209 His connection to the paedagogus Cinarus is not explicitly clear, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they were colleagues in domestic service. A twenty-five-year-old female slave, Hapate, is recorded as a notaria Graeca . Her husband seems to have been free or freed, though the status of neither is affirmed by the epitaph. 210 The last notarius with a compound occupational title exhibits some of the characteristics that might be expected of a higher-level domestic position. Though he was certainly still a slave, his spouse was probably freed. 211 Significantly, he was both a notarius and an actor on behalf of his master. While there are no clues as to what property he oversaw or in what capacity he acted as a representative of his dominus , nonetheless the transference of skills from one post to another is exhibited here. To be an actor , Flavianus had to have remained a slave, but this testifies to a promotion from a domestic secretarial position to a commercially representative one.

Roughly corresponding to that of the notarius , the position of a manu would also imply a significant degree of both trust and capacity, even if there might only be indirect economic consequence in the slave posting. Though Musicus Scurranus was an Imperial dispensator , there were three slaves in his sixteen-slave retinue who accompanied him to Rome listed as a manibus .212

It may be that Scurranus’ particular position in the fiscus Gallicus required, for professional reasons, more secretarial staff than others, but theirs was an important post in even modest upper-

209 AE 1990, 213: M. Fabio Colendo / librario notario / vixit XIX / Cinarus paedagog(us) sibi et suis. 210 CIL VI 33892: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Hapateni, / notariae / Gr(a)ec(a)e, qu(a)e / vix(it) ann(os) XXV / Pit(uanius) Tosus fe/cit coniugi / dulcissim(a)e. 211 CIL VI 9130: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Nummiae / Panopeni / coniugi dul/cissimae et / incompara/bili Flavianus / ser(vus) not(arius) et act(or) / ob bene merita / eius c(um) s(uis) fecit. 212 CIL VI 5197.

63 class households. While this domestic slave was, broadly speaking, engaged in personal secretarial work, what exactly the precise practical duties of an a manu might include is not always clear and probably varied to some extent depending on the needs and circumstances of the individual master.

Quite obviously, a fundamental requirement was literacy and the ability to correspond and carry out transactions with interested parties outside of the familia . It certainly required a considerable recognition and appreciation, as a slave, of the master’s intentions and voice.

There are altogether twenty-five epigraphic attestations of this particular post outside of the Imperial household from Italy, and all but two come from the city of Rome itself. 213 Of these twenty-five, manumitted status can only be confirmed in two cases, 214 with one instance of a free incertus .215 Sixteen are definitely and six likely slaves. Strikingly, though, no privately-freed a manu in the epigraphic record claims, in any obvious way, an additional higher-ranking occupation. Two seem to have held the post of librarius either concurrently or before they were secretaries. 216 The only age for a manumitted a manu in the epigraphic record is twenty-six; 217 servile a manibus give ages of thirty-five and twenty-three. 218 The age of the freed a manu suggests that he was freed for some purpose, though there is no evidence of what this may have been in the inscription. There is also a vague reference to the age of a librarius a manu , also from the Tomb of the Statilii, who died at a young age, “ prima … aetatis ”. There is no definite age at time of death, however, and the legal status of this Nothus is unconfirmed, though probably servile. 219 The elegiac inscription does indicate that he predeceased his unnamed coniunx , who placed the

213 CIL IX 4909 (Samnium) and CIL XIV 2654 (Tusculum). 214 CIL VI 1961; CIL VI 6273. 215 CIL XIV 2654. 216 CIL VI 6314; CIL VI 9524. 217 CIL VI 6273: T. Statilius / T. l. / Optatus / a manu / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXVI // Iucunus / disp(ensator)/ Corvini . 218 CIL VI 6595; CIL VI 7294. 219 CIL VI 6314: Nothi, librari a manu / non optata tibi coniunx monimenta locavit, / ultima in aeternis sedibus ut maneant, / spe frustra gavisa, Nothi, quem, prima ferentem / aetatis, Pluton invidus eripuit / hunc etiam flevit quae qualis turba et honorem / supremum digne funeris inposuit.

64 monument, but the term coniunx , particularly when employed in the context of upper-class slave households, is not necessarily an indication of libertination. 220 A relationship to a dispensator is also firmly asserted in one of the inscriptions. In a tabula previously alluded to from the monumentum Statiliorum , both the freed a manu T. Statilius Optatus and the apparently still- enslaved dispensator Iucundus were recorded. 221 The fact that Optatus’ age was below thirty and his association with a dispensator may be signs that he had been moved into a more administrative role that required that he be freed, but this is entirely speculative. The dispensator was one of the most prominent servile positions within the household, as we shall see next, so the connection between the two men is perhaps worth noting.

2.6 The Dispensator and the Continued Bondage of Upper-level Domestic Slaves

If we turn to literary examples and focus on what Veyne called “le sommet de la hiérarchie domestique”, 222 the dispensator , then we inevitably have to defer to Petronius. In The Satyrica , the biography of the famous freedman Trimalchio is gradually revealed in a number of clever scenes at the dinner party he hosts. The details of his life as a slave and his subsequent financial successes are celebrated in a mural greeting the main characters as they enter his house, other guests admiringly praise his accomplishments, and Trimalchio, himself, proudly boasts of his manipulative relationships with his former master and mistress and his craftiness and resilience in his investments. In all of this, it is revealed that one of the most prominent and important duties he

220 cf. CIL VI 9535: Liburnus L. Sei / Strabonis a manu / Salvilla coniunx fecit ; and CIL VI 9537: Prepon C. Atei Capitonis / a manu sibi et / Minuciae ((mulieris)) l. Caletyche / coniugi suae , where both men are still slaves, despite using the term. 221 CIL VI 6273. 222 Veyne 1961: 218; cf. Treggiari 1973: 243.

65 had as a slave was as dispensator , or slave accountant, in his master’s house. The mural in his atrium commemorates Trimalchio as a dispensator , and he credits much of his future success to his frugalitas and influence while acting in that capacity on behalf of his former master. 223 He proudly claims that “ quemadmodum di volunt, dominus in domo factus sum ”. 224

It is clear that the dispensator , as the slave in control of household accounts, enjoyed a prominent position in the Roman familia . Their duties not only required considerable financial, administrative, and actuarial expertise, but a great deal of faithfulness, as well. In a passage of the

Digest, the second-century jurist Pomponius states that, when considering whether or not to manumit a slave dispensator on the conditional basis of performing his job well, the heir must absolutely take into consideration his diligentia , his attentiveness, as, explicitly, it benefits the master and not the slave. As an additional consideration bona fides , “good faith, in both keeping accounts and also in repaying any outstanding balances”, should also be evaluated. 225

Such concern for the performance of a dispensator is not an unusual feature of Roman writers. In most late Republican and early Imperial sources where they are mentioned, Roman writers universally seem to approach their dispensatores with a certain apprehension about financial prudence and personal trustworthiness. Like Trimalchio, many of the dispensatores in other literary sources are characterized as likely to defraud their patrons, to cheat their creditors, to treat other slaves and even free Romans haughtily, and to generally behave unethically in financial matters. 226

223 Petr. Sat. 29; cf. Schmeling 2011: 99; Petr. Sat. 75; cf. Schmeling 2011: 318. 224 Petr. Sat. 76; while the fictional Trimalchio invested in shipping, dispensatores from the Imperial household were very active investors in figlinae and brickmaking, cf. Bruun 1999: 37 and Weaver 1998a: 239, though they had greater financial independence than their private counterparts. 225 Pomp . Dig . XL, 7, 21. 226 In Cic. ad Att . VI, 4, 2, Cicero switches from Latin to Greek to complain “more secretly” about his wife’s dispensator , whom he believes has falsified accounts, and asks Atticus to investigate; Ps. Quint. Decl. min . 353 lays out a dispute where two dispensatores , each having been tortured, contradict their respective masters about a debt owing; Quint. Inst . VI, 3, 93 has a dispensator making excuses for money he loaned out without his master’s

In part, this is perhaps a manifestation of Roman anxieties about the cunning slave with possible leverage over their master. However, it also acknowledges the importance of the position within

Roman households. The jurist Gaius, in the Institutes , provides a general definition of the duties of dispensatores : “those slaves to whom the management of money is entrusted are called dispensatores ”. 227 While “ administratio pecuniae ” may seem very broad as a description of duties, the daily supervision of almost all aspects of the household accounts of larger Roman families likely fell to one or more dispensatores . As Gaius also indicates, dispensatores were almost always slaves. The authority of the position rested primarily on the permissus domini , the consent of their master. 228 This, in addition to the total accountability inherent in their servile status, meant that slaves were probably preferred to even freedmen for such jobs. Considering the sensitivity involved in some of these daily transactions, a slave provided the unique benefit of both intimate trust and a capacity to be coerced that would have been somewhat mitigated by manumission. 229

The dispensator was perhaps the most important slave in the familia urbana . It is evident that the

Romans thought of the dispensator as a distinctive type of urban slave, to be singled out from the ranks of ordinary servi . Ulpian talks of the necessity for the praetor’s investigation into an action against injury perpetrated against a slave “to take into account the quality of the slave,” saying further, that “it is very relevant what sort of slave he is, whether he is honest and reliable, a directly-

knowledge; Mart. Epig . V, 42, 5 refers to a dispensator being tricked out of his master’s money by his girlfriend; cf. Bradley 1990: 143. 227 Gaius Inst . I, 122: Servi quibus permittitur administratio pecuniae, dispensatores appellati sunt ; cf. Morabito 1981: 95. 228 Aubert 1994: 198-199. 229 Frier and Kehoe 2007: 130-134: “The element of social dependence gave property owners a recourse lacking to their counterparts with free employees, whose employment they could terminate at will or sue in a court of law… but the private rewards and sanctions that a property owner could use to influence the behavior of a slave were largely outside the purview of the law.”; cf. Broekaert 2016: 229-231, who stresses the similarities and continuity between slaves and freedmen as trusted agents rather than their differences.

67 owned slave, a dispensator , or only a normal slave, a common servant, or whatever.” 230 As a servile duty, it not only required both literacy and numeracy, but also high degree of specialized actuarial knowledge. A capable dispensator would undoubtedly have needed extensive training and experience, representing a considerable investment of time and resources.

Yet despite the value of the position of dispensator within the household, there is surprisingly little evidence of the careers of these slaves after manumission in the literary, juristic, and epigraphic sources of the late Republic and early Imperial periods. 231 Given their training and significant administrative role within the familia, the dispensator would seem an ideal candidate for manumission and future commercial employment. They possessed considerable human capital, since literacy and a facility with numbers and investment were necessary prerequisites, but they also benefited from a proximity to their patron and familiarity with his routine commercial habits.

With this level of skill and experience, as well as a preferred position in the urban household, it would be logical if we found many historical attestations of freed dispensatores , who, like

Trimalchio, were manumitted and were able to enjoy some degree of financial success as liberti in their own right. But the career path of Trimalchio does not seem to be typical when considered alongside the epigraphic evidence. Only three inscriptions documenting private dispensatores mention any other form of employment, so it does not seem to be the case that many went on to pursue the careers in banking, investment, or trading that one might expect. In fact, very little

230 Ulp. Dig . XLVII, 10, 15, 44: Itaque praetor non ex omni causa iniuriarum iudicium servi nomine promittit: nam si leviter percussus sit vel maledictum ei leviter, non dabit actionem: at si infamatus sit vel facto aliquo vel carmine scripto puto causae cognitionem praetoris porrigendam et ad servi qualitatem: etenim multum interest, qualis servus sit, bonae frugi, ordinarius, dispensator, an vero vulgaris vel mediastinus an qualisqualis. Et quid si compeditus vel male notus vel notae extremae? Habebit igitur praetor rationem tam iniuriae, quae admissa dicitur, quam personae servi, in quem admissa dicitur, et sic aut permittet aut denegabit actionem. 231 Coello 1989: 108.

68 positive evidence for manumission exists at all for dispensatores ,232 let alone the ostentatious economic success suggested by Trimalchio.

Before proceeding, though, some distinction should be made between dispensatores employed in the Imperial household and those owned by private citizens. Of the 472 attested dispensatores in the epigraphic record, 233 mainly commemorated in funerary inscriptions, only

183 (~40%) were privately-owned. The remaining 289 (~61%) were almost all members of the familia Caesaris . It is perhaps unsurprising that so many dispensatores would be found in the employment of the Emperor, given the important financial nature of their duties and the exigencies of the Imperial bureaucracy. Weaver has already closely examined the position of dispensatores in the Imperial service, where he has described their position as typically occupying “an intermediate clerical grade”. 234 Often they were vernae , or household-born slaves, and were commonly manumitted in their late-thirties or early forties before being promoted to freed tabularii , record-keepers, or procuratores , broadly superintendent-agents, of the emperor.

When we exclude the Imperial dispensatores and turn to the evidence provided by the 183 private dispensatores inscriptions, 235 exclusively, such a clearly defined career progression, if it can be so called, does not seem to have existed. Although there are a number of private slave accountants identified as vernae , the share is not nearly as large as in the Imperial household. With almost no post-manumission job titles attested, there is no obvious sense of what potential employment might

232 cf. Coello 1989; Carlsen 1995: 149-150; more specifically, Buonocore 1984: 57-58 on the four dispensatores from the monumentum Volusiorum ; Bradley 1994: 161 points out that these types of slaves may have been more often subject to testamentary manumissions, conditional on a full rendering of accounts to the heirs. 233 These numbers are based on all confirmable titled dispensatores based on an initial search of EDCS and then confirmed in corresponding CIL volumes and other sources; for a full list of all private dispensatores based on my research, see Appendix 1a, as well as the more detailed discussion following on the next page. 234 Weaver 1972: 241-246. 235 See Appendix 1a.

69 have attracted the expertise of private freed dispensatores . In fact, relative to the Imperial slaves, overall manumission rates seem to have been quite low among private slave accountants.

Of the 183 attested, only 20 (~11%) can be confirmed as freed, while a further three were very likely manumitted. Of the other 160 named dispensatores , roughly half can be confirmed as still being slaves when they died. In the remaining 83 cases, their status is less certain, but likely also servile. Nearly all were recorded bearing a single name, though they often appear with their designation as dispensator and their master (or former master) named in the genitive. In a fairly typical example of this group from Rome, Silvanus, a twenty-eight-year-old dispensator of Paris, was commemorated. 236 In cases such as that of Silvanus, the slave status of the dispensator , while very likely, is not certain. Although it is entirely possible that some slave accountants who were freed chose to emphasize their former position in relation to their former master rather than the acquisition of their freed status, it still seems quite probable that many in this last group also remained slaves throughout their lives.

At any rate, these numbers represent a confirmed manumission rate of roughly 12.5%.

While it can be difficult to speak about the typicality of manumission rates, this proportion does seem relatively low, particularly when compared with other, more professionalized slave positions within the private urban household. Although this is in no way a faultless analogy, a study of slaves and freedmen found in the columbaria of the Volusii and the Statilii at Rome indicate that the proportions of freedmen were 46% and ~32%, respectively. 237 Considering that these are manumission rates for two of the largest senatorial families, they are undoubtedly higher than any sort of general average for the city of Rome, let alone the entire Empire. However, they do provide

236 CIL VI 9365: Silvanus / Paridis dispens(ator) / vix(it) ann(os) XXIIX / Ephesia merenti. 237 Mouritsen 2013: 48; cf. Mouritsen 2011: 120.

70 an idea of the proportion of slaves manumitted from larger urban households – precisely the sort of environment in which most dispensatores fulfilled their duties.

The relative scarcity of freed dispensatores can be explained in a number of ways. From the perspective of their masters, the value of a well-trained slave bookkeeper in every legal sense directly accountable to them was high and it would have been a costly investment to lose through manumission. 238 Not counting their general actuarial skills, slave accountants would have possessed an excellent knowledge of the financial particularities of the specific household in which they served. 239 Here, it may be a question of some of the management strategies of the Imperial household being applied in a private context for precisely the same reasons. As Weaver notes, “in some special cases, such as financial officials like dispensatores and “ vicariani ”, manumission was delayed for a number of years, till about 40 or later, as a matter of administrative policy. This was not because slaves in these lucrative posts lacked the money in their peculium to buy their manumission at the regular time but precisely because their special and remunerative financial responsibilities required them to remain slaves until they were promoted.” 240 Though this pointed correspondence between Imperial promotion and manumission did not really exist in the private sphere, the motives underlying a longer-than-expected retention of certain slaves would be relevant in both settings. 241

Likely for this very reason, it was not unheard of for dispensatores to be bequeathed in order to continue with their duties, and several juristic sources deal with issues specifically relating to the inheritence and conditional testamentary manumission of dispensatores .242 In one Digest

238 cf. Mouritsen 2001; Frier and Kehoe 2007: 136-137. 239 Carlsen 1995: 150: “A dispensator was thus the most trusted slave in the household…” 240 Weaver 1972: 104. 241 cf. Bruun 1999. 242 Pomp . Dig . XXXIV, 2, 1: Idem urbanis servis tibi legatis, si mihi dispensator legatus sit.

71 passage, for example, Scaevola discusses the interpretation of a will establishing an eight-year term of service to his heir and son for a dispensator before their manumission. It is not clear, however, whether eight years were typical or merely indicate a hypothetical term of arbitrary length. Coello has suggested that twelve years should be considered a normal term of service. 243

In another juristic source, Cassius states that heirs could potentially overrule a testamentary manumission “if the employment of the slave was so necessary that it would not be expedient to be without them, as in the case of a dispensator , or a teacher of children…”. 244 What sort of criteria was needed to demonstrate this essential need for the dispensator to continue rendering accounts is not made explicit, but it would appear that there was a general recognition that their responsibilities also required a certain long-term stability. So it seems quite possible that, because of their unique position within the household, dispensatores might be expected to serve for longer periods of time before manumission than was typical for most urban slaves.

The inscriptions are not as illuminating as the juristic sources in this regard. Twenty-four of the inscriptions list ages for a dispensator , for an average age of thirty-five years. Many, like the twenty-eight-year-old Silvanus mentioned earlier, likely died as slaves in their twenties before they came of age to be manumitted, but a few appear to have reached middle age without being freed. As I said above, in many of these cases, slave status is difficult to confirm, but seems probable. One slave accountant, who does not display any clear indication of liberated status, seems to have lived to the Biblical age of 97. 245 Two dispensatores whose ages are known died

243 Coello 1989: 109. 244 Maecian. Dig. XL, 5, 35: Gaii Cassii non est recepta sententia existimantis et heredi et legatario remittendam interdum proprii servi manumittendi necessitatem, si vel usus tam necessarius esset, ut eo carere non expediret, veluti dispensatoris paedagogive liberorum, vel tantum delictum est, ut ultio remittenda non esset: visum est enim ipsos in sua potestate habuisse: nam potuissent discedere a causa testamenti: qua non omissa debere voluntati defuncti obsequi. 245 CIL III 596.

72 after manumission. 246 In the case of the 70 year old Victor from North Africa, it is clear that his duties as dispensator had ceased by the time of his death, but his freed status is less certain. 247 The fact that he lists actor , or slave-agent, as his other occupation, would seem to suggest that he was not free. L. Junius Paris, on the other hand, was definitely a freedman when he died at 32 years old. 248

Junius Paris was also one of only two unambiguously liberated dispensatores who listed an additional occupation on their tombstone. In his case, he also served as a calator augurum , a religious attendant, although it is not clear whether he fulfilled this duty before or after receiving his freedom. In the case of the negotiator and former dispensator L. Aemilius Favianus, mentioned in CIL VI, 3687, his engagement in wholesale, trading, or banking likely occurred after he was freed. A few others are attested as holding additional duties, such as magister Laribus or, in the case of Dorus from Rome, vilicus , but these positions were likely or certainly occupied before manumission. Based on the evidence of the 183 inscriptions, then, only Favianus appears to have had a career which resembled that of Trimalchio. In short, there is very little epigraphic evidence of any noteworthy independent economic activity among freed dispensatores . This would seem to defy Garnsey’s conclusion that “more talented and fortunate [freedmen] were able to build up an independent financial position” and that their “favoured position” in the household meant that their individual prosperity was “inevitable”. 249

Nonetheless, within this epigraphic sample, there are a number of other interesting trends that do appear, which may help to explain the apparently low rate of manumission. First, we have

246 CIL XIV 4486; Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 1926: 433. 247 AE 1942/1943, 61; on the commemoration of a higher proportion of older people in North Africa, probably due to localized epigraphic practice, see Shaw (1991): 79-80. 248 CIL VI 2187. 249 Garnsey 1981: 370.

73 a remarkably fulsome picture of the personal relationships of those dispensatores who cannot be said to have been obviously manumitted, with fifty-nine different personal and social relationships that are commemorated (see Figure 1 below or Appendix 1b). By the term “personal relationships”,

I mean any mention of a biological relationships – children, parents or siblings or of a wife. So

~32% of dispensatores have documented biological familial ties. In the case of wives, two terms appear: coniunx , the typical, generic term for a spouse, and contubernalis , the term for the enslaved wife or husband of a slave. In the context of the inscriptions I examined, both terms seem to have been used without any discernable preference for one or the other.

Figure 1: Personal Relationships mentioned in Dispensator Inscriptions

Slave/ incerti dispensatores Manumitted dispensatores

Type of Relationship mentioned Type of Relationship mentioned Freed coniunx (same master) 10 Freed coniunx (same master) 4 Freed contubernalis (same Freed contubernalis (same master) 1 master) 1 Freed coniunx (different master) 1 Freed coniunx (different master) 1 Freed/free coniunx (master Freed brother (same master) 3 unknown) 5 Freed contubernalis (diff. master) 1 Free/freed daughter 2 Coniunx (slave/status unknown) 9 Slave mother (same master) 1 Contubernalis (slave/status Total 12 unknown) 6 Freed mother (same master) 3 Freed sister (diff. master) 1 Slave coniunx 8 Slave contubernalis 6 Child (slave/status unknown) 7 Other 1 Total 59

It is notable that, for those slave accountants whose freed status cannot be confirmed, 18 wives can be established as either free or freed. This means that roughly 11% of the slave or status- uncertain dispensatores definitely had free or freed wives. These are women referred to as either

“contubernalis ”, “ coniunx ”, or “ uxor ” in the epitaphs. Because of their husbands’ status, they would not have been “wives” in a legal sense. Nonetheless this indicates that masters were at least not averse to allowing dispensatores to live with families and have relationships with free women, sometimes even from outside of the familia . 11 of these wives, though, can be confirmed either to have had the same master as the dispensator mentioned, or to have, in all probability, come from the same household. Additionally, three freed mothers of dispensatores were commemorated, again seemingly from the same households. With these inscriptions, if the dispensatores were themselves liberti , it seems somewhat improbable that the freed status of wives would be memorialized without acknowledging the same status for their husbands. Thus, it looks as if many of these dispensatores continued to serve as slaves, while their wives and family members were manumitted. In cases where these relationships originate in their own household, it is possible that masters were more inclined to manumit the families of dispensatores before the slave accountants themselves.

When it comes to the few manumitted dispensatores , a similar trend is visible. Twelve different relationships are attested, with five being freed wives from the same master, and one a freed wife from a different master. Significantly, this is the only one of the relationships mentioned which cannot be confirmed to have originated in the household of their former master. This would appear to validate the notion, perceptible in the literary sources, that a certain freedom of personal association was afforded to dispensatores , and perhaps even encouraged. Not only that, but it would suggest that some masters may have attempted to incentivize slave accountants – or at least to ease their bondage – by manumitting other members of their slave family.

The notion that the private dispensator enjoyed something of a privileged position within the household, that they had more economic freedom than most other slaves, would also seem to be confirmed by markers of economic freedom. The chief indicator of a Roman slave’s financial independence was the peculium , the property which could, in theory anyway, be accumulated and managed by a slave somewhat independently of their master. 250 Of course, the peculium , along with the slave, was always the property of the master, and could be claimed by them at any time.

Nonetheless, the contractual obligations that could be created for the master if his slave employed his peculium probably meant that the former limited its use to trustworthy servi .251 The peculium would have allowed such reliable slaves some degree of individual choice in economic affairs. The evidence indicates definitively that roughly 40% (73 of 183 = 39.8%) of private dispensatores had access to some sort of personal, discretionary peculium . In most cases, this is indicated either by the fact that they sponsored the inscription sua pecunia , with their own money, while still apparently enslaved, or that they, themselves, owned a vicarius . Ownership of a vicarius , a slave owned by another slave, necessarily indicates a peculium , though they appear far more rarely in private households than they do in the Imperial familia . Nevertheless, roughly 7% of private dispensatores owned at least one vicarius , some more than one. Though this number may seem low, it is an extraordinarily high proportion when compared with most other privately-owned slave occupational groups. In virtually every such case, it is the vicarius who was memorialized by his slave master.

Ownership of other slaves by dispensatores does not seem to have been particularly exceptional. Returning to Petronius, again, one of the first people Encolpius and his companions

250 Hopkins 1978: 125-128; Silver 2016. 251 Aubert 2009: 182.

76 encounter in Trimalchio’s house is the latter’s own dispensator , who receives accounts near the entrance and prepares to flog a disobedient slave for losing his Tyrian-dyed clothes at the bath. It becomes clear that the dispensator owns the slave when the heroes beg for leniency and, he, with casual extravagance, gives them the slave as a gift. Whether these vicarii were employed as actuarial assistants, as they almost certainly were in the Imperial household, or whether they were merely domestic servants for their private dispensator masters is unclear in the inscriptions.

Nevertheless, their comparative prevalence in the epigraphic record shows that slave accountants probably had considerable economic freedom for a slave. It may even suggest, as some of the literary sources claim, that the dispensator had the potential to enrich himself without being manumitted, and this, too, may have served to lessen the burden of servitude.

So Trimalchio’s biography probably does not represent a “typical” slave-to-successful- freedman career path, at least based on epigraphic evidence. 252 It is likely that there were a number of freed dispensatores who had similar career paths after manumission, but for one reason or another chose not to publicize their slave position in the way that Trimalchio did. Yet, it seems that most slave accountants, despite probably enjoying a greater degree of economic and personal freedom than many other servi , were seldom able, as Trimalchio says, “to taste the water of liberty”. 253 This also necessarily means that their economic activity was somewhat limited by their legal status. They could, and probably often did, benefit from the pursuit of their own, independent commercial interests in practice, but under the law they remained slaves, by and large, incapable of availing themselves of legal agency or of representing their patrons in a juridical context.

252 On the question of the “typicality” of his business interests, Veyne 1961; D’Arms 1981: 97-120; Bodel 1984; Rowe 2001; on the “typicality” of Trimalchio’s self-commemoration, Donahue 1999. 253 Petr. Sat. 71.

2.7 The Familia Urbana and Horizontal “Promotion” after Manumission

So far I have spoken of the familia urbana as a fairly discrete economic unit. This is ostensibly supported by ancient literary sources. When discussing the management of slaves, for example, Columella cautions against favouring urban slaves for managerial positions in an agricultural context. 254 This discrimination, however, does not seem to have played out in reality.

In choosing freed agents, even in a rural context, all signs point to a preference for drawing from the resources of the urban household. This would seem to contradict Columella’s statement that any rural slave, even the vilicus , should be kept from contact with domestic staff. 255 Procuratores tended to be selected from the familia urbana and not the familia rustica , even if their appointments might be to rural properties. That a certain closeness in their professional relationship to their patron seems to have been a significant factor in their selection should not really come as a surprise.

This sort of close connection is evident in the epitaph of the a cubiculo , L. Volusius Paris, which comes from the columbarium of the Volusii. In fact, the inscription states that Paris sought permission and paid to have himself and his family placed in the mausoleum, demonstrating the continuing significance of the familia to the freedman procurator.

254 Columella I, viii, 2: Socors et somniculosum genus id mancipiorum, otiis, campo, circo, theatris, aleae, popinae, lupanaribus consuetum, numquam non easdem ineptias somniat; quas cum in agri culturam transtulit, non tantum in ipso servo quantum in universa re detrimenti dominus capit ; “This negligent and sleepy-eyed type of slaves, accustomed to inactivity, to the Campus, to the races, to the shows, to dice, to eating-houses, and to brothels, never stops dreaming of these empty things; when they carry these things over into agriculture, the master suffers not just a loss of the slave, but of all of his affairs.” 255 Columella XI, i, 13: …qui susceperit officium villicationis, in primis convictum domestici, multoque etiam magis exteri vitet.

Dis Manibus / L. Volusio / Paridi a cubiculo / et procuratori L. n. / Claudia Helpis

cum / Volusia Hamilla et / Volusio Paride / filis suis coniugi suo / bene merenti /

permissu L. n. / s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit) .256

The duties of an a cubiculo implied a constant closeness to the master. It is possible that, as some have suggested, Paris occupied both roles, procurator and a cubiculo , at the same time.

Far more likely, though, that a cubiculo was an occupation that Paris held while still a slave, and that only later, after he received his freedom, was he able to take on the role of procurator. It would be unusual for him to hold two positions with significant responsibilities attached to them at the same time, but, additionally, there is a certain incongruity between their respective duties. The a cubiculo was one of the most intimate posts within a household, necessitating not simply a faithful relationship with the patron or master, but by its very nature a near-constant physical proximity to the head of the household. In the case of Paris, his “Lucius noster” was L. Volusius Saturninus, the suffect consul of 3 CE.257 These requirements of the cubicularius would clash with the basic purpose of the private procuratorship, that of representing a principal unable to personally represent themselves due to absence or unavailability. Conversely, if he is simply stating that he held procuratorial authority while engaged as an a cubiculo – an unlikely possibility – the question then arises as to why Paris might feel compelled to commemorate his legal capacity to act on behalf of his patron in such a way. Certainly the title procurator , by itself, provided confirmation of his elevated position within the familia of the Volusii, of the great degree of trust his master placed in him and of his own personal capabilities as a household administrator. It would be

256 CIL VI 7370. 257 cf. Dessau ILS 7406a, n. 1.

79 unusual if procurator here intended only a broader legal status and not a sort of occupational title, particularly paired as it is with his domestic job.

The parametres of Paris’ procuratio are not clear from the inscription, but he does seem to have held it after his service as a cubiculo and, necessarily, after his manumission. This means that he was promoted from one of the more intimate posts in the domus to one of the more trusted posts a freedman could hold. If we consider personal fondness to be the only motivator for the Lucius

Volusius in this decision, it would not be surprising that he chose to promote one of the slaves with whom he had the most contact. Yet, the position of procurator also required some degree of competence. The individual who took such an assignment on had to have a good sense of the legal system and of what commercial and management decisions his patron might make. Though not the most administratively experienced slave in the domus , an a cubiculo would be uniquely placed to know and respond to the needs of their master and so, in this respect, would be well placed to take on such an appointment.

So perhaps, in certain respects, origin from the familia urbana is not so surprising. There is little doubt that day-to-day interaction with their master gave household slaves opportunities others would not have enjoyed. Favourable treatment, greater social latitude and manumission were more likely for such slaves. Appointment as a procurator, implying a significant authoritative trust, was no doubt viewed as important and prestigious. Yet, the responsibilities of such an appointment were not slight and so required some degree of managerial competency. An epitaph from Rome illustrates this:

Pudens M. Lepidi l. grammaticus / procurator eram Lepidae moresq(ue) regebam. /

dum vixi mansit Caesaris illa nurus. / philologus discipulus .258

While he could boast an impressive career, Aemilius Pudens, had no obvious expertise that would make him a preferred candidate for a procuratorship. He was the instructor of morals, grammaticus and procurator of Aemilia Lepida, who was the daughter of the consul of 6 CE, and, perhaps more famously, the wife of Drusus Caesar, biological son of Germanicus and adoptive son of the Emperor Tiberius. Like other procuratores whose careers originated in child-minding, he was technically a freedman of his charge’s father, though the inscription would seem to indicate that he identified as Lepida’s procurator . The epitaph seems to contain an oblique, self-defensive reference to the latter’s disgrace and death, when, in 36 CE, she was accused of adultery with a slave and committed suicide. This would probably have reflected somewhat badly on the freedman who provided her moral guidance, so the disclaimer is understandable. The wording suggests that

Pudens died sometime before his mistress’ suicide, though evidently not so long before that the epitaph could not take the event into account, saying that she remained the daughter-in-law of

Caesar while he lived. Here it seems more of a possibility that Pudens, in contrast to Volusius

Paris, continued with his previous duties, both directing Lepida’s moral conduct and acting as procurator until his own death. An arrangement of this sort would require that Pudens, even as procurator, would have remained within the house of his mistress, or at the very least would have had daily contact with her.

258 CIL VI 9449: “I, Pudens, freedman of Marcus Lepidus, was the grammaticus [and] procurator of Lepida and I guided her morals. While I was alive that woman remained the daughter-in-law of Caesar. [I was] a man of letters and a scholar”.

The example of Lepida and Pudens also demonstrates the inheritability of procurators through family lines. This will also be discussed in the next chapter, in pointing to the very similar circumstances of Cornelius Atimetus. 259 Both inscriptions demonstrate links with two generations of the same family; Pudens’ professional duties were to Lepida, but his legal status was tied to her father, his patron. Direct servile relationships to two different generations probably also help to explain why some child-minders, specifically, might be preferred as procurators after manumission as opposed to other slaves. Of course, as pointed out before, this would allow for a procurator to be associated with a property or set of properties for a long period of time and over different generations. But perhaps most importantly, social and legal connections existed with both the pater and filius (or filia ) familias , which meant that they were in a unique position to understand and anticipate the executorial inclinations of each and to act as representatives for both successively.

Moreover, when their charges no longer needed a chaperone, their redundancy would make them better placed to take up an additional duty after manumission. This is contrasted with a capable dispensator , for example, whose services were so indispensable that manumission and consequent reassignment were probably quite rare. This sort of continuity would also be beneficial if the procurator’s duties were associated with a specific property or region, as seems to have been the case with Cornelius Atimetus. With Pudens, though, there may have been an additional usefulness in that he had legal ties to his mistress’ father but was able to act as a representative to a woman who, in legal theory, at least, might not be capable of representing herself juridically and commercially. A procurator did not necessarily have to be affiliated with a specific agricultural property, though often this seems to have been the case. Freedmen procurators do appear as

259 CIL VI 9834: Cn. Cornelius / Atimetus / Cn. Lentuli Gaetulici / l(ibertus) et procurator / eiusdem fidelissimus / hic sepultus est / Cossus Cornelius / Cn. [f.] Lentulus / procuratori suo / fidelissimo et / nutricio piisimo / de suo fecit et / monumentum in Sabinis suis / in villa / Bruttiana; see page 122 for a lengthier discussion of this inscription.

82 representatives in financial transactions in the wax tablet archive of the Sulpicii, a 1 st century CE money-lending firm at Puteoli that we shall examine further in chapter four. Here, though, their representation appears to have been ad hoc for specific, individual transactions, rather than long- term engagements. In the few literary attestations of their employment, procurators were always estate managers. Pudens, though not obviously affiliated with a particular property, probably, like many of the freed nutritores who took up the position, had a longer-term assignment than any procurator who appears in the Sulpician archive.

Permanent procuratorships of this type, despite the pre-existing ties and responsibilities of a freed slave, were almost certainly remunerative. Such an agent clearly ranked at the top of the delegation of slaves and freedmen who supervised larger estates in Italy. This is not really surprising, since his personal authority and capacity in decision-making was nearly equivalent, though ultimately subordinate, to the master’s in legal terms. Clearly, the direct involvement of the master would still have had weightier social force and consequence. What is more, procurators were required to submit accounts to their principals documenting any transactions they had engaged in, which would need to be ratified. Such ratification was not necessary for the transactions to be legally valid but was probably only required in third party disputes when the actions of the procurator came into question later. Nonetheless, the authority of the procurator would have facilitated not just management of the estate internally, but also broader transactions related to it. The simple purchase of equipment could be done by a slave vilicus , but the collection of rents, complex arrangements of leases and loans and, certainly, any legal conflicts with neighbours, would be beyond the scope of their legal power. A procurator, stationed on a long- term basis at a particular estate or perhaps in a particular rural area, would allow for more sophisticated legal and economic transactions to occur without any undue delays.

This is why it is, at least initially, surprising to note that four of five freedman procurators who had servile occupations recorded, like Aemilius Pudens, are documented as having previous jobs as child-minders in some capacity. 260 As far as domestic professional titles go, nutrices are particularly difficult to trace and analyze in a meaningful way. The frequent use of the term

“nutrix ” as a term of endearment to refer to family members or others who had some hand in raising a child often makes it very difficult to discern when it is being used in this more neutral sense and when it is used to indicate a professional, designated household posting. Certainly permanently assigned domestic slaves constituted a significant portion of child-minders in Italy, 261 and it was a normal, if somewhat minor, posting within the familia urbana of relatively wealthy

Romans.

The post hoc ratification of the actions of the procurator meant that he also had to be capable of anticipating what actions the absent principal would be likely to take. In this sense, too, we can see why freed slaves who had enjoyed close daily contact with their masters might be preferred to a vilicus , who had better technical knowledge of agricultural management, but somewhat more incidental contact with their dominus . Capability and talent were no doubt also considerations, but a long-developed personal rapport that informed the actions of the freedman procurator seems to be an important factor in their assignment. These nutritores would need to be both functionally and legally literate, but it seems as though Roman patrons did not pick representatives based exclusively on objective capability in the same way that we conceive of it

260 CIL V 4241: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Conservatori pos/sessionum Roscior/um Paculi Aeliani n. cos. / et Bassae filiorumque / eor(um) ex voto L. / Roscius Eubulus nutrit(or) / et procurat(or) cum P. Roscio / Firmo lib. proc(uratore) eor(um) // D(ie) IIII Non(as) Mart(ias) / Iuliano II et Crisp(iano) / co(n)s(ulibus) ; CIL V, 4347: M. Nummio / Umbrio Primo / M. f. Pal. Senecioni / Albino cos., pr(aetori) candidat(o), / leg(ato) prov(inciae) Africae, leg(ato) prov(inciae) Asiae, / q(uaestori) candid(ato) Augustór(um), pontif(ici), / salio Palatino, VIvir(o) eq(uitum) R(omanorum) turmae pr(imae), / IIIviro monetali a(ere) a(rgento) a(uro) f(lando) f(eriundo), / M. Nummius Euhodus lib. / nutritor et procurator, / l(oco) d(ato) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). 261 Bradley 1985a: 497.

84 today . Of course, personal affinity probably contributed as well, though if it were the cardinal prerequisite, we would expect the variety of domestic positions represented to be more varied. The preponderance of child-minders, specifically, among freedmen procurators suggests that these possessed certain peculiar qualities – longevity, multi-generational social and legal ties, and an appreciation of their patron’s intentions – that made them well-suited to serve as representatives for their former masters. It is these qualities, reinforced by the long-standing trust implicit in a domestic slave, that seem to have been most desirable for patrons in choosing a representative from among their liberti .

Chapter 3

Freedmen and Italian Agriculture

3.1 Introduction

Perhaps the one area of the Roman economy where freedmen activity has been least studied is the agricultural sphere, though scholars have begun to examine their involvement in farming and investment in landed property more thoroughly in the past thirty years.262 The epigraphic and evidentiary footprint left by freedmen is much more pronounced in the urban and maritime commercial activities of Roman Italy, where, by all appearances, liberti seem to dominate industries like wholesaling, shipping, banking, and high-end manufacturing. 263 Relative to their ubiquity in the historical record elsewhere, there is an absence of epigraphic documentation of freed slaves engaged in work in the Italian countryside. In general, inscriptional evidence of rural production is difficult to come by in Roman Italy.264 Woolf has noted the concentration of epigraphy around Rome and urbanized areas and connected this to the economic privilege and social fluidity of cities and towns, as well as their importance as loci within communication networks. 265 The relative lack of status differentiation and the ineffectiveness of public display in rural areas was incongruous with the practice of more urban funerary epigraphy. Rural estates were somewhat self-contained and it makes sense that memorialization would not have had the same outward-facing, monumental, and public qualities that it had in other settings. Thus, we should not

262 For example Segenni 1990; Los 1992; Scheidel 1993; Aubert 1994: 149-158; Carlsen 1995; Roth 2011; Mouritsen 2011: 198-200 and 222. 263 See chapters 4 and 5. 264 cf. Samson 1989 disputing the conclusions of MacMullen 1987 that the economic role of slaves was more limited in rural areas based largely on epigraphic sources. 265 Woolf 1996: 37-38.

86 expect the same sorts of epitaphs arising from an agricultural context and there are clear limitations in pursuing the question of freedman engagement in agriculture through occupational epigraphy alone. However, other forms of inscriptional evidence provide some indications of freedmen employed as agricultural agents. The Veleian alimenta table, a monumental inscription from the

Po valley documenting properties and ownership there, record a large number of freedmen registering estates on behalf of principals. Though it is a regionally limited sample, I consider this to be new evidence of a broader employment of trusted freedmen as agricultural managers, as procuratores in charge of administering rural properties. Where these freedmen administrators were drawn from originally is a little more complicated, but evidence suggests that they were not manumitted slave overseers who had gained their experience in an agricultural context, but rather that they were chosen for their literacy, legal expertise, and familiarity to their patrons, generally originating in the familia urbana . A few epitaphs reaffirm these broader conclusions. This indicates a conscious decision by Roman patrons to maintain slaves with more technical experience as direct overseers in that position, while deploying freedmen they viewed as better suited to conduct complex legal and economic transactions as procuratores instead. This latter capability was more important to patrons than an agricultural background. It also suggests that future deployment as freedmen factored into the training they might receive as slaves and that patrons viewed their freedmen as a potential workforce they could draw from in the management of their agricultural estates.

In literary sources, freedmen are only occasionally attested engaging in res rusticae . What little evidence the literary sources do provide for continued freedman investment and engagement in the agricultural sector almost exclusively focus on liberti who provide examples of extraordinary success in yield returns. Pliny the Elder mentions Q. Remmius Palaemon, the freedman known for his grammatical works, and his acquisition of an estate near Nomentum some

87 ten miles from Rome. His servile history, beginning as the verna of a woman from Vicetia who was initially trained in weaving and then becoming an expert in grammar because of his training as the paedagogus of his mistress’ son, was documented by Suetonius. After his manumission, he established a thriving school and invested heavily in clothes workshops and landed property, from which he was reported to have enjoyed a yearly income of nearly 800,000 sesterces. 266 Although

Palaemon was able to resuscitate a neglected estate and recover exceptional vine harvests, this was primarily achieved through the direct managerial intercession of Acilius Sthenelus, himself either a freedman or the son of a freedman.267 Suetonius’ description of Palaemon gives the impression of a freedman heavily involved in the viticulture of his estates, even declaring that he was personally responsible for grafting a high-yield varietal of grape. 268 In the same section, Pliny also discusses the vinicultural accomplishments of Acilius Sthenelus and Ventulenus Aegialus, both described as “ e plebe libertino ”. 269 The latter also makes an appearance in the Epistulae of Seneca, as the owner of the villa properties of Scipio Africanus at Liternum, giving the author a thorough lesson in the technicalities of replanting and tending olive and fruit trees. 270 Some scholars have classified the two men as freedmen, 271 but, unlike Palaemon, they were probably the freeborn descendants of manumitted slaves, rather than liberti themselves.

266 Suet. Gram. 23: Q. Remmius Palaemon, Vicetinus, mulieris verna, primo, ut ferunt, textrinum, deinde herilem filium dum comitatur in scholam, litteras didicit ; “Quintus Remmius Palaemon, the home-born slave of a woman, first, they say, learned the trade of weaving, then learned literature by accompanying his master’s son to school.” 267 Pliny NH XIV, v, 50: Haec adgressus excolere non virtute animi, sed vanitate primo, quae nota mire in illo fuit, pastinatis de integro vineis cura Stheneli, dum agricolam imitatur, ad vix credibile miraculum perduxit, intra octavum annum CCCC nummum emptori addicta pendente vindemia. 268 Suet. Gram. 23: …et agros adeo coleret, ut vitem manu eius insitam satis constet CCCLX uvas edidisse. 269 This may mean, as Shaw 2019: 535 suggests, that Sthenelus was “the son of a freedman”. 270 Sen. Ep. LXXXVI, 14-21. 271 Los 1992: 711; Purcell 1985: 11.

It should perhaps also be pointed out here that the three men are both landholders and are identified exclusively with vine cultivation. Scholars have noted that freedmen seem to appear fairly regularly in connection with viticulture, specifically. 272 The well-attested Pompeiian freedman N. Popidius Ampliatus, who had famously restored the temple of Isis in the city in the name of his six-year-old son, 273 may have also been involved in viticulture. The name Popidius

Ampliatus appears on a wine amphora. 274 It would make sense if, in a branch of husbandry which

“acuminis strenui ministrum postulat ”, 275 industrious freedmen with training in such complex operations might be employed as a sort of chartered consultant, just as Sthenelus did for Palaemon.

Rather counter-intuitively, though, Columella advises that most servile vine-dressers should be recruited from among chained slaves, since the latter were more likely to be clever than docile servi who had not tried to escape. 276 This of course may be an instance of Columella presenting his own ideals rather than representing realistic practices, but this apparent paradox of servi vincti being preferable as vinitores would have meant that the actual field hands had little hope of manumission.277 Men like Sthenelus may have emerged from the class of slave bailiffs, the vilici , who oversaw this technical work. However, there is no definitive evidence for such a practice occurring routinely. 278

272 Purcell 1985: 11. 273 CIL X 846-848. 274 CIL IV 2659; cf. Los 1992: 736. 275 Columella I, ix, 4. 276 Columella I, ix, 4: …ac plerumque velocior animus est improborum hominum, quem desiderat huius operis conditio. Non solum enim fortem, sed et acuminis strenui ministrum postulat, ideoque vineta plurimum per alligatos excoluntur ; “… and very often impudent men have quicker wits, which the circumstances of this work demand. For it demands not just a strong servant, but one with a sharp wit too, and so vineyards are often cultivated by chained men.” 277 cf. Roth 2011: 77-80. 278 Carlsen, 1995: 96-99, who notes that “hope of manumission… was probably only of limited importance” in incentivizing agricultural overseers; cf. Scheidel 1990: 592.

In fact, when liberti appear in an agricultural context, they are almost always characterized as an interloping freeholder, whose success should either be the object of envy or demand some detailed explanation. Despite the unmistakable importance of enslaved labour in Italian agriculture, Roman authors have a curious, reluctant difficulty in accounting for the expertise of former enslaved persons in Italian agriculture. In a similar vein, Pliny illustrates the jealousy a freedman agriculturalist could inspire in the story of C. Furius Chresimus. He was accused of employing sorcery to keep the yields of neighbouring farms lower at a time when his own were remarkably high. Pliny reports that he was acquitted when he displayed his well-maintained tools and vigourous, healthy slaves in the forum before his trial. Unlike Palaemon, Chresimus seems to have been a relatively modest landowner, with only a very small plot, a “ parvus admodum agellus” .279 In any case, it is clear that his holdings were considerably smaller than those of

Palaemon and other exceptional freedman landowners of the early Empire. While the anecdote about Chresimus is probably dated to the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE, it would seem to demonstrate that, despite the resentment that might arise from free-born Romans, freedmen might also engage in medium and small-scale landowning. In this category, in the epigraphic evidence, there is a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty. Los identified 3 freedmen from villa 13 at

Boscoreale, L. Brittius Eros, L. Caecilius Aphrodisius, and Ti. Claudius Amphio, as potentially being rentiers of the same villa. 280 On the other hand, it has also been suggested that they were, all three, joint managers of the property. 281 Their precise relationship to the estate is, at any rate, not obvious from the epigraphic record.

279 Pliny NH XVIII, viii, 41: … cum in parvo admodum agello largiores multo fructus perciperet … 280 Los 1992: 729. 281 Carrington 1931: 113; Stefani et al. 2002: 107.

What is most important, though, is that all of the freedmen mentioned (with the possible exception of Sthenelus and the three men from Pompeii) were not merely managers, but rather the primary landowners of the rural properties with which they are associated. With the exception of four ambiguous passages in the agricultural treatises and two passing references in the correspondence of Pliny the Younger, there are no literary attestations of rural property management by freedmen in Italy under the Empire. This is despite the fact that, slaves not only constituted a considerable (if unquantifiable) proportion of Italian field labour, but also that most of the management positions located internally within agricultural production units seem to have been staffed by slaves. The problems of the evidence would seem, then, to suppress any clear picture of the sort of transition between agricultural slavery and the use of topical expertise after manumission which might normally be expected to occur.

An Augustan-age inscription from Forum Livii also provides some hints of the possibility of some sort of a transitional continuation of agricultural management by freedmen. However, it is not clear what occupational relationship existed between the freedmen mentioned and the property with which they were associated. Set up by the military tribune Gaius Castricius Calvus, it honours his liberti Lucius Castricius and Castricia Helena:

C. Castricius T. f. Calvus trib(unus) [mil(itum) leg(ionis) ---]

benevolus Stellatina [agr]icola, bonoru[m lib(ertorum) patronus]

maxsimeque eorum, qui agros bene [et strenue colant, qui]

corporis cultus, quod maxime opus est [agricolis, curam gerant],

qui se alant, cetera quaequomque habe[nt tueantur].

Praecepta vera, qui volt ver[e] bene et lìbere v[ivere, haec habeto]:

primum est pium esse, [domino bene] cupias, ver[ere parentes, ---]

[--- f]idem bonam [praestes ---,]

[noli maledicere ne male] audias.

Inn[ocens et fidus qui erit], suavem vitam [et offensa carentem]

hon[este l]ae[teque] peraget.̣ Haec non a d[octeis vireis institutus, sed]

[n]atura sua e[t us]u agricola

[m]eminisse docet vos. L. Castricio L. C. l(iberto) [---?]

ob merita quod eius mortem dolui et fu[nus feci et locum dedi],

[ide]mque monumentum hoc ei feci, ut cu[rent omnes liberti fidem]

[pr]aestare patroneis,

[item Ca]striciae C. l(ibertae) Helenae, quod et [ipsa pia fuit]. 282

The inscription expresses Castricius’ general precepts for successful farming practices, specifically as performed by “good freedmen”. The extent of Castricius’ holdings and the commercial and social proximity he had to his freed slaves is difficult to gauge from the inscription. It is possible that Agricola is an agnomen, added later because of his attentiveness to agriculture. 283 Nevertheless, it’s obvious from context that Lucius and Helena continued to work property owned by their patron, perhaps as a sort of pensionary endowment, after they were freed.

282 CIL XI 600: “Caius Castricius Calvus, son of Titus, military tribune of the (?) legion… of the tribe Stellatina, well- wishing farmer (?), patron of good freedmen, especially of those who cultivated their fields well and diligently, who took care of their bodies, which is most necessary for farmers, who nourished themselves and looked after whatever other possessions they had. Let whoever wishes to live well and freely to consider these precepts true: First that you remain faithful, that you desire your master to be well, that you honour your parents… that you keep your word… that you do not speak ill nor be in ill repute. Someone who is blameless and faithful will honestly and happily lead a sweet life free of trouble. This farmer (?) teaches you to remember these things, not having learned them from educated men, but from his own nature and experience. To Lucius Castricius [---], freedman of Caius, whose death I mourned because of his merit, and whose burial I arranged and to whom I gave a place (of burial), and whose monument I also made, so that all freedmen might take care to honour their patrons. To Castricia Helena, freedwoman of Caius, as well, because she, too, was faithful.” 283 CIL XI 600, n.

While we have no supplementary knowledge of the biography of the two liberti , the inscription gives the impression that they had some agrarian experience in servitude. Whether they were only two of many agriculturally active freedmen under his patronage is unclear. Since he was inclined to dedicate a funerary inscription for them long enough to contain a small agricultural treatise, then it follows that he held them in some particular personal esteem. However, their precise economic relationship is considerably more abstruse. It is conceivable that they were vilici who were able to shift their agricultural experience into a slightly more independent business relationship with their patron. It is equally entirely possible that this may be evidence of a trend suggested by Scheidel that freedmen might be engaged as coloni on land owned by their patrons. 284 In that case, their relationship would not be a continuation of direct representational administration of property. This sort of ambiguity is typical of even the best-documented freedman agricultural careers.

Nonetheless, the admonitions of the inscription – the particular focus on respect, faithfulness, and of Lucius as model to other freedmen – indicate that his responsibilities to his former master were more extensive than that of a simple renter.

Besides this inscription, however, there is little epigraphic evidence for people freed from rural slavery continuing to work in agriculture, particularly not while maintaining ties to their former masters. This is not to say that freedmen did not play an important role as estate managers and representatives of their patrons. The alimenta inscription from Veleia prove that freedmen acted fairly frequently there as agents in some capacity, in all likelihood as procuratores .

Furthermore, other inscriptions suggest that these sorts of representatives were drawn from the

284 Giliberti 1981; De Neeve 1984; Scheidel 1992; Scheidel 1993: 194-195; Harper and Scheidel 2018; on developments in Late Antiquity, Marcone 1998; Garcia Moreno 2001; Grey 2011, esp. 485-486; Basta 2017.

93 urban staff. The remainder of this chapter will investigate the implications of these observations more fully.

3.2 Freedmen Agricultural Procuratores : Evidence from the Veleian Alimenta Table

The alimenta inscriptions from the 2 nd Century CE, above all the lengthy inscription from

Veleia, provide possible evidence of more expansive employment of freedmen as rural procuratores . In the late 1st Century or early 2nd Century CE, the Roman Imperial government undertook to establish a new large-scale social aid programme with the aim of supporting the cost of care for disadvantaged children within Italy. Select children who were considered deserving in participating regions were given monthly stipends, usually in the range of 15 sesterces, though this number differed depending on gender. To ensure the long-term reliability of these public subsistence payments, mortgage and loan arrangements were established in various towns and cities, to support a fixed number of children registered in each place. These arrangements are collectively known as the alimenta . Under which of the emperors the alimenta were initiated as a broad, government-sponsored project – whether it was the initiative of Nerva, Trajan, or began as early as Domitian’s reign – is not entirely clear and has been the subject of scholarly debate. Coins issued by both Nerva and Trajan commemorate the alimenta , and the general consensus is that

Trajan probably expanded and further developed a pre-existing Nervan design. 285

Nearly all of the documentary evidence we possess concerning the alimenta and the details of its operation comes in the form of two inscribed lists of registered properties from the reign of

Trajan. The first comes from the small community of Ligures Baebiani, roughly twenty-five

285 On the alimenta generally, Duncan-Jones 1964; Lo Cascio 1978; Cao 2010; Pagé 2012; Carlsen 2013: 39-54; on Veleia, specifically, Criniti 1991.

94 kilometers north of Beneventum. Though most of the first of the table’s three columns is missing, enough survives that a fairly accurate assessment of the size of the arrangement there, as well as the value of the properties involved, can be made. 286 The other inscription records properties in the region of Veleia, south of Placentia and the Po in the eighth region. Not only does it survive in its entirety, but it is considerably longer and provides more specific detailed information than the first. At roughly one and a half by three metres, it is also one of the largest bronze tablets from antiquity to survive intact. Both inscriptions document loans that were drawn from an original pool of imperial funds and provided to private individuals against the value of the various estates they registered. Although rates and loan amounts vary, landowners typically received a loan of between ten and five percent of the value of their registered property. Owners then paid the town or city interest annually on these loans, usually around five percent, in order to provide a reliable, long- term source of funds then directed to the feeding of a fixed number of boys and girls, the alimenta pueri puellaeque , from which the programme takes its name.

Although the two inscriptions vary in certain significant ways, as I will explain, both nonetheless follow the same general format. While the first few lines of the Ligures Baebiani inscription are missing, it, too, probably began like the Veleian inscription with a declaration of the number of children eligible to receive the funds in the town, their status and gender, and finally at what rate they individually received the allowance. They each list the primary landowner and the appraised value of the various plots offered as collateral on these loans, the interest on which

(despite the unusually high security provided to obtain the loans) appears to have been relatively low. The registration of the properties used as security provides us with their individual values, in addition to the names of their respective owners, giving us a general sense of the size of the

286 For a detailed analysis of the Ligures Baebiani table, Torelli 2002: 307.

95 properties in question. The names of the adfines , the owners of adjoining properties, have also been recorded in nearly every instance. In some cases, additional significant topographical or relevant financial information – a brief catalogue of any coloni , or tenants, on the estate, the exemption of specific buildings or valuable equipment or rent money from the property’s valuation

– were also noted.

The inscription from Veleia, the lengthier and more detailed of the two, contains some significant additional information and differs in a few important ways. First, it is clear that the alimenta arrangement in place at Veleia was a considerably more substantial operation than its southern cousin. At Ligures Baebiani, a larger overall number of properties than at Veleia, perhaps sixty-six, appear to have been pledged, but their values range from a very respectable maximum of 501,000 sesterces to a mere 14,000 sesterces, for a mean value of 78,442 sesterces. The scheme at Veleia includes no estates valued at less than 50,000 sesterces. As Duncan-Jones suggests, it should probably be assumed that farms smaller than this value were ineligible for loans there. The largest three estates each exceed 1,000,000 sesterces, the nominal property requirement for Roman senators at the time. The average property value at Veleia was more than three times that of Ligures

Baebiani, 264,328 sesterces, and the programme there probably supported nearly three times as many children. The following excerpt provides a fairly typical example of the formula of the entries on the Veleian tablet:

C. Volumnius Memor et Volumnia Alce, per Volum(nium) Diadumenum libertum

suum, professi sunt fundum Quintiacum Aurelianum, collem Muletatem cum silvis,

qui est in Veleiate pago Ambitrebio, adfinibus M. Mommeio Persico, Satrio Severo

et pop(ulo), HS CVIII. Acciper(e) debe[n]t HS VIII DCLXXXXII n(ummos) et fundum

s(upra) obligare…287

Here we see two Volumnii, Memor and Alce, registering property valued at 108,000 sesterces through their freedman Diadumenus. The property in question is described with sufficient detail to easily identify it and the neighbouring landowners are also named. We also have mentioned significant geographical features of the property to better identify it and its productive potential. The two principals are most likely father and daughter or brother and sister, though this relationship is not explicitly defined. If it were the former, then the daughter would have to be legally emancipated. This is not an impossibility, but the unlikelihood of this situation suggests that they were probably siblings instead.

The Veleian inscription also differs in that it commemorates two separate schemes. The first and larger of the two was the main, imperially sponsored one, established during Trajan’s reign sometime after 102 CE. It comprised 46 registered properties – the largest actually owned by the citizens of the colony of Luca – and supported 245 legitimate boys and one spurius at 47,184 sesterces each year, while 34 girls and one spuria received a total of 5,016 sesterces from it. The other scheme, recorded at the end of the main inscription, appears to have been a smaller, privately funded programme initiated by Cornelius Gallicanus, probably the same man who was suffect consul in 84 CE, and T. Pomponius Bassus, perhaps the suffect consul of 94 CE.288 This private

287 CIL XI 1147, pag. I, ln. 1-5: “C. Volumnius Memor and Volumnia Alce, through their freedman Volumnius Diadumenus, have registered the farm Quitiacus Aurelianus, along with the Muletas hill and the woods, in the Ambitrebian district of Veleian territory, neighbouring the properties of M. Mommeius Persicus, Satrius Severus and the public, for a value of 108,000 sesterces; they ought to receive 8,692 sesterces and mortgage the above-registered farm.” cf. Criniti 1991: 92-93; Durliat 1993: 12-16. 288 Duncan-Jones 1964: 141; Soricelli 2001: 289-297.

97 alimentary programme also seems to have been established earlier in Trajan’s reign than the public one, probably before 102 CE. It was comprised of only five mortgaged properties supporting eighteen boys and one girl at 3,600 sesterces per year. That wealthy consulars might privately fund an institution such as Gallicanus’ at Veleia was certainly not unprecedented and it was probably only one town of many on the Italian peninsula to receive this particular sort of patronage from a senator during the reign of Trajan. 289 The larger imperial programme and the private one by

Gallicanus seem to have been operational at the same time. Although the same estates are never registered in both schemes, four of the five landowners registered mortgages in both the private and the imperial programme. Since both schemes were recorded in the same inscription and since the total number of children supported between them was an even 300, it seems likely that the two programmes were intended to coexist and function in tandem. 290

The high degree of detail provided by the Veleia inscription, as well as its remarkable completeness, have allowed for a more in-depth examination of the functioning of the alimenta programme as a whole, though there remain some questions. 291 Were the loans voluntary? This is not clear. Were the loans and mortgages placed on the properties permanently? This was probably the case, though it cannot be confirmed. At any rate, in addition to helping modern scholars reconstruct the operation of a local alimenta programme, the comprehensive and exhaustive descriptions of the mortgaged properties also give us valuable insight into rural property

289 cf. the donations of Pliny the Younger to Comum detailed in Pliny Ep . vii, 18, 2 on the alimenta , specifically: Equidem nihil commodius invenio, quam quod ipse feci. Nam pro quingentis milibus nummum, quae in alimenta ingenuorum ingenuarumque promiseram, agrum ex meis longe pluris actori publico mancipavi; eundum vectigali imposito recepi, tricena milia annua daturus ; “For my part, I can find nothing more proper than that which I have done myself. For instead of the 500,000 sesterces, which I had promised for the nourishing of free-born boys and girls, I transferred some property of mine worth quite a bit more to the public agent. I received it back from him at a fixed rate, pledging that I will pay 30,000 sesterces each year.” 290 Duncan-Jones 1964: 141-142. 291 Duncan-Jones 1982: 289-319; Criniti 1991: 250-269; Garnsey 1968: 367-381.

98 management in Roman Italy. Champlin called the two main alimenta inscriptions “easily the most important non-literary evidence for the history of property in Roman Italy”.292 Since the values of properties are listed, we can get a good sense of the scale of private Italian estates, even if they are just localized samples. Thorough topographic reconstructions of holdings in the area have also been possible, since the names of all landowners and their immediate neighbours are recorded.

The comprehensive list of owners’ names has also been used to study regional demography and trends in the social and legal status of Veleian landholders. 293 Mouritsen, for example, is willing to “take the frequency of Greek cognomina [in the inscriptions] as a broad indicator of the social profile”. 294 In the inscription from Veleia, he notes that 10.8 per cent of named individual landowners carry Greek cognomina . “The results confirm,” he says “on the one hand, the existence of wealthy freedmen in these communities, while on the other hand they also suggest that they made up only a small minority of local landowners.”295

Our chief concern, however, is more with the identity of the registrants of the properties in question, rather than the intricacies and administration of the flow of funds or the social status of the owners. This is the other way in which the Veleian inscription significantly differs from the

Ligures Baebiani inscription: it contains a remarkable number of instances of what appear to be representation of the primary landowner by a third party. The fact that exactly half of the named primary landholders who take loans from the treasury in the main Veleian scheme do so through the agency of another person, although briefly noted by Duncan-Jones, 296 has never really been

292 Champlin 1981: 239. 293 De Pachtère 1920: 85-98; on freedmen proprietors specifcally, cf. Los 1992: 744-748. 294 Mouritsen 2011: 231. 295 Mouritsen 2011: 231, though we should perhaps be cautious since a Greek cognomen does not definitively denote freed status and also because Latin cognomina are particularly well-attested among certain types of slaves; cf. Bruun 2013: 19-42. 296 Duncan-Jones 1964: 132.

99 the subject of scholarly comment. In discussing whether owners at Veleia might be members of the local curia , Garnsey alludes to the fact that “23 [properties were] declared per alium at Veleia and 10 at Ligures Baebiani, the implication being that the owner was not resident and was therefore not eligible for curial rank.” 297 Of forty-six named landowners in the imperial programme, twenty- three appear to take on loans through another person. If the Gallicanus arrangement is included, twenty-four of the total fifty-one properties are registered through others.

In some of these cases, the action of a guardian or agent was clearly necessitated by the legal status of the principal landowner. As an example, the property of the pupillus Naevius

Memor, an underage ward, was registered through his guardian L. Naevius. 298 Here, the need for such representation is obvious enough, since a minor could not legally act without the authority of a parent or guardian. 299 Similarly, the employment of legal representatives by many of the female property owners is not terribly surprising, whether these were their own slaves, freedmen or men with whom they have no family relationship. What is surprising, however, is the rather high proportion of sons, slaves, and freedmen, clearly identified as such, presented as factors within the inscription. Of the twenty-five named representatives, five are slaves, five are the sons of the primary landholder, while seven are clearly identified as liberti of the property owner. 300 In addition to these, there are four who share the nomen of the primary landholder (though one is the above-mentioned tutor Naevius), and yet have no status indication. Finally, four of the representatives have no apparent social or legal connection to the primary landowners. Perhaps the

297 Garnsey 1968: 368. 298 CIL XI 1147, pag. VI, ln. 52. 299 An opinion of the jurist Marcianus, from book twenty of the Digest applies even more explictly in this situation, stating that “a ward cannot mortgage property without the authority of his guardian”; Marcian. Dig. XX, 3, 1, pr.: Pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate hypothecam dare non potest. 300 The registered values for these properties are: 673,600 HS; 490,000 HS; 292,820 HS; 158,800 HS; 108,000 HS; 90,200 HS; and 69,260 HS.

100 most immediately striking thing about the social statuses of these representatives is the relatively high proportion of freedmen who appear, acting on behalf of their former masters, in a sphere of economic activity not normally associated with freedmen. If we believe that freedmen were rarely involved in Italian agriculture, then the fact that they make up nearly a third of the representatives is unexpected.

It seems unlikely that the slaves, sons, freedmen, and others who registered properties for an absent landowner were simply assigned the single task of registering the properties, without any additional connection to the estates in question. It is also implausible that such massive properties comprised part of a peculium in all of the cases of all sons and slaves recorded. Granted, there are recorded instances of landed estates included in a peculium and the values of the properties registered by sons are generally lower than those mortgaged by the other representatives. The average assessment of the estates registered through filii is about 94,000 sesterces, still a considerable value. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that these were mainly smaller plots, worked by sons, but technically owned by their paterfamilias . This is certainly not the case, though, with the properties registered by slaves, since their assessments are far too high to constitute part of a peculium , with one being valued at over a million sesterces. In case of the slaves and freedmen, in particular, there are a number of indications that these secondary figures in the

Veleian inscription are, not just representatives, but in fact professional agricultural managers, slave vilici and freedmen procuratores , occupied on a long-term basis in the administration of the estates they registered.

First, and perhaps most obviously, it would be strange to bother to record publicly the names of men whose one and only connection to the properties in question was that they registered them on behalf of the principal landowner. Indeed, their very appearance in the register almost certainly indicates some sort of a long-lasting responsibility associated with the estates, one which

101 evidently entailed enough authority that the local public officials were willing to accept them as proxies. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the reason the names of the representatives were recorded on the preserved, publicly displayed inscription was that they were responsible for paying the annual interest on behalf of the primary landowner as well. At any rate, it seems they were imbued with some legal representational authority on behalf of their patrons.

That they were chosen to register the property also indicates considerable knowledge of the individual estates. The representatives would probably have had to provide documentation to justify the official appraisal of the value of the estates, so it follows that they would have possessed financial records and a thorough understanding of them. In many cases, when the properties were registered, the amount of yearly rent from tenants was taken into consideration and recorded, in addition to the details of topography and neighbouring farms, which would require more than a passing familiarity with the registered estates.

The wording of the entries in the inscription would also seem to suggest that they were responsible, not only for registering the property, but for establishing the loan itself and for actually creating the obligation on the property of the person they represented. If we return to the entry of the Volumnii cited earlier, 301 its only unusual feature is the fact that there are two named owners of the fundus in question, Volumnius Memor, and Volumnia Alce, his sister or perhaps his daughter. Other than this, the expression of the freedman’s involvement in the transaction is identical to the other six cases of recorded liberti (and, indeed, those of the other nineteen representatives). Another example follows a similar formula:

301 CIL XI 1147, pag. I, ln. 1-5: C. Volumnius Memor et Volumnia Alce, per Volum(nium) Diadumenum libertum suum, professi sunt fundum Quintiacum Aurelianum, collem Muletatem cum silvis, qui est in Veleiate pago Ambitrebio, adfinibus M. Mommeio Persico, Satrio Severo et pop(ulo), HS CVIII. Acciper(e) debe[n]t HS VIII DCLXXXXII n(ummos) et fundum s(upra) obligare…

102

Sulpicia Priscilla, per Sulpicium Subarum lib. suum, professa est praed(ia) rustica

CCCCLXXXX: accipere debet XXXVIII DCXXX n(ummos) et obligare: salt(um) sive

fund(os) Rubacotium et Solicelo(!), in solidum, et saltum Eboreliam, pro parte

dimidia, qui [sunt] in Veleiate pago Domitio sive Ambitrebio, adf(inibus) Afranio

Apthoro et Coelio Vero et pop(ulo), qu[os] professa est CCCC: in XXXIIII; item

saltum Rubacaustos, in Veleiate pago Domitio, adf(inibus) Afranio Apthoro et

Sulpicia Priscilla et populo, quem professa est XC: in IIII DCXXX n(ummos)...302

It then goes on to list a number of individual properties included as part of the same, larger loan – the farms Rubacotius and Solicelo , the saltus Eborelia , and others. In each entry, the complete transaction of registering the property, creating the mortgage, and accepting the loan, is recorded at the same time. It makes sense that it all would have taken place as one single procedure.

Thus, it follows that the registrant would require the legal authority to place an obligation on the properties at the time they were registered. That such an obligation could be placed on someone by a third party is confirmed by two passages from the Digest , which state that “a party can mortgage property not only for an obligation of his own, but also for that of another” 303 and “the obligation of a pledge can also legally be contracted between parties who are absent”. 304 Although this obviously could be done, the capacity to create liability for a third party in Roman law could

302 CIL XI 1147, pag. II, ln. 4-13: “Sulpicia Priscilla, through her freedman Sulpicius Subarus, has registered rural properties for a value of 490,000 sesterces; she ought to receive 38,630 sesterces and mortgage (the following): the pasture or farms Rubacotius and Solicelo (or Solicelus), in their entirety, and half the value of the pasture Eborelia, which are in the Domitian or Ambitrebian district of Veleian territory, (the latter) neighbouring the properties of Afranius Apthorus and Coelius Verus and the public, which she has registered at a value of 400,000 HS for 34,000 HS; likewise, the woodland Rubacaustus, in the Domitian district of Veleian territory, neighbouring the properties of Afranius Apthorus and Sulpicia Prisca and the public, which she has registered at a value of 90,000 HS for 4,630 HS.” 303 Marcian. Dig . XX, 1, 5, 7, 2: Dare autem quis hypothecam potest sive pro sua obligatione sive pro aliena . 304 Modest. Dig . XX, 1, 23, 1: Pignoris obligatio etiam inter absentes recte ex contractu obligatur.

103 only occur in specific circumstances, especially when we consider the freedmen and freeborn who appear. 305

The term “represent” has been used fairly casually up to this point, but the concept of a direct agent, of an actor capable of acquiring possession of loan and creating liability for a third party never fully developed as its own distinctive legal status in Roman jurisprudence. 306 While personal agency within the Roman legal system never progressed to the degree of complexity it possesses today, commercial realities necessitated the ability to conduct transactions through factors and representatives. Though there were no systematic provisions for a principal acquiring possession or legal obligations through an agent, Roman lawmakers developed various mechanisms to overcome the problems of a representative acting on behalf of an absent principal.

A slave or son could acquire possession and certain rights for an absent master or father, allowing them to perform a variety of economic transactions. Despite this, they remained in potestate , subject to the power of their master or father, and did not technically possess a legal personality, a reality which limited the scope of their legal authority in many respects. For someone who was freeborn or freed, the two most common legal mechanisms employed were mandata and procuratio . Mandata were essentially legal commissions of a specific and, by necessity, gratuitous nature, typically to act in a particular, isolated matter or transaction. This confined the extent of their legal representative capacity. The procuratio consisted of a considerably broader, more general authority and the ability to engage in a variety of transactions. Cicero gives a sense of the potential breadth of a procurator ’s remit in his Pro Caecina : “He can legitimately be called a procurator of all affairs of one who is not in Italy or who is absent on state business, acting almost

305 cf. Plescia 1984; Kehoe 2012: 192-194; Broekaert 2016; Kehoe 2017. 306 cf. Kirschenbaum 1987; Broekaert 2016; Kehoe 2017.

104 as a sort of master, that is a representative of another’s legal authority…” 307 Any free or freed man could be appointed as a private procurator , and could receive compensation for it, which might not be granted when carrying out mandata . Though their legal powers were fairly broad, their appointment could be geographically fixed, to a particular city, for example, or even to specific rural properties. Some scholars have suggested that the procuratio actually originated from the habit of rewarding the loyalty of a trusted freedman by delegating the administration of an estate to them in the mid-Republic, though it was later expanded to include all free Romans. 308

Although the term never appears in the inscription as an occupational title, the slaves who act as representatives in the Veleian inscription could be vilici .309 Carlsen is silent on the implications and possible identification of the Veleian non-owner registrants in his seminal book on Roman vilici . Nonetheless, it is as a vilicus that the slave would possess both the personal authority and the functional knowledge of the estates to be capable of registering on behalf of their master. As we have already seen, the vilicus was almost always a slave “who was the owner’s deputy, exercised extensive power over the other [agricultural] slaves and often enjoyed a high degree of independence”. 310 Their management is generally considered to have been limited to a single agricultural unit.

With the seven freedmen representatives in the Veleian table, we have three potential options. First, one might suggest that the freedmen had some sort of informal authority to register on behalf of their patrons by simple virtue of their previous relationship. This is questionable,

307 Cic. Caec . 20, 57: …is qui legitime procurator dicitur omnium rerum eius qui in Italia non sit absitve rei publicae causa quasi quidam paene dominus, hoc est alieni iuris vicarius... 308 Watson 1961b. 309 Beigel 2015: 179-180, tentatively identifies C. Fisius Dioga, registrant on behalf of Volumnius Epaphroditus in CIL XI 1147, pag. II, ln. 139, as “Pächter oder vilicus im Auftrag von Epaphroditus”, but he was more likely a procurator not directly related to Epahroditus’ family. 310 Carlsen 2010: 77.

105 however, not least because their interest in the properties under consideration in such a circumstance is not at all apparent. The second option is that they received mandata from their former masters, yet this would have been a more provisional arrangement than the inscription seems to depict. That they are, in fact, procuratores assigned to manage the properties they have registered on a long-term basis, seems much more likely. If this were indeed the case, it would demonstrate not only extensive freedman involvement in agriculture, but also that the employment of freedmen procurators was not exclusively limited to the more sizable senatorial fundi .

3.3 The Use of Slave Managers in Italian Agriculture and the Role and Status of Vilici

Where these freed agents originated and how they received the training necessary to undertake these procurationes is worth exploring, since the way in which Roman masters chose these specific men to be their representatives has broader implications. It would be natural to assume that patrons would choose men who had previous direct experience on the plots that constituted their procuratio and that this might form a natural continuation of their service on those specific estates. Vilici , the typically enslaved overseers of Italian estates, would seem to be excellent candidates for these positions. However, probably due to a combination of the value of their technical expertise and a lack of legal literacy and patronal affinity, vilici seem to have rarely been manumitted to continue to serve as freed managers of this type. If freed procuratores were not recruited from this group, but rather primarily from among the urban household, then this suggests that specific knowledge of agricultural practices was a less important concern for Roman patrons. More to the point, though, it means that they saw agricultural procurationes not as a continuation of the service of rural slaves, but rather of urban slaves, whose literacy and fiscal

106 reliability could be assured. This suggests a sophisticated, if specific, grooming and exploitation of urban freedmen as a potential labour pool.

From the time of Cato the Elder, it was taken for granted that the scrupulous management of a sizeable familia rustica , composed of servile labour, was an essential component of efficient rural administration for the elite. Suetonius, for example, makes a brief reference to an apparent initiative of Julius Caesar to increase the number of free-born drovers, since it was presumed to be a labour pool predominated by slaves. 311 It should perhaps be pointed out that this law is mentioned in a list along with other measures instituted to revive the Italian economy, and so its purpose was simply to ensure the employment of more free Roman labour. As such, it may not be indicative of the actual composition of the workforce at the time. Further, it only really seems to apply to herdsmen and so we should be careful not to draw too general a conclusion about broader trends in all of Italian agriculture in the late Republic and early Empire. 312 At any rate, it seems clear that the effects on a smaller sector alone were perceived by Caesar to be significant enough to warrant action. Similarly, Pliny the Elder offers a general, moralizing picture of agriculture during his time, saying that “chained feet, condemned hands, and branded faces” 313 were then responsible for the majority of work in the fields. Of course, his complaints about the state of Italian farming are meant to evoke a romanticized, citizen-farmer based agriculture, and so perhaps should not be taken as illustrative of the reality of the rural economy. Nonetheless, based on the perception of

311 Suet. Iul . XLII, 1: …sanxit… neve ii, qui pecuarium facerent, minus tertia parte puberum ingenuorum inter pastores haberent ; “he decreed that… those who made a living from grazing not have less than a third of those among their herdsmen be free-born men.”; cf. Brunt 1971: 374. 312 cf. Purcell 1985: 3; Patterson 1987. 313 Pliny NH XVIII, iv, 21: At nunc eadem illa vincti pedes, damnatae manus inscriptique vultus exercent, non tam surda tellure, quae parens appellatur colique dicitur et ipso honore his absumpto, ut non invita ea et indignante credatur id fieri ; “And now chained feet, condemned hands, and branded faces do those same things. But the earth, who is called our mother and is said to be honoured (and cultivated), is not so deaf that, when this very honour is ruined by these men, she is not unwilling and indignant that it is done.”

107 the Romans themselves, it seems fairly clear that the involvement of slaves in the Italian agricultural economy of the late Republic and early Empire was significant, even if the share of manpower they provided is uncertain. On larger estates, a servile workforce provided basic field labour, tending crops, ploughing fields, threshing grain, pasturing animals, and generally providing maintenance on the farm. Despite the fact that they provided generic services and the social anonymity of many of them, their tasks would necessarily have involved some degree of training in cultivation. If manumitted, rural slaves would have had a wealth of sophisticated, specialized agrarian training to draw from in order to earn their own livelihood, whether as self-sufficient, small-holding farmers, or simply as experienced contractors. It would make sense if we saw evidence of manumitted servile field hands continuing in some way to utilize the expertise they gained as servi .

We know from the agronomists the extent to which Romans in Italy relied on slaves, not only to provide base manual labour, but also, more importantly, to ensure that the general management of the rural workforce and properties. Indeed, the agricultural writers of the early

Imperial period are consistent in their placement of slaves in the most important managerial positions of the rural household. They take it for granted that the vilicus , the overseer in charge of supervising the familia and villa rustica , would be a slave. The vilicus seems to have developed as an estate manager position in the mid- or even early Republic. 314 Marcus Atilius Regulus, the ill- fated general in the First Punic War, supposedly asked the senate to be allowed to return to Italy from North Africa to replace his vilicus . Depending on which ancient source you believe, his slave vilicus had either died and needed to be replaced or a hired hand had taken advantage of the

314 Carlsen 1995: 29-31.

108 situation to run away with some farm equipment. 315 Although a dubious story, there is no reason to believe that slaves were not employed as vilici as early as the third century BCE in Italy.

They are certainly included in Cato the Elder’s De Agricultura , where a vilicus appears first on the lists of necessary instrumenta , necessary equipment, for the running of both olive farms and vineyards. Later, Cato also outlines, in a broad and non-technical sense, the requirements of the vilicus , above all his obedience to his master:

Vilici officia quae sunt, quae dominus praecepit, ea omnia quae in fundo fieri oportet

quaeque emi pararique oportet, quo modoque cibaria, vestimenta familiae dari

oportet, eadem uti curet faciatque moneo dominoque dicto audiens sit. Hoc amplius,

quo modo vilicam uti oportet et quo modo eae imperari oportet, uti adventu domini

quae opus sunt parentur curenturque diligenter. 316

Under the Empire vilici continued to be predominantly slaves. Columella, who devotes an entire book to the duties and training of the vilicus , first says “my advice at the start is not to appoint an overseer from the sort of slaves who are physically attractive, and certainly not from

315 Front. Strat . IV, 3, 3: Atilius Regulus, cum summis rebus praefuisset, adeo pauper fuit, ut se coniugem liberosque tolararet agello, qui colebatur per unum vilicum; cuius audita morte scripsit senatui de successore, destitutis rebus obitu servi necessariam esse praesentiam suam ; Val. Max. IV, 4, 6: Eiusdem nominis et sanguinis Atilius Regulus, primi Punici belli qua gloria, qua clades maxima, cum in Africa insolentissimae Karthaginis opes crebris uictoriis contunderet ac prorogatum sibi ob bene gestas res in proximum annum imperium cognosset, consulibus scripsit uilicum in agello, quem vii iugerum in Pupinia habebat, mortuum esse, occasionemque nanctum mercennarium amoto inde rustico instrumento discessisse, ideoque petere ut sibi successor mitteretur, ne deserto agro non esset unde uxor ac liberi sui alerentur ; Sen. Cons. ad Helv. xii, 5: Atilius Regulus, cum Poenos in Africa funderet, ad senatum scripsit mercennarium suum discessisse et ab eo desertum esse rus, quod senatui publice curari dum abesset Regulus placuit: fuitne tanti servum non habere ut colonus eius populus Romanus esset? 316 Cato De Agr . 142: “The duties of the vilicus are those things which the master has instructed, and all things which should be done on the farm and what should be bought or brought in, and how food and clothing should be given to the household — these same things I warn that he do and perform, and that he be obedient to his master’s instructions. What is more, he must know how to manage the housekeeper (the vilica ) and how to give her directions, so that whatever is needed when the master comes is prepared and is looked after diligently.”

109 that class which has busied itself with the voluptuous occupations of the city”, assuming that he would be recruited from among the owner’s servi .317 The extensive managerial duties of the vilicus , as well as his elevated position of responsibility within the rural household, would seem to make him an ideal candidate both for manumission and for continuing to apply this administrative expertise in the service of their patron.

However, it is unclear how attainable freedom really was for vilici . In general, as we have already seen, determining manumission rates is deeply problematic, but trends in rural manumission prove especially difficult to ascertain with any sort of precision. By all appearances, manumission was considerably lower outside of Italian cities, 318 where limited contact with the master and reliance on a permanent workforce meant that maintaining slave status indefinitely was much more likely. Even in the case of testamentary manumission, when it came to the familia rustica , it is likely that “the mass of slaves would be passed over silently, as part of the estate, to the heirs”. 319 Obviously it is not the case here that the rural workforce would simply escape the testators notice, but rather that its integrity was economically essential for continuing cultivation.

More surprising is that the vilici , who had the closest connection to the master of any member of the familia rustica , do not seem to have been freed with any regularity. 320

Nonetheless, ancient sources are remarkably quiet when it comes to any indication of some sort of continuing freedman involvement in skilled agricultural labour and rural management.

Despite the emphasis of agronomists on the concerted provision of specialized training and support

317 Columella VIII, 1: Igitur praemoneo ne vilicum ex eo genere servorum, qui corpore placuerunt, instituamus, ne ex eo quidem ordine, qui urbanus ac delicatas artes exercuerit ; cf. Carlsen 1995: 58-60. 318 Bradley 1984: 103-104. 319 Champlin 1991: 142. 320 cf. Beare 1978: 398; Scheidel 1990: 592; Aubert 1994: 149-58; Carlsen 1995: 99-101; on demographics generally, see Roth 2007: 119-134.

110 for slave farm managers, the notion that such skills might continue to be employed after manumission does not appear to have translated into a practice pursued by Roman landowners.

This is particularly surprising when one considers what we know of slave involvement in agriculture and of freedman representation more generally. The likely agrarian origins of the institution of the procurator as a representative of their absent former master have already been discussed, 321 but there is little unequivocal evidence that agricultural management continued to be a significant aspect of the institution into the Empire, despite the fact that freedmen predominate.

There are, in fact, only a handful of attested private freedmen procuratores who can definitively be placed in an exclusively rural commercial context. Furthermore, the few rural procurators who are attested seem not to have been recruited from the expected sources of vilici , and instead appear to have been largely promoted out of less specialist, professionalized, and authoritative ones, and mainly from among the urban household.

If we examine the epigraphic evidence for vilici , certain patterns are revealed that may be able to point towards possible answers to these questions. Firstly, few attested vilici who obtained their freedom list any other occupations on the inscriptions in which they appear. This is in marked contrast to the vilici of the Imperial household, for whom it was not unusual either to hold multiple occupational titles nor to be manumitted at some point in their careers. 322 The higher proportion of free or freed vilici within the imperial service would seem to arise from the greater degree of specialization in their respective duties within the broader structure of the Imperial bureaucracy.

Those vilici mentioned as freed in the familia Caesaris typically have additional titles, frequently denoting the specific physical space in which they discharged their duties. Examples such as the

321 See Introduction. 322 Chantraine 1973: 311-312; Carlsen 1995: 69-70; 97.

111 freed vilicus domus Augustianae , vilicus thermarum , vilicus de praetorio 323 strongly suggest a degree of specialization distinct from those vilici in strictly private service. Higher rates of manumission among the Imperial vilici are probably also influenced by career advancement within the bureaucratic constitution of the administration and the greater capacity for accruing a peculium to pay for their freedom.

3.4 Questions of Manumission and Advancement of Private Vilici

Beyond the familia Caesaris , however, very few inscriptions document manumitted vilici .324 Only five survive which clearly document vilici liberti outside of the Imperial household, one from Asia, and the remainder from Italy. 325 Three of these certainly refer strictly to agricultural overseers, while this is less certain in the case of the two inscriptions originally from Rome. Of the four from Italy, two appear to have come from Rome and the other two from Regio 1. Though the sample size is far too small to give any good indication of broader trends in the manumission of private vilici , the inscriptions, themselves, do provide some interesting details about the men they commemorate.

CIL X, 557, a funerary inscription originally from Rome, 326 names those buried in the tomb of the Appuleii. It was set up by four freedmen of different Appuleii, one of whom seems to have been a faber connected with Posides, a favoured Imperial freedman of Claudius responsible for

323 CIL VI 8650; CIL VI 8676; CIL XIV 199. 324 Cf. Carlsen 1995: 97-101; Scheidel 1990: 591-593; both authors mention only the three unambiguously associated with estate management: CIL III 7147; CIL X 5081; and AE 1980, 229. 325 CIL III 7147; CIL VI 3929; CIL X 557; CIL X 5081; AE 1980, 229. 326 AE 2005 224.

112 public buildings in various parts of Italy. 327 At least 56 different named individuals appear on the epitaph, all, presumably, colliberti or former slaves of the four dedicators. While the documented names may not constitute a single complete familia , only three are identified by occupational titles

– the aforementioned faber , a salarius , and a vilicus libertus , one L. Appuleius L(uciorum) l(ibertus) Hilarus vil(icus) . The precise circumstances of the latter are not revealed in the inscription, and it cannot be said with certainty that he had been employed in a traditional rural vilicatio . Moreover, his relationship to the principal dedicators is by no means clear. Either he was a collibertus of three of the four main dedicants, also manumitted by Lucii Appuleii, or he served as the vilicus for more than one of them. Collective ownership of a slave overseer was not unusual in the Roman world. 328 If freehold of the rural property were shared, it made logical sense that ownership of the attendant instrumenta fundi , including slaves, would equally be shared among the proprietors. This would also mean that the ultimate authority of administration over the slave could likewise be shared. It is entirely possible that the collective bond to both patrons, if the slave were manumitted, might make it more likely for the former vilicus to remain affiliated with the administration of the shared property.

It is possible that this is the sort of situation revealed in a notice for a lost horse found near

Pompeii. It reads: “If anyone has lost a mare with a light burden on August 26th , let them meet with Q. Decius Hilarus, freedman of Quintus, or L. Decius Amphio, freedman of Lucius, on this side of the of the bridge on the Sarno, on the Mamian farm”. 329 Here, it seems, we have a case

327 Manacorda 2005: 47. 328 Examples include Epitynchanus, the servus vilicus arcarius M(arcorum) , in CIL V 5858; and possibly Dorus, disp(ensator) Larc(iorum?) qui ante vilicus , in CIL VI 278; on the latter, cf. Carlsen 1995: 100. 329 CIL IV 3864: Decembres / equa siquei aber(r)avit cum semiunci[a] {h}onerata a(nte) d(iem) VII Kal. S[ept]embres / convenito Q. Deciu(m) Q(uinti) l(ibertum) Hilarum [au]t L. D[eci]um L. l. [Amp]hionem citra pontem / Sarni fundo Mamiano ; cf. Mau 1908: 454.

113 where an agricultural plot is being managed by two liberti , who, though not manumitted by the same master, share some sort of gentilician relationship. The identification of the second freedman as a Decius, while not indisputable, seems very likely. A probable reconstruction, then, might be that the patrons Quintus and Lucius Decius were brothers and their respective freedmen, together, oversaw the Mamian farm owned by both men. Cippi from the ager Pompeianus do bear the name

L. Decius L. f. Rufus.330 Whether the two liberti were then or were ever vilici is not known, but they were surely responsible for the day-to-day management of the farm and could be expected to be present if someone came in search of a lost horse. It is possible that some freedmen continued to be employed as vilici after their manumission, but there is no indisputable attestation of such a situation occurring on any privately-held Italian estates. 331

L. Istacidius Zosimus, a freedman of the locally powerful Istacidii, whose bronze seal was found in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii, may perhaps have been a vilicus or a procurator .332

His seal was found in a section of the Villa devoted to rural activity, but the conclusion that he was the agricultural overseer of the property is by no means certain. His legal status is almost certainly freed, but his occupational details are not expressed in the seal and can only be conjectured. Los has also pointed to other possible freedman agricultural managers in and around Pompeii, including someone identified on a seal as “ Erotis Q. Poppaei ”, 333 perhaps a representative of a relative of the wife of Nero. He concedes, though, that, because all names appear in the genitive,

330 De Spagnolis Conticello 1993. 331 cf. Los 1992: 730, who suggests a number of freedmen around Pompeii may have served as vilici but concedes: “Les exemples de vilici ayant le statut d’affranchis… prouvent seulement qu’il y avait des libertini responsables du fonctionnement des villae rusticae . Mais ils ne constituaient probablement pas un pourcentage important des gérants.” 332 Los 1992: 731; cf. McKay 1975: 111. 333 Not. Sc. 1933 295; Maiuri 1933: 15; on problems of identification, cf. Castrén 1975: 209.

114 the freed status of Eros is not verifiable and that he may, in fact, be a slave manager named Eros who simply belonged to a Q. Poppaeus whose cognomen is not mentioned. 334

Though somewhat less conjectural, continued service is an unlikely possibility in another rather ambiguous instance of a manumitted vilicus who appears at Atina: C. Obinius C(ai) l(ibertus) / Epicadus, / Trebia (mulieris) l(iberta) Aphrodisia, / hic vilicarunt / annos XIIII .335 The

Gaii Obinii were a well-known and important family in Atina. One inscription commemorates a

Republican-era C. Obinius who was a duumvir responsible for construction work on the road leading to the forum pecuarium .336 Another Obinius appearing slightly later seems to have organized a venatio or other gladiatorial games in his capacity as the municipal aedile. 337 As a locally powerful family, it is, of course, unsurprising that they had invested in property in the region and that this property was, at some point, managed by a slave. How this management relates to Epicadus’ status, though, is less evident. The fact that a husband and wife liberti couple seems to have been memorialized where they served as vilicus and vilica suggests some sort of continued affiliation with the property in question. Yet Epicadus and Aphrodisia, though both freed and both subjects of the verb vilicarunt , conspicuously do not share a gentilicium and evidently came from separate families. The farm itself may have been jointly owned by a husband and wife, another

Obinius and Trebia. Here, again, it may be a case of shared property, but whether the vilicatio continued after manumission seems doubtful. As Schumacher notes, “it can of course not categorically be ruled out that C. Obinius Epicadus and Trebia Aphrodisia still exercised their

334 Los 1992: 733. 335 CIL X 5081. 336 CIL X 5074: C. Obinius C. f. Ruf(us) / Sex. Munnius C. f. / IIviri q(uin)q(uennales) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) / p(ecunia) p(ublica) HS LIII(milibus)DCIIX / ad [f]orum pecuariu[m] / viam sternnda[m] / coer(averunt) ; “Gaius Obinius Rufus, son of Gaius; Sextus Munnius, son of Gaius, duumviri quinquennales , by decree of the decurions saw to the paving of the road to the livestock forum at a public cost of 53,608 sesterces.” 337 AE 1981, 219: C. Obin[ius ---] / aedi[lis? ---] / dedi[t ---] / best[---] / insa[---].

115 professional duties even after their manumission; but their different gentile names speaks rather against this assumption.” 338 Carlsen also suggests that the past-tense use of the verb and the specification of the fourteen years of service probably mean that “manumission may have been a reward upon retirement”. 339 Though no literary sources discuss granting freedom to slave overseers, it is reasonable to assume that the beneficium libertatis often accompanied the discharge of the vilicus from their responsibilities.

Questions of terms of service for vilici are important in indicating both the expectations

Roman masters had of the position and also whether overseers would even be capable of assuming a procuratorship for their patron after they were freed. In looking at the demographics of overseers more broadly, only six private vilici have specified ages in epitaphs, but just two of these were younger than forty 340 and neither of these were manumitted. Columella specifically recommends having a vilicus serve from the ages of thirty-five to sixty-five. 341 This suggests that, unlike imperial vilici , who were often freed and promoted to other appointments before forty, 342 private bailiffs would generally have been unable to assume any additional duties after their service ended.

This would be particularly disqualifying for procurationes , since stability and longer terms of service would also be beneficial in the patron-freed procurator relationship. It is unlikely that a patron would expect a vilicus to assume such a position after the age of sixty.

338 Schumacher 2010: 34. 339 Carlsen 1995: 98. 340 CIL X 4917, cited below, and Suppl. It . XX 2003: 161: Aper, M. Caerdi / Secundionis / vilic(us), ann(orum) XX, h(ic) s(itus) e(st). / Firmus conlactius / posuit ; “Aper, vilicus of Marcus Caerdius Secundio, 20 years old, lies here. Firmus, his nurse-mate, placed this.”; cf. Carlsen 1995: 69-70. 341 Columella XI, 1, 3: Media igitur aetas huic officio est aptissima: poteritque ab annis quinque et triginta usque in sexagesimum et quintum si non intervenient fortuita corporis vitia, satis validi fungi muneribus agricolae ; “Middle age, then, is best suited to this duty and a man will be able to perform the tasks of a sufficiently active farmer, if no bodily ailments intervene, from 35 to 65 years of age.” 342 Carlsen 1995: 69-70.

116

An inscription from Venafrum, CIL X, 4917, does not document a manumitted vilicus , but illustrates certain expectations for freedom one might have. It commemorates Narcissus, vilicus of

T. Titucius Florianus and Teia Galla, who died at age 25. Like other vilici mentioned above, he served two different, presumably unrelated owners. Interestingly, though, his epitaph goes on to declare that he, on account of his youth, was denied his deserved freedom by law. 343 This was evidently an oblique reference to the terms of the lex Aelia Sentia , which restricted manumission of slaves under the age of 30, so it is perhaps difficult to draw too firm a conclusion on how representative this is of broader manumission trends for vilici , whether real or aspirational.

However, the idiom libertas debita in the inscription suggests that, notionally at least, freedom was rightfully earned by the vilicus in exchange for a term of loyal and beneficial service. In all likelihood, this term of service was typically fairly lengthy.

In farming, in particular, there would have been a greater necessity to maintain consistent management in the long term. It seems probable that such a period of service could be expected to last at least a decade and probably longer. As an example, the aforementioned C. Obinius

Epicadus served as a vilicus for at least fourteen years. A passage in the Digest suggests that an eight-year tenure after the death of a testator might be a normal stipulation for continued service by a dispensator , a vilicus , and a vilica .344 It deals with the interpretation of a (probably fictitious)

343 CIL X 4917: Narcissus vil(icus) / T. Tituci Floriani / et Teiae L. f. Gallae / vixit an(nis) XXV. / Debita libertas iuveni mihi lege / negata, / morte immatura reddita perpetua est ; “Narcissus, vilicus of Titus Titucius Florianus and Teia Galla, daughter of Lucius, lived 25 years. The liberty owed to me and denied by law because of my youth was perpetually given back to me by a too-early death.” 344 Scaev. Dig . XL, 5, 41, 15: Herede filio suo ex asse instituto libertatem dedit in haec verba: “December, dispensator meus, Severus vilicus et Victorina vilica Severi contubernalis in annos octo liberi sunto: quos in ministerio filii mei esse volo: te autem, Severe fili carissime, peto, uti Decembrem et Severum commendatos habeas, quibus praesentem libertatem non dedi, ut idonea ministeria haberes, quos spero te et libertos idoneos habiturum.” ; “A testator who had his son as his sole heir granted freedom in the following terms: ‘Let December, my dispensator , Severus, my vilicus , and Victorina, the vilica and spouse of Severus, whom I want to stay in the service of my son, be free in eight years. I ask that you, my dearest son Severus, to value Severus and December, whom I have not granted immediate freedom, so that suitable services will be rendered to you, and I hope that you will have them as good freedmen.’

117 will establishing an eight-year term of service to his heir and son for a dispensator before the latter’s manumission. It is not, however, clear whether the eight years represent a typical length of time, or merely indicate a hypothetical term of arbitrary length. Further, we don’t know how many years of service the men are imagined to have provided before the will was written. The wording in the passage indicates that their retention was motivated by prior long-standing good service, so it is likely that they had been enslaved in their respective roles for some time beforehand. At any rate, the delayed, conditional manumission is an interesting stipulation in the will. It clearly envisages a situation where it was useful for the father to preserve the existing management structure, but also to make clear his own intention that the slaves be treated well and be rewarded with their freedom. It is also instructive that the three servile posts mentioned are vilicus , vilica , and dispensator . We have already seen the unusual characteristics of dispensatores , when it comes, in particular, to things like manumission and social freedom in the previous chapter. For similar reasons – an exceptional need for continuity of administration and the need for an especially trustworthy slave in the position, among others – vilici , like dispensatores , seem to have been expected to serve longer terms as slaves, though this might be mitigated somewhat by greater than normal freedoms. These longer terms of service may well be a significant contributing factor to the apparent lack of freed Roman agricultural managers taking on any additional representational duties.

3.5 Family Groups and their Manumission as Possible Incentivization for Unfree Vilici

We do see some interesting trends in the inscriptions of unmanumitted vilici , which, like those of the domestic accountants covered in the previous chapter, often emphasize familial ties.

While the sample size for dispensatores is quite small, for vilici it is considerably smaller.

Nonetheless, a similar tendency for enslaved vilici to have manumitted relatives is rather striking.

118

A stele from Salerno, depicting a togate figure reads: T. Helvio Quarto, filio, / T. Helvio Hespero, priv[igno], / Helviae Secundae, coniugi. / Secundio, Helviae Procu[l(ae)]/ vilicus, sibi et suis fecit

/ quod facer(e) filius / patri debuit [id]/circo filio fecit pater. 345 Here the vilicus of Helvia Procula placed a stone for his wife, stepson, and son, the last of whom evidently predeceased his father.

Though Secundio seems to be still a slave himself, his family members are all either freed or free- born. Considering the shared gentilicia , it looks as though they were all manumitted by Helvia

Procula, the mistress of Secundio. This may well be the same as Helvia T(iti) f(ilia) Procula , who set up an inscription at Rome commemorating the career of her senatorial husband, C. Dillius

Vocula and was the daughter of a governor of Galatia under Tiberius. 346 This sort of arrangement may be analogous to an apparent inclination for masters to allow for the forming of slave families and to free relatives of dispensatores , perhaps as a way of mitigating the extended terms of service that were expected of them. If the circumstances were much the same for both groups, this would also help to explain why, as with the highly qualified dispensatores , so few vilici were promoted to representational positions in Italian agriculture as freedmen.

Indeed, there are a fair number of appearances of the children of slave overseers in the epigraphic material. In one inscription from central Italy, a vilicus memorialized his deceased wife and daughter with his own money. 347 Though none seems to be freed, this also means that he had some source of discretionary personal funds available to him for the monument. Another, from the area near L’Aquila, records four probably freed children who established an epitaph for their

345 InscrIt . III, i, 229; AE 1966, 106: “To his son Titus Helvius Quartus, his stepson Titus Helvius Hesperus, his wife Helvia Secunda. Secundio, vilicus of Helvia Procula, made this for himself and his relatives. What the son ought to do for his father, father did for son.” 346 CIL VI 1402; cf. Raepsaet-Charlier 1987: 353, § 414; Weinrib 1990: 155-157. 347 CIL IX 820: Antipater vilicus / Lesbiae coniugi ann(orum) / XXIII et filiae menser(um)/VIIII fecit de suo .

119 father, Glaucus, a vilicus of a certain Nepos. 348 The status relationship between the children and

Glaucus’ master is unclear, but at least one of his daughters, Vitulasia Briseis, seems to have been free. Perhaps most interesting is an epitaph from the area of the Fucine Lake, in which a fifty-year- old enslaved vilicus , Paternus, and his four-year-old citizen grandson were commemorated by their free son and father, respectively. 349 Here, too, the gentilicium of Paternus’ dominus is unknown.

While not impossible, it is difficult to imagine that circumstances were not such that his son had been freed from his own master’s household, while Paternus continued to be held in bondage for the duration of his tenure as overseer. Also in Regio IV, Firmus, the vilicus of Varius Ambibulus, was memorialized by his daughter Varia Firma. 350 In this case, it’s almost certain that the daughter was manumitted by Varius Ambibulus, possibly the suffect consul of 128 CE or a relative, although the name is relatively common in central Italy. 351 Her manumission may well have been an attempt at a palliative measure by a senatorial landholder to ease the protracted slavery of her overseer father and may also have served to suppress the expectation of liberation.

Like dispensatores , some vilici also have other traits that may be evidence of a similar policy of status attenuation and prolongment. Though their lives are less well-documented, there is some evidence that vilici enjoyed a greater economic freedom than many of their fellow slaves.

We’ve already seen some instances of overseers who had the financial capacity for family and self-commemoration, and their potential to accumulate a peculium seems to have been greater than other conservi . Varro explicitly advises that a peculium , and even the right of pasturing their own

348 CIL IX 3617: Glauco, / Nepotis vilico. / Vitulasia Briseis p(atri) / et Logias, Hymnus, / Logas, Glaucus, Liberalis, Logismus, / f(ilii) patri p(osuerunt) ; “For Glaucus, vilicus of Nepos. Vitulasia Briseis and Logias, Hymnus, Logas, Glaucus, Liberalis, and Logismus, his children, placed this for their father.” 349 CIL IX 3701: Paterno, vili/co, q(ui) v(ixit) a(nnos) L m(enses) VI / et Camerio Materno, nepoti, / q(ui) v(ixit) a(nnos) IIII m(enses) V d(ies) II. / Camerius Priscus patri et / filio b(ene) m(erentibus) p(osuit). 350 CIL IX 3056: Firmo, / Vari Ambibu/li vil(ico). / Varia Firma / patri / b(ene) m(erenti) / p(osuit). 351 Andermahr 1998: 469-470, §555; cf. AE 1969/70, 106; AE 1950, 59.

120 animals, be given to slave overseers as an incentive and reward for good work. 352 Proof of this practice appears in some of the inscriptions. Though far more common among Imperial and public vilici , some private overseers are known to have owned other slaves. Apollonius, a vilicus from

Samnium, commemorated his six-year-old verna , Sermo. 353 While inscriptions are too few to point to a definitive trend, this does appear to correspond to the patterns seen among some slave managers in the urban household.

Though their prominence and esteem within the slave familia was probably not on par with that of the dispensatores , whose position within the familia urbana meant that they were even more likely to work closely with their masters, slave overseers were clearly treated with a comparable proprietorial approach. Vilici , like dispensatores , seem to have had particular moral and professional demands placed on them, as well as the assumption that their occupation would be a long-term one. This applied not only to their engagement as dispensator or vilicus , but also extended backwards into training that might begin in their youth, before they were even assigned to such a post. It is unsurprising, then, that these two positions have been specifically highlighted as “‘verna-spezifische’ Tätigkeiten”, since specialization, trustworthiness, and integrity were shared prerequisites for both positions. 354 It would probably not have been unusual, then, that these servile tenures and the slaves, themselves, might be bequeathed to heirs along with the property to which they were bound.

352 Varro RR I, 2, 17; and I, 17, 7. 353 CIL IX 5460: Sermo Apolloni / vilici v(erna) v(ixit) a(nnos) VI ; cf. CIL XI 871, where a vilica built a tomb for herself and her vicaria . 354 Herrmann-Otto 1994: 397; cf. Carlsen 2010: 79-81.

121

3.6 Agricultural Procuratores and the Apparent Absence of Vilici

The question of status is an important one for assuming a procuratorship. Free or freed status was an essential precondition of this form of representation. We have seen that this practice of employing procuratores in the management of landed property within Italy itself existed in the

Republic, and, further, that its earliest form probably represents the social origins of the procuratorship as a legal institution. Yet there is a considerable increase in the evidence of the

Imperial period for procuratores liberti and their involvement in estate management, which may indicate a preference for freedmen in this role. Procurationes of this type, despite the pre-existing ties and responsibilities, were almost certainly remunerative. Such an agent clearly ranked at the top of the delegation of slaves and freedmen who supervised larger estates in Italy. This is not really surprising, since his personal authority and capacity in decision-making was nearly equivalent, though ultimately subordinate, to the master’s in legal terms. Clearly, the direct involvement of the master would also have weightier social force and consequence. What is more, procurators were required to submit accounts to their principals documenting any transactions they had engaged in, which would need to be ratified. Such ratification was not necessary for the transactions to be legally valid but was probably only required in third party disputes when the actions of the procurator came into question later. Nonetheless, the authority of the procurator would have facilitated not just management of the estate internally, but also broader transactions related to it. The simple purchase of equipment could be done by a slave vilicus , but the collection of rents, arrangements of praedial servitudes and leases and, certainly, any legal conflicts with neighbours, would be beyond the scope of their legal power. As part of their duty to render accounts to their patrons, the more complex aspects of financial record keeping probably also fell within the remit of agricultural procurators. Their elevated position within the hierarchy of rural

122 overseers, coupled with the fact that they were on-site and had an excellent understanding of the farm’s finances, placed them in an ideal position to develop long-term plans as well as on-the-spot decisions. Schäfer suggests that the procurator established broader goals for economic planning and development and then oversaw its implementation by others within the management structure. 355 A procurator, stationed on a long-term basis at a particular estate or perhaps in a particular rural area, would allow for a variety of more sophisticated legal and economic transactions to occur without any undue delays.

As with landed and moveable property, the more general obligations and responsibilities of the freedman towards his patron could also certainly be transferred to his heir, 356 and this precept frequently extended to relationships with freedmen procuratores as well. We have already seen how a term of service for a vilicus might be continued over two generations of masters. This phenomenon can be observed in the case of Cornelius Atimetus, who had served as a nutricius , presumably before becoming the procurator of a senator. 357

Cn. Cornelius / Atimetus / Cn. Lentuli Gaetulici / l(ibertus) et procurator / eiusdem

fidelissimus / hic sepultus est / Cossus Cornelius / Cn. [f.] Lentulus / procuratori suo

/ fidelissimo et / nutricio piisimo / de suo fecit et / monumentum in Sabinis suis / in

villa / Bruttiana.358

355 Schäfer 2001: 276: “…der procurator hat demnach in erster Linie den Rahmen vorgegeben für die ökonomische Entwicklung, die dann wiederum von den actores umgesetzt werden musste...” 356 eg. Dig. XXXVIII, 1, 7, 8; Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 29; Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 51; Dig . XXXVIII, 2, 3, 9. 357 cf. The grammaticus Pudens, mentioned in CIL VI 9449 and discussed in the previous chapter on page 80. 358 CIL VI 9834: “Cn. Cornelius Atimetus, freedman of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and faithful procurator of the same is buried here. Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, son of Cn., built this for his faithful procurator and most dutiful guardian and the monument in the villa Bruttiana on his Sabine properties.”; cf. Andermahr 1998: 236-238, §168.

123

In the case of Cn. Cornelius Atimetus, the freed slave of Cn. Lentulus Gaetulicus, it is clear enough that he was freed by the father, rather than the son who commemorated him. Evidently this indicates that the manumission of Atimetus antedated the death of his patron Gaetulicus in 39 CE, when the former consul was executed in Germany. Surely Cossus would have no need for a nutricius , probably being at least in his early thirties by that point, unless for his own children. The wording of the inscription would appear to refute this, however, since no mention is made of the

Cossus Cornelius who would become consul in 60 CE, or any other child for that matter. A more natural career trajectory (if it can be so called) for Atimetus would rather be enslaved nutritor , freed by the father and then employed by the same as a procurator after the young Cossus had outgrown his need for a child-minder. Of course, the duties of a nutritor could and often were fulfilled by freed slaves, as Bradley demonstrates,359 and nothing necessarily precludes the possibility that Atimetus had already been freed while he was still acting as Cossus’ nutritor . The wording of the inscription, at any rate, shows that he acted as procurator for both father and son, and so it seems quite clear that a freedman could continue to fulfill such duties over generations.

The family of Cn. Cornelius Atimetus is one of the best attested of all those represented in the inscriptional evidence. We know of Cn. Lentulus Gaetulicus from various literary sources. He was the consul in 26 CE and had a lengthy tenure as legatus Augusti in command of the legions of

Germania Superior under both Tiberius and Gaius. He was closely allied with L. Aelius Seianus and was one of the praetorian prefect’s few associates to survive and maintain a political career after the latter’s fall from favour. Tacitus credits Gaetulicus’ endurance to a letter he sent to

Tiberius suggesting that he and the emperor shared the same bad judgment, that his own faults

359 Bradley 1991: 48.

124 were Tiberius’ faults as well. 360 More than likely, though, Tiberius was simply disinclined to make any aggressive moves against a popular commander at the head of three active legions. While still holding this post, though, he was accused of involvement in a conspiracy along with Lepidus by the emperor Gaius and was executed in 39 CE. By all accounts, Gaetulicus was quite a wealthy man. We know from Tacitus that his own father, who obtained the family’s agnomen campaigning against the Gaetulians in North Africa, rose from relative poverty to considerable wealth,

“honourably obtained and unostentatiously enjoyed”.361 The villa Bruttiana mentioned in the inscription as being situated somewhere in the Sabine territory, where Cossus also built a monument to his deceased freedman, may well be an older family estate and one of the assets

“honourably obtained” by the elder Gaetulicus, perhaps from a certain Bruttius. Though this inscription originally comes from the tomb of the Scipiones on the via Appia , the fact that a second monument was erected at the rural villa suggests that Atimetus may have had an additional connection to it. If he were acting as a procurator associated with that particular property, which was then passed down from father to son, Atimetus may simply have continued to manage it. 362 It seems a more plausible picture that Atimetus was a nutricius freed by Gaetulicus, who then served as a procurator, managing the family property in the Sabine hills under both father and son. It is interesting to note, however, not only that Atimetus was promoted from a servile office within the familia , but also the type of duties he held before he was appointed. It is rather surprising that these duties do not seem to be characterized necessarily by experience in rural management before

360 Tac. Ann . VI, 30. 361 Tac. Ann . IV, 44: Lentulo super consulatum et triumphalia de Getis gloriae fuerat bene tolerata paupertas, dein magnae opes innocenter partae et modeste habitae ; “Besides the consulate and the triumphs over the Getae, it was a glory of Lentulus to have endured poverty well and then to have obtained great wealth honourably and enjoyed it modestly.” 362 Schäfer 1998: 181.

125 manumission. While we might expect to see a former vilicus , or even a slave with a more obvious administrative background like a dispensator or institor , instead we see a slave whose responsibilities had kept him in close proximity to his master. The apparent lack of vilici being appointed as procuratores on rural estates, though, is especially surprising, since it seems to indicate that these promotions were made, not from within the administrative structure of the individual estates, themselves, but rather from among freedmen who originated in the central household of the master. Procurators, by all appearances, tended to be selected from the familia urbana and not the familia rustica , even if their appointments might be to rural properties.

Although the sample size is relatively small, the evidence gives the impression that there existed a trend of selecting freedmen procurators based above all on the closeness of their relationship to their patron.

A votive dedication, dated to 224 CE and found near Brixia, attests to two freedmen procurators of senators, L. Roscius Eubulus and P. Roscius Firmus, who appear to have been promoted in a way similar to Atimetus and to have been engaged under similar circumstances:

I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Conservatori pos/sessionum Roscior/um Paculi Aeliani

n. cos. / et Bassae filiorumque / eor(um) ex voto L. / Roscius Eubulus nutrit(or) / et

procurat(or) cum P. Roscio / Firmo lib(erto) proc(uratore) eor(um) // D(ie) IIII

Non(as) Mart(ias) / Iuliano II et Crisp(ino) / cos.363

363 CIL V 4241: “To Jupiter Optimus Maximus, preserver of the properties of our consul Roscius Paculus Aelianus and of Bassa and their children, from the vow. Lucius Rocius Eubulus, guardian and procurator along with Publius Roscius Firmus, their procurator and freedman. March 4 th of Julianus’ second consulship and Crispinus’ first consulship (224 AD).”; cf. Andermahr 1998: 413-414, §452, who identifies other epigraphic evidence of their rural holdings in the area of Brixia; on the daughter of Roscius Paculus, Rapsaet-Charlier 1987: 536, §666; on Bassa, cf. Alföldy 1999: 337.

126

The two men were the colliberti of L. Roscius Paculus Aelianus Salvius Iulianus, who had served as consul the year before. Though Firmus is only identified as a libertus without any indication of what his previous responsibilities had been, Eubulus had evidently performed similar functions to those of Cn. Cornelius Atimetus and others, 364 again probably before manumission. It is can be concluded that Firmus’ position within the household had been fairly elevated as well. In the inscription, the two men refer to the possessiones of their masters, the management of which they were presumably entrusted. 365 Possessiones , in this case, undoubtedly refers to estates in the region. Other sources establish that the Roscii had long had interests in northern Italy, and this inscription seems to provide evidence for extensive land holdings in the area. 366 The employment of two procurators in the same region, as well as the plural “ possessiones ”, strongly suggests that they had more than one estate in the vicinity of Brixia.

It is also worth noting that these relationships were probably multi-generational because the responsibilities of the freedmen were attached to inherited property, particularly in such instances where the former freedmen were given appointments managing rural estates. Granted, some of these sorts of assignments were probably partially motivated by a desire among patrons to reward cherished household slaves with a comparatively easy retirement at country estates, while still obtaining some economic benefit from their continued service. We know that Pliny the

Younger set up his former nurse with a rural “retirement” property, though that was managed by someone else and Pliny himself seemed rather uninterested in its profitability. 367 In addition to

364 M. Nummius Euhodus of CIL V 4347, for example, was also a “ nutritor et procurator” and was alluded to on page 83. 365 Schäfer 1998: 190. 366 Alföldy 1999: 337, who documents the long-standing interests and associations of the Roscii in northern Italy, beginning with Roscius Paculus’ grandfather, though he concludes the family originated in Spain; cf. Andermahr 1998: 413-414, §452; Gregori 2000: 235; on senatorial agriculture in the area generally, Tassaux 2005: 150-152. 367 Pliny Ep. VI, 3.

127 their previous proximity to and familiarity with the desires and priorities of their patrons, this pragmatic magnanimity may also help to explain why we see so many former domestic slaves acting these procuratores liberti . Nonetheless, the interrelationships here are also influenced by the continuity of property management among the senatorial class, and probably reflect the desire for stability of management as much as anything else. Because in all of the previous instances we are dealing with senatorial families, we should be cautious in drawing specific conclusions about how this might apply to trends in freedman management more generally. Regardless of status and wealth, though, the inheritance of patronal rights was recognized universally as an important quality of Roman law, one which was emphasized and scrutinized by the jurists. 368

In addition to the inscriptions, there are a few literary attestations of the employment of freed procuratores as estate managers. There are altogether four allusions to the procurator in two of the agricultural writers’ works, although none specifies social status. The excerpts all seem to imagine a procurator very much involved in the more mundane, day-to-day agricultural operations of the estate he oversees, whether ensuring chickens fulfill a laying quota, 369 watching over the threshing floor, or choosing a suitable place for a new beehive. 370 The sort of hands-on supervision that Columella and Varro expect demonstrates the assumption that the procurator would be located, more or less continually, at the property they oversaw. It is certainly possible that they are using the term in a loose, non-technical fashion, that they simply intend a general, unspecialized supervisor and not, specifically, someone possessing procuratorial authority. However, Columella

368 cf. Ulp. Dig . XXXVIII, 4, 1, which refers to a Claudian-era senatorial decree regulating assignment of rights over freedmen and also the general rules for freedman assignment. Notable is the legal ease with which assignment of these rights could be done: Adsignare autem quis potest quibuscumque verbis vel nutu, vel testamento vel codicillis vel vivus ; “It is possible to assign [patronal rights over a freedman] by any words whatsoever, or by a nod, or by will or codicils, or while alive.” 369 Varro RR III, vi, 3. 370 Columella I, vi, 23 and IX, ix, 2.

128 also recommends that the quarters of the procurator, like those of the vilicus , be placed close to the entrance to the farm, so that he can observe those coming and going. He also adds that this will enable the procurator to keep a closer eye on the vilicus .371 This would seem to affirm both the commanding position of his procurator in the management structure, and also the notion that he might be expected to stay at the property he oversaw. In one of his letters, Pliny the Younger, while debating the purchase of an estate adjoining one he already owns, outlines the benefits of such an acquisition, including the ease of administration provided by their proximity to each other. 372

Although, as with the agronomists, he does not mention the status of the procurator he imagines overseeing both properties and, significantly multiple servi actores , or subagents, it seems very likely that he intends a freedman. This can also be seen as evidence that the procurator sometimes might have multiple properties under his administration, though undoubtedly this required that they be relatively close to each other geographically.

However, if the procurator seems to have occupied a more important position than the vilicus in the adminsitrative structure of the Roman farm, how, then, do we account for the relative lack of detail in the agronomists on their duties, particularly when those of the vilicus are covered so thoroughly? Columella is extremely generous in providing detailed instructions, not only about the idealized moral and physical characteristics of the vilicus , but, more importantly, about the obligatory prescribed demands and responsibilities which should be placed on them each day. In

371 Columella I, vi, 7: Vilico iuxta ianuam fiat habitatio, ut intrantium exeuntiumque conspectum habeat, procuratori supra ianuam ob easdem causas; et is tamen vilicum observet ex vicino… / “Residence for the vilicus should be provided close to the doorway, so that he might have oversight of those coming and going, and for the procurator above the door for the same reasons and also that he can watch the vilicus from nearby…” 372 Pliny Ep. III, 19: Sollicitat primum ipsa pulchritudo iungendi, deinde quod non minus utile quam voluptuosum posse utraque eadem opera, eodem viatico invisere, sub eodem procuratore ac paene iisdem actoribus habere, unam villam colere et ornare, alteram tantum tueri. / “First the beauty, itself, of joining them tempts me, then, what is no less useful than pleasurable is to be able to visit both with the same effort and trip, to have both under the same procurators and nearly the same overseers, and one villa to inhabit and decorate, while just preserving the other.”

129 point of fact, he dictates an active, entirely exhaustive daily agenda for the overseer, explicitly saying that activity should essentially be constant and sustained and that the vilicus should at all times be present. 373 Of course, his suggested regimen is pretty unrealistic and impracticable, but the comparative unconcern for detailed instruction for procuratores may be explained in a number of different ways.

First, since the procurator was necessarily free or freed and the vilicus was almost always a slave, the former was not bonded to the property owner in the same way; he could not be commanded with the same severity, rigour, and degree of control as the slave vilicus . The latter, on the other hand, required firm direction from the master, not only as a management technique, but also in his capacity as a slave. Secondly, the duties of the procurator were likely far more inconstant than those of the vilicus , who could, by virtue of the immediate oversight demanded of him and his fixed relationship to the agricultural unit with which he was entrusted, be given detailed practical instructions for cultivation and administration. The duties of the freed procurator, on the other hand, would probably not normally have been as directly tied to workforce and task supervision, but rather legal and commercial representation of his patron. Consequently, there was likely a wider variability in the tasks assigned to him, such that no generally applicable prescriptive instructions could be given when he was placed in charge of administering one or more rural properties.

In another letter of Pliny, the legal status of the procurator is less uncertain and his duties are much more in line with the legal and commercial management that was probably typical of the

373 Columella I, viii, 11: Nulla est autem maior vel nequissimi hominis custodia quam operis exactio, ut iusta reddantur, ut vilicus semper se repraesentet. Sic enim et magistri singulorum officiorum sedulo munia sua exsequuntur, et ceteri post fatigationem operis quieti ac somno potius quam deliciis operam dabunt. / “Nothing is better in watching over even the most worthless men than the imposition of work, that the proper jobs be done and that the overseer always be present. For thus the leaders of each task are thorough in carrying out their duties and the rest, following their exhaustion, will be more focused on rest and sleep than on diversions.”

130 rural freedman procurator. He describes a situation in which his freedman procurator, Hermes, settled the sale of some property that he had inherited jointly. In the letter to Calpurnius Fabatus

(his wife’s grandfather, who was evidently annoyed that Pliny had sold the property for less than it was worth), he ratifies and defends the actions taken by Hermes. 374 The precise position of

Hermes as a procurator within Pliny’s household is slightly ambiguous, though. Evidently he approached Corellia, a friend of his former master, with a letter suggesting that she consider purchasing Pliny’s share of the property, which she did on the spot for 700,000 sesterces. Under his authority as procurator, Hermes had the ability to engage in such a transaction, although Pliny was legally obliged to validate the decision and actions of his libertus if other interested parties questioned them, as seems to have happened in this case. In this particular case, it seems that

Hermes, unlike the procurators Pliny mentioned in his other letter, was not specifically assigned management of the property, but rather was sent to settle affairs arising from the inheritance. In

Ciceronian correspondence, too, there is much evidence for procurators engaged in the collection of inheritances or settling issues surrounding them, though none are freedmen. 375 Whether Hermes was charged with overseeing the management of the specific property in question or whether his appointment was more general and he was tasked with resolving the issues of the bequest, he was certainly legally capable of selling the property on his own initiative and without specific instructions to do so.

374 Pliny Ep. VII, 11: Miraris, quod Hermes libertus meus, heriditarios agros, quos ego iusseram proscribi, non exspectata auctione pro meo quincunce ex septingentis milibus Corelliae addixerit. Adicis posse eos nongentis milibus venire ac tanto magis quaeris, an, quod gessit, ratum servem. Ego vero servo … and, later, Vides, quam ratum habere debeam, quod libertus meus meis moribus gessit. / “You are surprised that my freedman Hermes has sold my five- twelfth inherited estate, which I ordered to be put up for sale, to Corellia for HS 700,000 without an auction. You add that it might be possible to get HS 900,000 and you want to know even more whether I ratify what he has done. I do…” and “You see how I ought to ratify what my freedman has done in accordance with my wishes.”; Kehoe 2017: 120-123 discusses this situation specifically at some length; cf. Kirschenbaum 1987: 139-140. 375 Verboven 2002: 272-273 provides a list of sources.

131

3.7 Evidence from the Veleian Table Compared to Other Sources

It is in an agricultural context, acting as representatives and managers on larger senatorial estates and villa properties, that we find most epigraphic and literary attestations of freedmen procuratores , though these are not numerous. My identification of the freedmen representatives in the Veleian table corresponds to the other evidence we have for rural procuratores liberti . We have already seen some of these agricultural procuratores , promoted from among the domestic staff of senatorial families, in inscriptions in the previous chapter. I also mentioned earlier that some of the larger collective properties registered at Veleia would have satisfied the official

1,000,000-sesterce property qualification for senators, but it should be kept in mind that while the qualification was set at one-million, the landed assets of senators would have amounted to considerably more. This is especially true as imperial policy increasingly shifted to prioritizing senatorial land ownership in Italy in the late first and early second century. The pledged holdings at Veleia were composed of a collection of various smaller (though still fairly sizeable) farms, each usually assessed at no more than 150,000 sesterces. Other scholars have noted the localized fragmentation of holdings at Veleia as a consequence of large-scale landowners acquiring and selling smaller plots in the same area over time. 376 A freedman procurator with a greater range of action would be better suited to manage a variety of properties than a slave vilicus . The latter would really be attached to the day-to-day functionality of the farm, whereas the former could oversee the broader financial and legal administration of multiple properties in the same vicinity.

We know of individual plots owned by Pliny, for example, whose prices exceeded 800,000 sesterces. As a point of comparison, legionary pensions at the end of twenty-five years of service

376 Garnsey and Saller 2015: 95-97.

132 were 5,000 denarii , or 20,000 sesterces .377 An examination of the values of the various individual recorded properties provided by the inscription from Veleia shows a wide range in the size of properties registered by liberti . The largest was assessed at 673,600 sesterces, the smallest at

69,260, for an average value of 268,954 HS. The properties on the lower end of the scale seem to indicate that freedmen procurators were involved in the management of significant but medium- sized rural properties, as well as larger senatorial ones, like those of Cornelius Lentulus or Roscius

Paculus that we saw earlier in this chapter. There is, of course, no reason to assume that the properties registered in the Veleia inscription constituted all of the estates owned by an individual.

The two farms of Valeria Ingenua, which were registered together at a value of 69,260 sesterces by her freedman Valerius Lucrio, may only have constituted a small part of her rural holdings.

Despite this, no freedman registered property composed of fewer than two tracts of land. The freedmen procuratores of the Veleia inscriptions may have had more individual plots under their supervision than those representing senatorial families, though the value and size of the individual

Veleian plots were usually smaller. But simply the number of freedmen who appear as registrants

– over 15% of landowners overall at Veleia mortgaged their property through their freedmen – demonstrates a clear inclination to employ freedmen as rural managers, regardless of property size or social rank.

The enhanced legal and social status of these procurators – the fact that they necessarily had to be free or freed – would also have meant that their position in the administrative structure was superior to that of the vilicus . Certainly, both vilici and procuratores could engage in certain transactions for their patrons. The servile status of the vilicus was not an impediment to the execution of basic economic and legal transactions, as is clear from Paulus’ Sententiae : “If

377 Southern 2006: 167.

133 someone is appointed ( praepositus ) for the lending of money and the cultivation of land, for the planting and selling of crops, the owner of the farm is bound for the entire amount that has been contracted: it does not matter whether they are slave or free”. 378 On the other hand, the procurator had the capacity to engage in more complex transactions, without requiring any explicit instruction. Such an agent clearly ranked at the top of the delegation of slaves and freedmen who supervised rural estates in Italy. This is not really surprising, since his personal authority and capacity in decision-making was nearly equivalent, though ultimately subordinate, to the master’s in legal terms. The direct involvement of the master would also have weightier social force and consequence. Procurators, though, were required to submit accounts to their principals documenting any transactions they had engaged in, which would then need to be ratified. Such ratification was not necessary for the transactions to be legally valid but was probably only required in third party disputes if the actions of the procurator came into question later. It would be more likely that a freedman, rather than a slave vilicus , could be trusted to be representing his patron’s wishes and that his actions would be ratified later. We have already seen this situation represented by Pliny the Younger and his freedman procurator Hermes, mentioned earlier.379

The authority of the procurator would have facilitated not just management of the estate internally, but also broader transactions related to it. The simple purchase of equipment could be done by a slave vilicus , but the establishment of rent agreements, arrangements of praedial servitudes and leases and, certainly, any legal conflicts with neighbours, would be beyond the scope of their legal power. A procurator, stationed on a long-term basis at a particular estate or

378 Paul. Sent . II, 8, 2: Si quis pecuniae faenerandae agroque colendo, condendis vendendisque frugibus praepositus est, ex eo nomine quod cum illo contractum est in solidum fundi dominus obligatur: nec interest, servus an liber sit. 379 Pliny Ep . VII, 11; cf. Sherwin-White 1966: 414-416, especially n. 1 and n. 6.

134 perhaps in a particular rural area, would allow for more sophisticated legal and economic transactions to occur without any undue delays.

This would seem to be supported by the case of C. Vibius Severus, who registered properties at Veleia in both the public alimenta arrangement and the earlier private one under

Gallicanus. In the Imperial scheme, he obtained a loan of 53,362 for nine properties registered through his freedman Vibius Calvus at a total value of 673,660 sesterces. In the private scheme, he personally registered two properties, each valued at 30,000 sesterces, for a loan of 6,000. 380 He is the only property owner who participated in both arrangements and employed a representative.

It may seem initially a little odd that he chose to register the smaller properties personally, while entrusting the handling of the much larger public mortgage and loan to his freedman representative.

However, this makes some sense if we consider the function of the procurator as an agricultural manager. The administration of the larger collection of properties, all presumably falling under the authority of Vibius Calvus, would require both considerable attention as well as legal authority.

The inscription makes it clear that this grouping included the arrangement and collection of tenant’s rents, too, since it explicitly states that these are to be exempted from the valuation of the estates. Certainly the procurator’s authority to represent his principal extended over the latter’s tenants, as is made clear by the jurist Ulpian: “If an agreement is made between a tenant and my agent with reference to a pledge, and I ratify the agreement, or direct it to be made; it is held that it is entered into between the tenant and myself.” 381

380 CIL XI 1147, pag. V, ln. 25ff: C. Vibius Severus, per Vibium Calvom lib. suum, prof(essus) est praed(ia) rustica / D̅ C̅ L̅ X̅ X̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ DCLX n(ummum), in Veleiate et in Placentino, deducto vectigali et / quod Cornelius Gallicanus obligavit: accipere deb(et) L̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ CCCLXII n(ummos) et / obligare fund(um) Aeschinianum, p(ro) p(arte) dimid(ia), qui est in Veleiate pag(o) Am/bitrebio… 381 Ulp. Dig . XX, 1, 21: Si inter colonum et procuratorem meum convenerit de pignore vel ratam habente me conventionem vel mandante, quasi inter me et colonum meum convenisse videatur .

135

That many nearby properties might all fall under the administration of a single freedman procurator does not seem to have been unusual. In a letter of Pliny the Younger, while debating the purchase of an estate adjoining one he already owns, he outlines the benefits of such an acquisition, including the ease of administration provided by their proximity to each other. He says, “first the beauty, itself, of joining them tempts me, then, what is no less useful than pleasurable is to be able to visit both with the same effort and trip, to have both under the same procurator and nearly the same overseers, and one villa to inhabit and decorate, while just preserving the other.” 382 That Pliny refers to “nearly the same overseers” – the term he uses is actor – would seem to indicate his intention to maintain the administration of the farms as individual agricultural units, under the larger authority of a single procurator. This reinforces the idea that the procurator would typically oversee a number of smaller rural administrative divisions, each under the management of an actor or vilicus .

The notion that slaves were always in charge of administering properties smaller than a procurator was not a firm and fast rule, though, as can be seen in the Veleian table. The range of estate values registered by the five slaves is considerable broader than that of freedmen, between

1,158,150 sesterces and 50,000 sesterces. The average value of properties pledged by slaves, at

440,090 sesterces, was nearly double that of freedmen. This figure, though, is somewhat skewed since slaves were responsible for the two largest properties pledged through representatives. Gaius

Coelius Verus, employing his slave Onesimus, registered thirteen different fundi for a total value of 843,879 sesterces. 383 The holdings pledged by Cornelia Severa through her two slaves, Zosimus

382 Pliny Ep . III, 19, 2-3: Sollicitat primum ipsa pulchritudo iungendi; deinde, quod non minus utile quam voluptuosum, posse utraque eadem opera eodem viatico invisere, sub eodem procuratore ac paene isdem actoribus habere, unam villam colere et ornare, alteram tantum tueri. 383 CIL X 1147, pag. IV, ln. 36: C. Coelius Verus, per Onesimum ser. suum, prof(essus) est praed(ia) rustica in Plac(entino) / et Veleiate et Libarnensi, deducto vectigali et [e]is quae ante Corne/lius Gallicanus et Pomponius

136 and Primigenius, were even more extensive. They totaled 1,158,150 sesterces and consisted of eighteen different individual properties of values between 200,000 and 22,000 sesterces. 384

Cornelius Severus, probably her father, had pledged property valued at 350,000 sesterces in the earlier Gallicanus scheme. It seems that she inherited his hypothecated property at some point between the inception of that arrangement and the imperial one, since she became responsible for the interest payments to Gallicanus. This money, along with the properties’ yearly rent revenue, is explicitly deducted from the value of her properties in the main scheme. The fact that Cornelia’s properties are registered by two of her slaves suggests that these may have been divided into two different administrative units. This would help to explain why it would be necessary for both men, each with only the responsibility for their own managerial assignments, to register the properties together. It is certainly not necessarily the case that Zosimus and Primigenius were, between the two of them, responsible for the administration of all of the named properties belonging to their mistress, or that Onesimus was responsible for overseeing all of Verus’ holdings that he registered.

Many of these slaves were probably actores rather than vilici . The image of the vilicus we get from the agricultural writers, who only rarely left the property and the direct supervision of other slaves, 385 does not really correspond with the impression that we get from the tabula Veleia .

Evidently the administrative responsibility of the slaves Onesimus, Zosimus, and Primigenius was greater than that. They were all well acquainted with the considerable rural holdings of their masters and they had the authority to register those properties on behalf of their masters. Still, it is

Bassus obligaverunt, D̅ C̅ C̅ C̅ X̅ L̅ I̅ I̅ [I̅ ] DCCC / LXXVIIII n(ummorum): accipere debet L̅ X̅ V̅ I̅ I̅ DCCCL n(ummos) et oblig(are) fund(um) Collacterum, p(ro) [p(arte)] dim(idia), / et colonia Cinnerum, p(ro) p(arte) IIII, qui sunt in Veleiate pag(o) Ìunonio adf(inibus) Valerio / Adulescente et Virio Nepote et pop(ulo)… 384 CIL X 1147, pag. V, ln. 44: Cornelia Severa prof(essa) est praed(ia) rustica in Veleiate, per Primigenium ser. suum, / et in Placentino, [per] Zosimum ser. suum, deducto vectigali et quod Cor/nelius Gallicanus obligavit, ((sestertium)) undeciens L̅ V̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ CL n(ummorum): accipere debet / L̅ X̅ X̅ X̅ X̅ I̅ CX n(ummos) et obligare fund(um) Covanias et ovilia, in Veleiate pag(o) Ambitre/bio, adf(inibus) Mommeio Persico, Vibio Severo et pop(ulo)… 385 Columella I, 6, 23 and I, 8.

137 somewhat surprising that neither of their owners seem to have employed a procurator to register their extensive assets. This does not mean that Cornelia Severa did not employ a freedman procurator at all, or that we should assume that properties registered directly by their owners lacked either vilici or procuratores . Indeed, it is difficult to believe that someone like M. Mommeius

Persicus might have been able to administer his properties without the employment of estate managers. Between the imperial and Gallicanus’ alimenta programme, he registered thirty different individual properties for a total value 1,240,600 sesterces, though no representatives are mentioned. Such a large collection of properties could not possibly be overseen by a single individual. But the fact that so many freedmen and slaves are publicly recorded as representatives of their masters and patrons in the inscription from Veleia provides clear proof of their involvement in land management and of the responsibility their masters and patrons were willing to entrust to them.

Although the inscription from Veleia admittedly provides only a small and regionally- concentrated sample, the relatively high proportion of freedmen and slaves acting as their patrons’ agents at Veleia is remarkable. It is difficult to draw any conclusion other than that these men were vilici and procuratores , representing the praedial interests of their absent masters and patrons. As such, the Veleian table provides one of the surest and most extensive pieces of evidence for the administrative reality of the Roman farm, one that supports the idea of expanded freedman involvement and representation in agricultural management. Though they are never named as such, it is difficult to argue that this remarkable preponderance of socially-inferior representatives involved in the inscription corresponds to anything other than the extensive activity of the actores, vilici and procuratores described by Varro and Columella. Yet the Veleian inscription hints at more complex managerial structures than the agricultural writers present. It suggests that the administrative authority of a procurator libertus was not necessarily confined to a single rural

138 property, but rather might extend over a larger grouping of properties. Certainly it shows a high incidence of liberti chosen as rural managers, as procurators and representatives. Such a preference on the part of landowners could be attributed to their unique legal and social relationship they enjoyed with their former slaves. A freed procurator would have been capable of a greater range of legal actions than a vilicus , but his status made him accountable to his patron in ways that a free-born man was not. But perhaps most importantly, the Veleian inscription indicates that that the proportion of freedmen employed in Imperial Italy in the legal and economic administration of landed estates may have been higher than previously assumed.

While the level of detail provided by the Veleian inscription is unique, there is little reason to suspect that the information necessarily reflects a strictly local economic and social arrangement when it comes to freedmen representation. It may perhaps be more profitable to question why liberti are not more apparent in the other alimenta list from Ligures Baebiani, rather than why they are so numerous at Veleia. In the case of the former, where the alimenta programme is attested by a less fulsome list, there are at least three cases (and possibly a fourth) where representatives are seen to register properties. In these instances, however, it is through their own slaves that the primary landholders involve themselves in the alimentary scheme and there is no evidence in the extant sections of freedmen as intermediaries.

Why, then, would the authorities responsible for registering properties at Veleia see the need to record details to such an extent? There are a few possible answers to this question, which may shed some further light on the relationships between principal landholders and the representatives they document. It is possible that, as already argued, the list is intended to record the transactions themselves and the actual legal obligations arising from them. In such a case, the proxies would have had their names recorded because of the creation of obligations on them as well as on the primary landowners. There would be a utility, a necessity even, in the eyes of the

139 people responsible for the Veleia tablets to inscribe the names of the secondary registrants on such a permanent list in order to provide documentation for possible future legal cases arising from the encumbered property. In the case of the freedmen listed, they could actually serve as the legal representatives of their absent patrons in court. Where slaves, who lacked any Roman legal personality, were the registrants, the landowner would have had to represent themselves in any matters arising from the mortgage. In these cases, it seems likeliest that slaves were the registrants because of their familiarity with the properties in question or simply because their owner was not capable of registering the land themselves, perhaps because of distance. The liberti , too, may have had a more detailed understanding of the value and legal status of the properties they registered due to their similarly long-term association with the estates they oversaw. We have already seen close associations with specific properties in the case of the Roscii and other similar epigraphic evidence of freedmen procuratores .

Personal trust and proven reliability were undoubtedly qualities influential in the placement of freedmen in such positions. Personal preference and perhaps even genuine affection played no small role in promotion, whether within a single work unit or in the household more broadly. It is perhaps not insignificant that those in jobs which most intimately affected the person of the master seem to have seen the greatest potential for promotion. Additionally, the capacity to understand what commands a patron might be likely to give and what economic decisions a patron might make would be invaluable for a procurator who could be acting without such instructions and could be undertaking complex and potentially costly transactions on their behalf. These qualities, the sense of being well-informed about the type of economic and legal choices a principal might make, could only be truly well-developed after several years of close contact with their former masters.

Fundamentally the roles of the vilicus and the freed rural procurator , despite some similarities in their duties, differed to such an extent that it did not seem preferable for masters and

140 patrons who had the option to recruit procurators from among their vilici . A contributing factor in this calculation was the fact that vilici , because they were necessarily tied more directly to a specific plot of land for a long period of time, were less likely to be manumitted at an age young enough to take on additional tasks when freed. What we seem to see, then, is less a system of vertical promotion within the individual work unit of the estate that the freedmen managers oversaw, but rather a sort of horizontal promotion from other work units in the broader household.

Instead of slave vilici rising to the level of procuratores , freedmen from the urban familia seem to have been more likely to be promoted to such positions.

Agricultural management was another area of the Roman economy where slaves and freedmen might continue to be bound to the economic interests of their domini and former masters.

In the case of vilici , the only slaves originating in agricultural production for whom we have significant epigraphic evidence, bondage to specific plots for long periods of time and delayed manumission appear to be ordinary practice. As a proem to a letter on old age, Seneca relates the story of visiting one of his farms and seeing that his former deliciolus and the son of his vilicus has become an elderly slave. 386 While this episode is obviously a literary construct, 387 it does illustrate the connection Romans made between their rural servile workforce and the plots on which these slaves laboured. In fact, the description of Felicio concludes a rhetorical triad of “old

386 Sen. Ep . XII: Conversus ad ianuam “quis est iste?” inquam “iste decrepitus et merito ad ostium admotus? foras enim spectat. Unde istunc nanctus es? quid te delectavit alienum mortuum tollere?” At ille “non cognoscis me?” inquit “ego sum Felicio, cui solebas sigillaria afferre; ego sum Philositi vilici filius, deliciolum tuum.” “Perfecte” inquam “iste delirat: pupulus, etiam delicium meum factus est? Prorsus potest fieri: dentes illi cum maxime cadunt.” ; “I turned to the door and said, ‘who is this man, this broken-down man deservingly placed near the front-door, since he is facing out of doors? Where did you get him? Was there some pleasure for you in carrying off someone else’s corpse?” But the old man said, “Do you not recognize me? I am Felicio, to whom you used to bring little statues. I am the son of your vilicus Philostitus, your little favourite.” “This man is entirely insane,” I said, “is this a little boy, my favourite even? has he become a boy again? His teeth are certainly falling out.”; cf. Bradley 1994: 139; Henderson 2004: 19-27; Watson and Watson 2009: 212-225; Setailoli 1998: 149-151 points out the similarities to another elderly delicium named Felicio from an epitaph at Velia mentioned in AE 1975, 296. In the case of the latter, though, there is no obvious connection to a rural context. 387 Watson and Watson 2009: 213-214.

141 things”, along with crumbling buildings and deteriorating plane trees, that Seneca observes at his estate as symbols of his own dotage. Even if the scene is primarily an invention, he saw nothing fundamentally objectionable in grouping together his erstwhile favoured slave with the real property of his estate. Wiedemann views this passage as “an illustration of the callous ancient attitude to old age generally” and of the limited productivity of older slaves, 388 but it really highlights the natural sense that Roman landowners had of the entrenched ties between their rural slaves and their tracts of land. The advanced ages of vilici in inscriptions and their apparent long terms of service were sensible from the perspective of masters, who would desire continuity of management. Harder to rationalize is the fact that former masters appear rarely to have attempted to further exploit the experience and knowledge of specific plots of land of vilici in more complex forms of land management in instances where the latter were manumitted. This is indicative of the fundamental differences that Roman domini saw between the more pragmatic, on-the-ground role of the vilicus and the legal and representational capacities of freedmen procuratores . The strenuous and utilitarian duties of vilici and their sporadic contact with their masters would have given little opportunity for domini to ensure that these slaves, as knowlegable about their estates as they may have been, would have had sufficient legal training to undertake a representative role on their behalf. Limited personal contact would have also undermined their confidence that vilici could have developed a good understanding of the types of economic decisions that a patron might make.

Rural procuratores in the epigraphic record, on the other hand, were drawn from among the freedmen of the urban household and had no obvious prior connection to the properties they oversaw. This is not to say that rural freedmen procurators were characteristically inexperienced but favoured amateurs in rural administrative and legal matters. Pliny’s Hermes, the two liberti

388 Wiedemann 2003a: 123, §135, n.

142

Rosciorum, and others appear to have been operating as representatives for long terms associated with specific properties. The skills needed for this sort of tenured agency could be developed most efficiently, from the perspective of the patron, within the domestic household. These sources, then, provide evidence of more detailed, deliberate long-term planning in the organization and management of freedmen as a workforce. The limited funerary epigraphy implies that former child-minders and slaves freed from more intimate domestic positions were preferred. It is possible that masters specifically groomed particular individuals before manumission to take on procuratorships after they gained their freedom. In general, though, the evidence demonstrates that patrons felt it was completely natural to view certain types of freedmen – those more likely to be literate and cognizant of their patrons’ economic decision-making – as a labour force they could draw from to advance their own interests in managing their estates.

Additionally, if my new suggested interpretation of the evidence from the tabula Veleia is correct and is in any way characteristic of practices in Italy generally, then the numbers of freedmen agents overseeing certain important aspects of land management were fairly significant.

The Veleian evidence does not, of course, explicitly indicate that the freedmen mentioned were acting as long-term procurators in the way that others were. It is possible that registering the

Veleian properties was one representational duty among many that the former undertook on behalf of their patrons and that they acted as agents in other, non-agricultural capacities. Yet these freedmen assuredly had significant administrative knowledge of their patrons’ particular landholdings and were in charge of maintaining regular records of the properties in their possession, since they would otherwise be incapable of registering them. This indicates that, at the very least, their representative duties constituted regularized, part-time record-keeping and the incidental of discharge of transactions and legal affairs. With the Veleian freedmen, agricultural agency may have been one aspect of a broader procuratorial remit in other facets of the patron’s

143 business interests. Nonetheless, the tabula Veleia gives clear indication that it was not just the liberti of senatorial families who were involved in agricultural administration.

144

Chapter 4

Freedmen in Banking and Trade

4.1 Introduction

There is little question that slaves and, in particular, freedmen constituted a significant presence in the world of Roman banking and large-scale trade. 389 Overall, more than a third of the individuals in the occupational inscriptions examined in this chapter were securely identifiable as freedmen. When those who were probably liberti are included, that percentage jumps to just over half (50.3%). Even without factoring in the proportion of slaves employed in these fields, it is unmistakable that there were more freedmen employed in banking and commerce than perhaps in any other area of the Roman economy. As we have already seen, though, other economic spheres in which slaves were employed in large numbers created a somewhat discrete and siloed system when it came to the future economic prospects of the manumitted slave. A slave employed domestically as an overseer of cubicularii was not likely to be set up as a manager of a small workshop of furniture makers, even if both occupations might involve broadly similar managerial responsibilities. Unlike the fictionalized career of Trimalchio, expertise developed as a private dispensator did not generally translate into opportunities to make a vast fortune as a freedman banker or grain speculator later in life. Indeed, perhaps more than in any other slave sector, banking and trade seems to have been even more outstandingly isolationist. There is virtually no example of a slave employed in banking whose expertise in money-lending and legal literacy in a

389 Mouritsen 2011: 206-209; Andreau 1987: 404-405.

145 commercial background was then leveraged by their master or patron for the purposes of having a more lucratively managed estate or a more productive dispensator managing household expenses.

This is probably in part due to the fact that banking and trade could be very lucrative for skilled liberti and so there probably existed some reluctance on the part of both patrons and the freedmen themselves to shift into any other careers. While there are some general similarities between the institutions, attitudes and modes of management seen in other sectors of the Roman economy, these frequently take on different dimensions in the context of banking and commerce. In this economic setting, for example, the procuratorship appears as a much more occasional and ad hoc institution than in the agricultural sector, where stability and the links to specific landed property of the position were far more important than the comprehensive range of representational action that the authorization could provide. More to the point organizational structures and workforce management seems to have differed fairly dramatically from domestic and agricultural administration and from the smaller enterprises of the next chapter.

4.2 The Organization of the Sulpicii from Puteoli

The commercial archives and legal documents of Campania provide examples of procuratores liberti engaged in business-related activities on behalf of their former masters. To date, three major caches of these wax tablets have been discovered in the area around Vesuvius.

The most significant of these, for the purposes of this paper, an archive of business transactions, was unearthed in April 1959, just outside of Pompeii on the Murecine plain. 390 Known either as the Murecine tablets or the Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum , these wax records were found in

390 Camodeca 1999: 11.

146 one of the triclinia of a building whose purpose is uncertain, though Giuseppe Camodeca, who has provided a comprehensive publication of them, suggests either an inn or headquarters for a business association. The Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum concern business conducted, not at or around Pompeii, as one might suppose from their place of discovery, but rather at Puteoli. The archive has a prevalence of freedmen actors, as signatories, witnesses, lenders, borrowers and financiers. While in many cases formal identification of status does not occur, it can reasonably be inferred from context that liberti were extremely numerous, if not the majority. 391

In fact, there has been a long-running debate surrounding the appropriate occupational title for the Sulpicii among scholars for some time now. Camodeca maintains that they were argentarii ., noting the reference to an arca in multiple tablets. Verboven, on the other hand, noted that at the very least they were not “routinely” engaged in accepting deposits exclusively. 392 It is most likely that they provided an assortment of financial services, at times even acting as intermediaries in matching potential lenders and borrowers. There are, though, instances of the Sulpicii appearing to take deposits very much in the mode of a conventional coactor argentarius , like the more modest Pompeian banker Caecilius Iucundus:

L. Patulcius Epaphroditus scrips[i]

rogatu et mandatu Patu[lc]iae

Erotidis, libertaes meae, coram

ipsa eam accepisse ab C. Sulp[i]cio

[Ci]nnamo sestertia decem

391 Jones 2006: 19. 392 Verboven 2008: 219-223; Verboven 2000: 169-171. Those who consider them to be argentarii : Camodeca 1999: 25-26; Gröschler 1996 passim , but especially 62-66; Jakab 2008: 324-325.

147

[et nove?]m milia et quing[e]=

[nta nummum ex auctione eius ex]

[interrogati]one fa[cta tabel]=

[larum s]ignatar[um] .393

This bears a striking, indeed almost indistinguishable, resemblance to one of the documents from

Caecilius Iucundus:

D. Volcius Tha[llus] scripsi rogatu Um=

briciae Ia[nua]riae eam accepisse

ab Caecil[io Iuc]undo (sestertium) n(ummum) XI(milia) XXXIX

ex auction[e eius] mecede minus

ex inter[rogati]one facta

tabellaru[m signatarum]

[…………]s .394

That “ ex interrogatione facta tabellarum signatarum ” constitutes a legal formula is obvious enough. Its true meaning as a Roman negotiator would have understood it is not as clear, though, and is at the crux of the debate surrounding the significance of TPSulp 82. Camodeca sees this document as unambiguous confirmation that the Sulpicii (or Cinnamus, at any rate) were occupied

393 TPSulp 82: “I, Lucius Patulcius Epaphroditus, wrote by request and mandate of Patulcia Erotis, my freedwoman, that she, herself present, received from Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus HS 19,500 in cash from his auction conducted in accordance with the stipulation of the signed tablets.” 394 CIL IV 3340: “I, Decimus Volcius Thallus, wrote by request of Umbricia Ianuaria that she received from Caecilius Iucundus HS 11,039, minus commission, from his auction conducted in accordance with the stipulation of the signed tablets.”; cf. Andreau 1974: 315-316, n. 25.

148 as more conventional coactores argentarii and, like Iucundus, were bankers who provided credit at auctions. On the other hand, as Verboven points out, this formula also appears in a tablet from

Ravenna recording a simple slave sale, without any indication that it was in the context of an auction or that any bankers were involved. 395 In any case, this is the only instance in the tabulae where one of the Sulpicii seems to provide credit in these circumstances. Naturally, it is perfectly plausible that other examples of such participation in auction sales did not survive along with the rest of the archive. Of course, even if it pertains strictly to the sort of financial transactions conducted at auctions by coactores argentarii , this would be only one aspect of the activities of this sort of financial negotiator . If the Sulpicii indeed conducted such a specialized business, then it follows that there would be more indications of other such characteristics, specifically and most significantly records of regularized deposit banking.

There are indeed six texts, called by Camodeca the nomina arcaria , which he believes to represent a paper record of transactions into and out of deposit accounts. These can be identified by the formula petiit et numerata accepit domo ex arca , occasionally with some slight variation, such as ex risco in place of ex arca . In TPSulp 60, 61 and 62 Euplia, through her tutor Epichares, is recorded as borrowing from and owing money to Sulpicius Cinnamus and a certain Titinia

Anthrax. 396 Here it is not a clear-cut case of Cinnamus being delegated by the latter to lend from an open account by virtue of his role as her banker, a theory that Camodeca suggests and Rathbone and Temin support elsewhere. 397 There is no indication of Titinia having established such a bank account with the Sulpicii either in these particular documents or elsewhere. If this were the case, it would be very unusual that, first, the transaction would record separate loans, for separate

395 Verboven 2008: 220. 396 Temin 2013: 183. 397 Camodeca 1999: 156; Rathbone and Temin 2008: 397.

149 amounts of money, from Cinnamus and Titinia and, further, that they are so unlike Caecilius

Iucundus’ bank transfer transactions in their documentation. It is possible that these do not constitute a perscriptio , or bank transfer, but rather record Cinnamus acting simply as both a creditor to Euplia and as credit intermediary between the two women at roughly the same time.

Finally, the formula domo ex arca , as Verboven points out, would not be aptly applied to this situation, if Cinnamus were acting as Titinia’s delegate in his capacity as her banker, since an expression per mensam or de mensa would be far more appropriate to such a situation.398

As a final point, if the Sulpicii were indeed strictly argentarii or coactores argentarii , one would expect the appearance of some record of deposits and withdrawals, some sort of ratio accepti et expensi . It seems very unlikely that, considering the volume and number of transactions even a modest banking establishment would treat on a day-to-day basis, there would be a single, master record of deposits and withdrawals. It is, to be sure, far more expected that an argentarius would possess such a “ledger of income and expenditure” for each of his individual clients. 399 Yet no trace of any such document appears in the archive. Granted, it is entirely conceivable that these do not survive for one reason or another, yet to find no trace of such documentation at all is quite unusual if this constituted the chief focus of the business enterprises of the Sulpicii. In any case, there is no decisive, incontestable indication of any routine, regularized receipt of deposits, nor that they frequently and consistently supplied cashiering and payment services (that is to say, at auctions or in the forum).

As is evident, the firm of the Sulpicii does not offer an unambiguously conventional representation of such a business within the industry. They do not represent the portraits of

398 Verboven 2003: 437; in general, Verboven 2003: 436-439; cf. Verboven 2008: 219. 399 Rathbone and Temin 2008: 401.

150 unequivocally traditional Roman bankers, such as the Pompeian coactor argentarius L. Caecilius

Iucundus, but rather seem to have possessed characteristics of a number of different sorts of Roman financial negotiatores .400 As it seems, the Sulpicii of Puteoli operated as a unique sort of specialized financier, or faenerator ,401 dependent very much on their geographical derivation, or at any rate economic and geographical concentration. As faeneratores , though, it appears that they did not only avail themselves of their own financial resources, but also sometimes acted essentially as commercial credit brokers. They functioned as “intermédiares de crédit” 402 , as Verboven calls them, yet all the same concentrated most of their attention and resources on commercial loans, largely with a special regard to financial activities in the port of Puteoli. In this respect, they are seen to take both more passive and active roles as credit mediators and arrangers of loans.

Sometimes, it seems, they put two interested parties in contact with each other, other times they themselves borrowed money and then leant it out again to third parties. We see them on occasion appearing as signatories on loans, in which, while not directly the principal creditors, they either play a secondary, supporting role of some sort or must surely have helped to establish stipulations and preconditions in their capacity as brokers.

The precise relationships between the main protagonists of the Sulpician archive are not always entirely clear. There are four actors, bearing the gentilicium Sulpicius, who appear in the tabulae : C. Sulpicius Faustus, C. Sulpicius Cinnamus, C. Sulpicius Eutychus and C. Sulpicius

Onirus. While not all of the tabulae contain mention of one or more of the Sulpicii, some seeming to be business records of their clients perhaps held in trust, the majority of the 127 preserved documents do treat the business conducted by one of their number. They appear to have been an

400 Andreau 1999: 71-79; Verboven 2003; Terpstra 2008; cf. Andreau 1974. 401 Verboven 2003. 402 Verboven 2004: 180.

151 association of freedmen and descendants of freedmen, which was operated by three primary managers, all sharing the nomen Sulpicius, over the course of roughly thirty years (dateable from

26 CE until 61 CE) 403 at Puteoli. The significance of the documentation comes not simply from the broad range and detail of the transactions recorded, but also the revelations it provides in terms of commercial and social relationships among the Sulpicii themselves, chiefly among the two with the greatest presence in the archive, Faustus, in all likelihood a libertus or a filius liberti ,404 and his freedman, Cinnamus.

Two of the tablets, TPSulp 72 and TPSulp 74 (the latter is fairly fragmentary), show

Cinnamus acting as the procurator of Faustus in the collection of an outstanding debt on his patron’s account. They are both receipts of payment, or apochae , recording Cinnamus as having collected two loans for which Faustus was a creditor. These are the only two documents in the archive in which Cinnamus refers to Faustus as “ patronus meus ”, and without them, “their relationship could not have been guessed”.405 In the first, from the 31 st of December, 47 CE,

Cinnamus records the repayment of a loan of 30,000 sesterces, in two installments of 28,000 and

2,000 sesterces, on a total debt of 50,000 sesterces owed to Faustus. It is also interesting to note that neither the nominal creditor or debtor are directly involved in the transaction, but that both parties act through agents:

C. Sulpicius Cinnamus scripsi me accepisse

ab Alcimo C. Epri [V]algi ser. HS XXX in

debitum Fausti patroni mei ex HS 1)))

403 Camodeca 1999: 21. 404 Camodeca 1999: 20. 405 Rowe 2001: 229.

152

ex qua summa accep[i] pr. non. Dec.

HS XXIIX et hac die [H]S II. 406

Although he only identifies himself as Faustus’ freedman, it is only in his capacity as a procurator libertus that he would be able to release Eprius Valgus from the obligation of the debt. 407 There is no language that indicates he was operating under a mandate from Faustus, 408 and so the only other possible authority he could have to dissolve the debt is as a procurator . That this could occur immediately through a procurator is explicitly mentioned in the Digest: “ Celsus ait eum, qui procuratori debitum solvit, continuo liberari neque ratihabitionem considerari ”. 409 That he specifically designates Faustus “ patronus meus ” upholds the conclusion that this was the precisely the purpose of the apocha . The second example is slightly more problematic, in part because it is less complete, but also because it documents a more complex transaction.

C. S[ulpi]cius [Cinnamus scripsi me] accepisse

ab +++phi+++[---] Fo[r]tu=

[nati et ? ---] +++ ser(vo)

sestertia [centum tri]ginta millia

[e]x [---] sest[ert]ia quinqua=

ginta mil[l]ia n[ummum] ex debito

406 TPSulp 72: “I, Gaius Sulpicius Cinnamus, wrote that I received from Alcimus, the slave of Gaius Eprius Valgus, HS 30,000 from the debt of HS 50,000 owed to my patron, Faustus, from which total I received HS 28,000 on December 4 th and HS 2,000 on this day.” 407 Schumacher 2001: 175. 408 The language we would expect would be “ rogatu et mandatu Fausti ”, like that seen in TPSulp 82, above: L. Patulcius Epaphroditus scrips[i] / rogatu et mandatu Patu[lc]iae / Erotidis, libertaes meae, coram / ipsa eam accepisse ab C. Sulp[i]cio / [Ci]nnamo sestertia decem / [et nove?]m milia et quing[e]=/[nta nummum ex auctione eius ex] / [interrogati]one fa[cta tabel]=/[larum s]ignatar[um]. 409 Paul. Dig . XII, 6, 6, 2.

153

Fausti patroni me[i].

Actum Pu[teo]lis .410

In this apocha , dated to June or July of 51 CE, not long before Faustus disappears from the archive, Cinnamus is seen to collect the rather impressive debt of 130,000 sesterces from an unidentified slave, 50,000 owed to Faustus and, as the wording of the tablet affirms, the remaining

80,000 to himself. There are certain peculiarities in this transaction that indicate Cinnamus was not executing a strictly conventional procuratio . Camodeca reconstructs the transaction as the repayment of jointly offered credit, Cinnamus and Faustus each having put forward different amounts on the initial loan, which was then collected by Cinnamus alone on behalf of both of them. 411 Certainly such joint loans were possible under Roman law, 412 but this raises additional questions, since it would mean that the patron and his freedman were acting as socii , as partners in a business. Cinnamus’ reference, in this instance, to Faustus as his patronus would seem rather superfluous and immaterial if it didn’t also legitimize his own capability to collect on the debt. If they were simply socii , there would not really be a need to specify any other relationship, as

Cinnamus feels compelled to do in the apocha . Indeed, the wording seems to treat each debitum as distinct from the other, whereas if the two men were partners, it would be more likely to see evidence of Valgus owing on a collaboratively managed single account. The issue may indeed concern two different loans, made separately by Faustus and his freedman, and Cinnamus is collecting on both of them. In this case, he would be acting both of his own account as well as

410 TPSulp 74: “I, Gaius Sulpicius Cinnamus, wrote that I received HS 130,000 from… (?)… Fortunatus and… a slave(?)... from the debt of HS 50,000(?)… owed to my patron Faustus. Done at Puteoli.” 411 Camodeca 1999: 173. 412 Paul. Dig . XII, 1, 16: “ Si socius propriam pecuniam mutuam dedit, omnimodo creditam pecuniam facit, licet ceteri dissenserint: quod si communem numeravit, non alias creditam efficit, nisi ceteri quoque consentiant, quia suae partis tantum alienationem habuit .”

154 under the authority of his patronus , Faustus. Cinnamus’ status as Faustus’ freedman, explicitly mentioned, may have been enough for him to be recognized by others as credibly acting on his patron’s behalf, but on its own was insufficient to give any lawful release to the debtor on repayment. In this case, Cinnamus’ legal authority to collect ultimately would seem to rest on an implicit underlying procuratio , since he does not mention he is acting under a mandatum or any other form of authorization.

In any case, the two documents both show Cinnamus acting in the capacity of a procurator libertus in the collection of debts. There are some obvious and significant differences between

Cinnamus and other freedman procuratores already covered in this dissertation. For one thing,

Cinnamus may well be the freedman of another freedman, although Faustus’ origins are ultimately unknown to us. In any event, the social background of the principal actors is some distance removed from many of the other freedmen procurators in previously mentioned sources, who, for the most part, originated among senatorial families and largely in the context of estate management. This is partially a function of the available evidence, but the Sulpician tablets suggest that this was not merely an institution employed by upper-class patrons. Secondly, Cinnamus acts as procurator for his patron while lending money himself, after he had been manumitted and began pursuing business interests of his own. Already in the first dateable appearance in the archive of

Cinnamus, in 42 CE, he appears independently as a lender, with no obvious ties to his patron’s former business. 413 Although it is clear that he acted as Faustus’ procurator on certain occasions, he mainly appears in the archive pursuing business interests of his own. This is in contrast to the majority of procurators in the epigraphic and literary sources of the Empire, who occupy more long-term, stable procuratorial appointments, with no real trace of business enterprises undertaken

413 TPSulp 62.

155 of their own initiative. The lack of such evidence in an inscription by no means discounts the presumption that freedmen procurators engaged in commercial activities on their own account.

Indeed, it’s very hard to believe they didn’t. However, we get the impression that, for many of them, such activity would necessarily be secondary to the procuratorial appointment, especially in cases where they were installed as salaried, long-term managers, whether in the agricultural sector or elsewhere. It is a little surprising that evidence of the cooperation of Faustus and Cinnamus is limited to only a few tablets. It is hypothetically possible under Roman law that the two men ran competing businesses, 414 but this would be difficult to reconcile with both the timeline of the archive and the evident, albeit sporadic, professional assistance that they provided for each other.

This also does not necessarily mean that Cinnamus could not be engaged as Faustus’ procurator over a longer period of time. In fact, the transactions in which he appears in that role are separated by nearly four years, and it is possible that throughout that period he engaged in other transactions as a representative for his patron. Faustus disappears from the record in May of 52

CE, so both men were simultaneously engaged in moneylending individually. It is possible that they operated in conjunction with each other, in a loosely-affiliated financial firm. Indeed, it is revealed in another tabula that Faustus, along with a staff of slaves owned by Cinnamus himself, was capable of providing loans on Cinnamus’ account. In TPSulp 48, dated to 48 A.D., we have a rather bizarre mandatum (cum stipulatione ), in which a certain C. Iulius Prudens arranges a long-

414 Scaev. Dig . XXXVII, 14, 18: Quaero, an libertus prohiberi potest a patrono in eadem colonia, in qua ipse negotiantur, idem genus negotii exercere. Scaevola respondit non posse prohiberi ; “I ask if a freedman can be prohibited by a patron from conducting the same sort of business that he himself practices in the same colony. Scaevola gave his opinion that the freedman could not be prohibited from doing so.”; cf. Scaev. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 45: Libertus negotiatoris vestiarii an eandem negotiationem in eadem civitate et eodem loco invito patrono exercere possit? Respondit nihil proponi, cur non possit, si nullam laesionem ex hoc sentiet patronus ; “Can a freedman of a clothes merchant engage in the same business in the same city and same place against his patron’s wishes? [Scaevola] gave his opinion that nothing prevents it, so long as the patron incurs no damages from this.”; Wacke 1993: 10-12 provides a more detailed discussion of these two passages; this, of course, also presumes that Faustus was both Cinnamus’ patronus and would have been invitus .

156 term deal ( semel saepiusve ) with Cinnamus that for whatever money is leant to his slave, freedman or someone else so authorized, whether by Cinnamus or anyone of his other associates acting on his behalf (notably this includes Faustus), Prudens takes legal responsibility. I have reproduced it below, omitting the consular dates at the beginning of the document and formal pledges at the end.

C. Iulius Prudens scripsi me rogasse C. Sulpicium

Cinnamum eique mandasse uti quantam=

c[u]mqu[e p]ecuniam is aut Eros aut ++++us

aut Titianus aut Martialis ser. eius aut C. Su[l]p[i]ciu[s]

Faustus aliusve quis iussu rogatu mandatu(ve)

cuius eor[u]m semel saepiusve Suavi l. meo aut

Hygino ser. meo alive cui iussu cuius eorum

d[edisset cr]edisset aut pro quo eorum promisset

spopo[ndisset] fideve sua esse iussisset aliove quo

no[mine o]bligatus esset; quantaque ea pecunia

[erit quae] ita data creditave cuiusve

[pec]uniae obligatio quoque nomine, ita uti

[supra] comprehensum est, facta erit, t(antam) p(ecuniam) d(ari)

[dolum]que malum huic rei promissioniqu[e]

abesse afuturumque es[se] a me heredeque

meo et ab is omnibus ad q[u]os ea res q(ua) d(e) a(gitur) pertinet, … 415

415 TPSulp 48: “I, Gaius Julius Prudens, wrote that I have asked Gaius Sulpicius Cinnamus and mandated that he or Eros or ++++us or Titianus or his slave Martialis or Gaius Sulpicius Faustus or anyone else acting by his order, request, or mandate, give or lend, however much money, once or frequently, either to my freedman Suavis or to my slave Hyginus or to anyone else acting by their order; also [I ask and mandate] that he pledge [however much money] on

157

It is true that this contract is extremely strange in its format and not simply because of unusual combination of mandatum and stipulatio . Though he was not working from Camodeca’s re-editted text of the tablet, the unparalleled use and combination of legal formulae in the document initially led J.A. Crook to have “the impression that this document is a botch job by someone with a smattering of legal phraseology but no legal understanding…” and even more skeptically concluding that, “the thing must surely be a rejected draft” 416 . To be sure, this sort of agreement has absolutely no precedent in the juristic sources and seems, in this case, to have eventually ended badly, since we see Cinnamus and Prudens appearing before an arbiter ex compromisso . The action before the former is, in fact, an interrogatio in iure to clarify legally the relationship between

Prudens and Hyginus, among others; “ Cinnamus inter[rogavit C. Iuli]um / esse[ntne homin]es /

Hyginus et Herm[e]s s[ervi ei]us et in / potestate eius ”. 417 Conceivably this action may well have stemmed from the agreement outlined in TPSulp 48.

Regardless of its legally dubious formulation, since it is evident that it was recognized as a legitimate arrangement by the two concerned parties, TPSulp 48 is suggestive of the organization of the business, or businesses, of the Sulpicii. First, it confirms that Cinnamus was not directly employed in a firm for which Faustus was the principal manager, since Faustus gained no financial or business-related benefit from the arrangement and, more significantly, is clearly not being

behalf of one of them, that he offer security, that he give them credit, or that he be obligated by any other debt [on their behalf]; however much money that will be so given, lent, or put under obligation in any other way, such as it has been agreed to above, it will be done so that as much money will be given and fraudulent intent in this transaction and promise are and will be absent from me and my heir and from all those to whom the transaction, which is conducted here, pertains.” 416 Crook 1978: 238; cf. Andreau 2006: 202-204, who concedes that TPSulp 48 “does not... correspond to any simple contract that we already know”, but asserts, correctly, I think, that the “confusion of stipulation and mandate was a way for [Prudens] to control the slave’s and freedman’s actions and to keep an eye on their business, by means of a professional businessman, who would be able, if need be, to refuse to pay or stand security.”; Riggsby 2010: 243. 417 TPSulp 25; cf. TPSulp 36.

158 represented by his freedman, who is acting sui iuris and of his own initiative. More to the point, though, is that it is clear in TPSulp 48 that Cinnamus operated not just with his own personal – not jointly-owned – slaves, but with his own personal arca , as well. 418 Prudens acknowledges legal and commercial obligations to Cinnamus alone, with Faustus, in fact, named as a possible representative of his former slave, if acting “ iussu rogatu mandatu(ve) cuius ” (ie. “ Cinnami ”).

Such a situation could not possibly arise unless Cinnamus was not, at the time of the transaction, a procurator of Faustus.

This also gives us important insight into the organization of both Cinnamus’ workforce and the structure of Prudens’ employees, if they can be so called, as well. Though we don’t know what sort of business the latter primarily conducted, it’s not improbable from context that he was attempting to establish a long-term arragement between two syndicates staffed by freedmen and slaves for the purposes of trade in the port town; his freedman Suavis and slave Hyginus could periodically rely on the Sulpicii for loans to support their loosely collective trading-related activities in Puteoli. It is notable that Prudens does not set up a conventional deposit account that they could draw from, such as you would see in a business run by an argentarius or coactor , but rather an open-ended credit agreement. TPSulp 25 introduces another slave, Hermes, who it appears was also working on behalf of Prudens in his transactions with Cinnamus, presumably covered by the vague “ alive cui iussu cuius eorum ”. Even if the agreement was not superficially legitimate, the dispute documented in TPSulp 25 and TPSulp 36 indicates that both parties viewed such an arrangement as at least notionally acceptable, if perhaps legally dubious.

At any rate, Cinnamus had at least four slaves working under him, though the “ aliusve quis iussu rogatu mandatu(ve) cuius eor[u]m ” hints that there may be more who remained unnamed.

418 Verboven 2000: 163.

159

The fact that the four slaves are named specifically indicates that they had some special status within the business. Their isolation from other members of Cinnamus’ workforce here is most likely an indication that they constituted discrete divisions within it – that is that each had their own peculium and enjoyed some form of pre-established authorization from Cinnamus for the conduct of some specific commercial activities on his behalf beyond the normal capacity of a general slave employee. It is quite plausible, then, that they were not generally employed slaves within the business, but rather operated, themselves, semi-independently with their own peculium .419 This might, at first, seem strange, since this would mean that they would have been operating under conditions normal for slave institores who ran independent shops and businesses, 420 when it is fairly obvious that Cinnamus’ slaves worked subordinate to him and probably even in the same place of business.

So rather than a single, hierarchical model, with one nominal head of the business bound by the all of the transactions of all of his subordinates in a chain of obligations, Cinnamus’ enterprise was organized along more flexible, lateral lines. This had the benefit of limiting liability to the peculium of each individual slave, but also permitted a broader constellation of potential transactions to take place and encouraged individual specialization, not just in terms of services offered, but also in terms of commercial contacts and the expansion of their client base as a wider consortium. These slaves and freedmen of Cinnamus could of course still interact and work collaboratively with each other and even with agents of Faustus, if the situation demanded it, but still maintained a great degree of independence and potential range of activity.

419 Verboven 2000: 163-164. 420 cf. Aubert 1994: 40-51; Kirschenbaum 1987: 93-94.

160

4.3 The Use of Private Procuratorships in Banking

In the situation outlined above, being a procurator libertus would allow Cinnamus to collect a debt owed to Faustus and release the debtor from liability at the same time, something that would not happen if, for example, the two men were merely socii . Whether the gradual disappearance of Faustus and the increased activity of Cinnamus means that the latter progressively took over the operation of his patron’s business by himself cannot be confirmed.

There is not an abrupt disappearance of Faustus from the archive, indicating that he simply passed the business on to his freedman after his death. Unfortunately, the archive does not contain any examples of Cinnamus dealing with any of Faustus’ creditors or depositors, excepting the two passages above. The period in which we see Cinnamus appointed as a procurator might also represent a transitional phase in the life of the firm, with Faustus retiring and transferring his business interests to his freedman. In this particular instance, we can see the potential flexibility permitted by the appointment of a procurator in the managerial organization of a business. It allowed Cinnamus to freely and principally pursue his own business interests while maintaining broad commercial, fiduciary and social links with his patron. For Faustus, the assistance of a procurator libertus meant that his representative could efficiently collect outstanding debts without any need for additional authorization or instruction. If such a process were indeed happening, it would also have facilitated the handover of banking clients from one manager to another, helping Cinnamus to maintain connections with Faustus’ clientele. Despite the differences between the behaviour of this procurator and others, there are similarities, as well. Cinnamus evidently had been a slave of Faustus while the latter ran his moneylending enterprise and was very likely employed in the business. Cinnamus would surely have gained considerable practical financial experience and thorough knowledge of the commercial networks in which Faustus

161 operated before his manumission. This experience not only aided him in establishing his own relationships with debtors and creditors, but also meant that he was uniquely placed to act as a procurator libertus for his patron.

As I hinted above, it was not uncommon to see a freedman directly and regularly employed by his patron in a business as a procurator praepositus 421 . As a matter of fact, Ulpian reports that

Papinian gave an example of an actio utilis quasi institoria initiated against a principal who had engaged a procurator to conduct regular commercial transactions on his behalf, a legal remedy that should not, strictly speaking, have applied to such an arrangement. 422 This points to certain similarities in practice between the responsibilities, obligations and liabilities (or as the jurists perceived them, at any rate) of the institor and certain procuratores .423 Nevertheless, the latter did enjoy a far greater freedom of discretion and latitude in managing affairs.

There are numerous examples of procuratores engaging in financial services, generally, and debt collection, more specifically, from various sources. Atticus, acting as Cicero’s procurator , attempted to collect repayment from a scriba named Tullius, though, from Cicero’s light scolding, it seems no debt obligation in fact existed 424 . The collection of money owed on the principal’s behalf is well in accordance with some of the illustrative scenarios concerning procuratores which the jurists cite. 425 The wording of Digest XIV, 3, 20 (specifically, libertum

421 Kirschenbaum 1987: 146. 422 Ulp. Dig . XVII, 1, 10, 5: Idem Papinianus libro eodem refert fideiussori condemnato, qui ideo fideiussit, quia dominus procuratori mandaverat ut pecuniam mutuam acciperet, utilem actionem dandam quasi institoriam, quia et hic quasi praeposuisse eum mutuae pecuniae accipiendae videatur ; “Papianus also says in the same book that, when a surety makes a pledge because his principal ordered him in his capacity as procurator to take out a loan, judgement is given against him and that an actio utilis quasi institoria should also be granted, since it can be viewed as though he were appointed for the purpose of receiving the loan.”; cf. Benke 1988. 423 On these similarities in general, Miceli 2005, but especially 139-188. 424 Cic. ad Att . XII, 22, 4.: “ Tullium scribam nihil fuit quod appellares; nam tibi mandassem si fuisset. ” 425 Paul . Dig . XII, 6, 6, pr.: Si procurator tuus indebitum solverit et tu ratum non habeas, posse repeti Labeo libris posteriorum scripsit: quod si debitum fuisset, non posse repeti Celsus: ideo, quoniam, cum quis procuratorem rerum suarum constituit, id quoque mandare videtur, ut solvat creditori, neque postea exspectandum sit, ut ratum habeat ; “If your procurator pays a debt which was not due, and you do not ratify his act, then, as Labeo writes in his book of

162 praepositum ) seems to point to the continual, long-term employment of a procurator libertus as a manager of a banking establishment. 426 However, it is not at all the case that the Sulpicii had such an arrangement. First, it is only in TPSulp 72 and TPSulp 74 that we have proof of Cinnamus acting in such a capacity as an agent of his former master. If he were continuously working in a subordinate position within the moneylending business of Faustus, he would be legally obligated to identify his relationship to and authorization from Faustus in any new transactions he undertook.

Though this formality was a simple as acknowledging him as patronus meus , as he does in the two apochae , there is no other instance of this occurring in the archive. Secondly, and much more significantly, the dual apocha of TPSulp 74 indicates that both Sulpicii had loaned money to the same individual, the slave of Fortunatus, but that Cinnamus on his own had collected the debt payable to each. Such a situation, though certainly not impossible, is nonetheless fairly improbable if Cinnamus were directly and regularly employed by Faustus. If he were, one would expect that there would have been a single loan contracted for the entire amount from Faustus alone. Of course, a procurator was free to lend his own money on his own initiative, if he so chose, but, considering

“Last Things”, an action can be brought to recover the money. But if it was due, Celsus says it cannot be recovered, since, when anyone appoints a procurator to transact their business, it is considered that he also directs him to pay his creditors and it is not necessary afterwards to wait for him to ratify his acts.”; Paul . Dig . XII, 6, 6, 2: Celsus ait eum, qui procuratori debitum solvit, continuo liberari neque ratihabitionem considerari: quod si indebitum acceperit, ideo exigi ratihabitionem, quoniam nihil de hoc nomine exigendo mandasse videretur, et ideo, si ratum non habeatur, a procuratore repetendum ; “Celsus says that anyone who pays a debt to a procurator is immediately released, and no ratification should be considered; but when the agent receives what is not due, then ratification is required, because he would be considered not to have directed that anything should be done concerning the debt, and therefore, if his act is not ratified, a case must be brought against the agent for its recovery. ” 426 Scaev. Dig . XIV, 3, 20: Lucius Titius mensae nummulariae quam exercebat habuit libertum praepositum: is Gaio Seio cavit in haec verba: “Octavius Terminalis rem agens Octavii Felicis Domitio Felici salutem. Habes penes mensam patroni mei denarios mille, quos denarios vobis numerare debebo pridie kalendas Maias.” Quaesitum est, Lucio Titio defuncto sine herede bonis eius venditis an ex epistula iure conveniri Terminalis possit. Respondit nec iure his verbis obligatum nec aequitatem conveniendi eum superesse, cum id institoris officio ad fidem mensae protestandam scripsisset ; “Lucius Titius appointed a freedman to administer a money-changer's table, which he was working at; and the freedman stipulated to Gaius Seius in these words: ‘Octavius Terminalis conducting the business of Octavius Felix, to Domitius Felix, greetings. You have a thousand denarii in the bank of my patron, which I shall be bound to pay you the day before the Kalends of May.’ It was asked whether, Lucius Titius having died without an heir and his property having been sold, Terminalis could be sued because of this letter. The answer was that he was not legally bound by these words, nor were there any grounds on which he could be sued, since he wrote this in his duty as a business agent, for the purpose of maintaining the credit of the bank.”

163 the substantial amount Cinnamus leant and the fact that the two sums repaid are conscientiously distinguished from each other, the document points to a short-term procuratio , as opposed to a salaried, long-term praepositio .

There are two instances in the archive when the term “ procurator ” is used explicitly. In the first, the incomplete TPSulp 105, Cinnamus appears as a procurator entering into a contract on behalf of the otherwise unattested Primigenia. 427 Besides his procuratorship, Cinnamus’ connection to Primigenia is not known, although he is obviously not her freedman. It is possible that she had provided capital for Cinnamus, which he was reinvesting on her behalf, since we know that he offered similar services to others. The difference in this case appears to be that he is acting as a representative in a direct loan between Primigenia and a certain C. Iulius Atimetus, while in other instances he mainly drew from accounts deposited with him. This may be an instance where he was given a general authorization, in the form of a procuratio , to lend in the name of an absent

Primigenia as he thought most prudent, but without any additional documentation of the relationship, it is difficult to reconstruct the situation. Despite this, this tablet does provide one of the uncommon pieces of historical evidence from the Empire of a private procuratio that existed between parties whose statuses were roughly commensurate. While Primigenia may well be an ingenua , the relationship with her agent Cinnamus is not subject to any of the intrinsic social and legal obligations and constraints that existed between a former master and slave. In that sense, the only difference between this arrangement and those found between senators in Cicero’s correspondence is the more modest environment in which it takes place.

427 TPSulp 105: … stipula[tu]s [e]s[t] / C. Sulpicius Cinn[amu]s, qui se / procuratorem G[…]ae Primigeni= / ae esse [di]cebat, spopondit / C. Iulius Atimetus …

164

The other mention of a procurator in the archive provides additional difficulties. It may or may not document a procurator libertus , and the scope and duration of his appointment can only be guessed. Dated to October 30 th , 51 CE, it records the otherwise unattested C. Sulpicius

Eutychus, who is specifically named as the procurator of C. Sulpicius Cinnamus:

Tab. I

Puteolis in foro ante chalcidicum

Caesonianum C. Sulpicius Eutychus,

qui se proc(uratorem) esse dicebat C. Sulpicii Cinnami,

testatus est mancipia hominem

[Felicem] et ho[m]ine[m Carum et]

[hominem Ia]nuarium et mulierem

Pr[imigenia]m et mulierem

Primigeniam iuniorem et

puerum [Ampli]at[u]m, quae

mancipia M. Egnatius Suavis C.

Sulpicio Cinnamo fidei

Tab. II

fiduciae caussa [HS n(ummo) I pro HS X]XVI

obligasse [dicitur], mancipia [---]

…

in nundinas proximas distuli[isse?]

165

vendition[em]. 428

Following this section, the tablet becomes more fragmentary, though it clearly treats the sale by auction of six slaves pledged to Cinnamus by M. Egnatius Suavis. From preceding tabulae

(TPSulp 85 and 86), it emerges that Suavis transacted a loan of 26 000 sesterces with Cinnamus on September 15, 51 CE, offering as security the six slaves. In the intervening month, Suavis died without heirs and, as a result, an auction of the slaves was announced for the 14 th of October. The tablets confirm that public notice was given to this effect, in the form of Sextiana in parastatica libellus adfixus in the Portico of Augustus at Puteoli. In the document involving Eutychus, dated to October 30 th , the sale, which had been deferred once before, seems to have been rescheduled a second time. Eutychus appeared before the chalcidicum Caesonianum , the appointed place of sale, and postponed the auction in his capacity as a representative of Cinnamus. Though the relationship is not confirmed in the archive, Eutychus was, in all likelihood, a libertus or collibertus of

Cinnamus. 429 Though there is no record of a collibertus acting as a procurator elsewhere in the

Roman world. That he was Cinnamus’ freedman, though, can only be inferred from the fact that he holds a procuratorial post, since Eutychus does not identify himself as his principal’s libertus .

One would expect more involvement on his part in the rest of the archive if, in fact, he had been regularly employed as a procurator libertus . That being said, the archive is by no means a comprehensive picture of the business activities of the Sulpicii and absence of evidence is not

428 TPSulp 87: “At Puteoli in front of the Caesonian chalcidicum, Gaius Sulpicius Eutychus, who said that he was the procurator of Gaius Sulpicius Cinnamus, testified that the property including the man Felix, the man Carus, the man Ianuarius, the woman Primigenia, the woman Primigenia the Younger, and the child Ampliatus, were the property which Marcus Egnatius Suavis pledged to Gaius Sulpicius Cinnamus as security upon paying a single sesterce in cash for a loan of HS 26,000 and that the property… sale to be deferred to the next market-day.” 429 Camodeca 1999: 195; Verboven 2000: 161.

166 evidence of absence. While his identification cannot be determined with any certainty, it seems likely that Eutychus was the freedman of Cinnamus.

Another tabula adds an interesting dimension to the situation. Though he had assigned

Eutychus to act as his representative in the Puteolan forum, Cinnamus was not actually absent from the city at the time. Rather, as we learn from another document, a so-called testatio sistendi , he was conducting business at Puteoli on the same day. The tablet in question, in response to a vadimonium , or summons to appear, confirms that Cinnamus was present in the forum, before the ara Augusti Hordioniana , at the third hour. 430 Since Eutychus was acting as representative of

Cinnamus on the other side of the same forum, obviously distance and the inability to be present were not a strong motivator in the need for his assignment. Of course, it is conceivable that both the vadimonium and the auction were to take place at the same time, that Eutychus’ representation was due to a scheduling conflict. Indeed, this may be the reason that the auction needed to be postponed. No indication is given in TPSulp 87 as to the time of day. In TPSulp 85, though, when the auction was initially scheduled for the 14 th , it was set to take place at hora tertia as well and if it were the case that the subsequent sale had also been scheduled in the morning then obviously this would conflict with the vadimonium . The consequences of Cinnamus’ non-appearance would likely have been the forfeiture of a previously stipulated amount of money, one not exceeding the total sum in question. Though an exact reconstruction of the Puteolan forum does not exist, it is clear enough that both structures should be placed within it. 431 Eutychus’ actions as an agent effectively allowed Cinnamus to engage in two separate transactions simultaneously in the same forum.

430 TPSulp 16; cf. Verboven 2000: 161; Mouritsen 2011: 216. 431 Demma 2007: 172-173.

167

Consequently, there are major questions raised by the relationship between Eutychus and

Cinnamus, due largely to the fact that his appearance is limited to one document in the entire archive. First, the social connection between the two men that underlies the procuratio is not certain. Was Eutychus another former slave who, having worked for Faustus alongside Cinnamus, was now assisting his old colleague by acting as his representative? This is possible, though it would seem to present an anomalous situation, unsupported by any additional evidence.

Confirmation of their relationship is complicated all the more because Eutychus is only involved in the single transaction. The nature of the private procurator in the early Empire presumes that he was engaged for a longer period of time, in various transactions, on Cinnamus’ behalf. That he was appearing as Cinnamus’ procurator does not seem to have caused any difficulty in the proceedings, so it can be assumed that other interested parties had some prior knowledge of the appointment. Whether this was based on a written or publicly announced authorization from

Cinnamus, their domestic affiliation, or the fact that Eutychus had been acting as his procurator for a long period of time beforehand, is uncertain. Based on the evidence we have, Eutychus simply confirms Cinnamus’ claims on the slaves and postpones the auction, objectives which did not really require procuratorial authority to accomplish. Therefore it seems very unlikely that we have a case where Cinnamus appointed Eutychus as a procurator to act in an isolated transaction to which he was unable to attend. This suggests that, like his own patron, Cinnamus may have employed a procurator who fulfilled general duties as needed, but who could also, by virtue of his procuratorial powers, achieve a much broader variety of commercial objectives by proxy.

Generally, the examples of the procurator libertus in the Sulpician archive demonstrate a considerable flexibility in the institution and its use. This would seem to contradict the sense of fixity and continuity, both socially and professionally, of procuratorial appointments of an agricultural nature. Certainly the commercial and administrative exigencies of first-century Puteoli

168 in which the Sulpicii operated were dramatically different from those of an estate-owning senator, for example. The archive shows that the world of the Sulpicii, with its large number of freedmen and slave actors, was one where distinctions of social status were pragmatically somewhat less relevant than the legal capacity of the parties, especially when it came to business transactions.

Although it is somewhat obscured, the commercial arrangement and legal association between the archive’s two main protagonists, Faustus and his freedman Cinnamus, gives a sense of the complexity and adaptability that a business relationship between patronus and libertus could achieve. Regardless of the extent to which the two men worked together on a daily basis, whether they were contemporaneously co-managers within the same firm or not, the structure of the procuratio enabled both of them to engage in a wider range of transactions. While in many ways these unique characteristics of the Sulpician procurators in the archives can be attributed to their surroundings, there are still clear similarities to other, more socially elevated procurators from the

Imperial period. The archive gives a more detailed, less static picture of procurators in action and this may help to shed some light on the routine activities of other procuratores liberti , as well as the forces motivating them. The unique level of insight and proficiency a freedman might offer in his patron’s business affairs is clearly reflected in the appointment of Cinnamus and probably

Eutychus, as well. The technical experience Cinnamus gained while still a slave and the close, personal relationship he continued to enjoy with his former master, just as with upper-class freedmen, was manifestly an important factor in his appointment as a procurator libertus .

4.4 Freedmen Bankers in the broader Epigraphic Record

If we turn to the broader epigraphic corpus, Roman financiers and bankers were identified by a variety of different occupational titles. The most common of these attested in inscriptions

169 were argentarius , coactor (or coactor argentarius ), and nummularius . Faenerator , the term for the sort of specialist creditory moneylender and financial intermediary that the Sulpicii were, is nowhere attested in the epigraphic record. Three inscriptions from the provinces attest to people engaging in faeneratio , using forms of the verb faenerare ,432 but the occupational title seems to have been avoided in funerary inscriptions. Verboven also noted the apparent “reticence to apply the word faenerator to specific persons” in both epigraphic and literary sources and suggested that, among writers, this “may be due partly to the general reluctance of Roman authors to use social identity signifiers derived from economic activities”. 433 Those elite Romans who did engage indirectly in it, such as Pliny the Younger, typically downplayed the scope and significance of their investments. 434 Such a reluctance is perfectly understandable among upper-class free-born

Romans like Cicero and Seneca, who tend to use the term as obloquy, 435 but that this attitude seems to have extended to epigraphic culture is a little bit surprising, considering that these types of concerns are not usually displayed in inscriptions, which, in fact, often “generally prefer identity signifiers” 436 of this sort. It was presumably the emphasis the term placed on the usurious aspects of this form of money-lending that led to the avoidance of its public use. 437 This may help to

432 CIL III 6998 (Asia), AE 1981, 691 (Germania Superior) and, most recently, WT 30 (Britannia), in Tomlin 2016: 122-123; the last is particuarly interesting when considered with Verboven’s remarks below, since it appears to admonish someone engaging in faeneratio that they not appear “ turpis ”, although the exact details of the situation are a bit obscure and not helped by a confusing double accusative: “… quia per forum totum / gloriantur se te faene/ras(s)e itaque te rogo tua / causa ne tu turpis appar(e)/as in…cus non sic / res tuas ama[bis] et put[a]s …”. 433 Verboven 2008: 214-215. 434 Pliny Ep . III, 19, 8: “ Quaeris an hoc ipsum triciens facile colligere possimus. Sum quidem prope totus in praediis, aliquid tamen fenero, nec molestum erit mutuari.” 435 Cic. In Ver. II, 3, 167: “… quibus ex litteris impudentiam faeneratoris, quaeo, cognoscite .”; Sen. Ep. CXVIII: “… quam durus sit faenerator Caecilius, a quo minoris centesimis propinqui nummum movere non possint. ”. 436 Verboven 2008: 214. 437 Andreau 1999: 11; Verboven 2008: 211-218; 145; it is used in a somewhat positive light referring to Q. Considius during the Catilinarian conspiracy, in Val. Max. IV, 8, 3: quantumque in ipso fuit, amaritudinem publicae confusionis privata tranquilitate mitigavit, opportune mirificeque testatus se nummorum suorum, non civilis sanguinis, esse faeneratorem ; “In whatever way he could, he mitigated the bitterness of popular disorder with his personal composure, by opportunely and marvelously declaring that he was a speculator of his own money and not of citizen blood”; cf. Kay 2018: 144-145; nonetheless, the term does not really appear in epigraphic sources.

170 explain the prevalence of the somewhat more neutral, vague, and less potentially charged terms argentarius and, more problematically, negotiator .

Negotiator could of course be used to refer to anyone who conducted negotium and consequently applies to bankers, wholesalers, importers, and retailers alike, a mutability that I will speak more about below. The designation argentarius , on the other hand, maintained the generality of negotiator , but was obviously a little more precise. In theory, this would limit the use of the title to those who accepted deposits, provided resources and a framework for payments and disbursements, for the purposes of auctions, for example, and maintained conventional individual accounts. 438 As mentioned above, this would technically mean that the Sulpicii were not typical argentarii , since the financial services they provided extended well beyond these limitations into financial intermediation and brokerage of credit. For the purposes of this study, however, the distinction probably does not have much consequence. Certainly there would have been some clear organizational differences between a simple deposit bank and a firm specializing in financial intermediation, and the development of expertise and relationships with their client base would necessarily be slightly different. Yet, broadly speaking, the commercial and professional connections that freedmen and slaves developed and were bound to in both cases were quite similar. It is entirely possible that, when it appears in the epigraphic record, argentarius is sometimes standing in as pithier terminology for precisely the sorts of financial activities that were more sophisticated and difficult to describe, such as those of the Sulpicii.

Argentarius is, indeed, the most common financial occupation mentioned in the epigraphic record and a status-based analysis of the evidence offers clear proof of just how common freedmen

438 Andreau 1999: 30-35 provides a general historical survey of the use of the various occupational titles in banking; cf. Maselli 1986: 137-139.

171 were in this particular economic environment. Of forty-five private argentarii attested in inscriptions in Italy, four (~9%) had names too fragmentary to tell status, two (~4%) were certainly ingenui , nine (20%) were possible ingenui , another seven (~16%) Einnamige or probable slaves, two (~4%) certain slaves, three (~7%) probable freedmen, and eighteen (40%) confirmed freedmen. Only one age is attested for an argentarius . The elderly freedman A. Mucius Attalus, who lived to be eighty-three, was memorialized along with two of his own freedmen, who were themselves brothers. 439 Although neither of the Auli liberti have an occupational title, that they are brothers hints at the possibility of their status as vernae , or, at any rate, of a long-standing connection with their former master. In fact, it is certainly not implausible, particularly taking into consideration organizations like that of the Sulpicii and others, that they, too, were involved in his business interests.

Most of the probable slaves are attested on either smaller, simple grave-markers whose provenance is unknown or from columbaria where their relationship to a principal is a little more difficult to ascertain. Among the former are Anteros, whose simple epitaph at the Porta Maggiore identified him as “ argentarius sub Hilarum qui fuit ” and the tersely memorialized Bromius from

Puteoli. 440 A good example of the latter is Isocrysus, entombed in the second columbarium of the

Vigna Codini , but who does not have an obvious connection to the other members of the Imperial family who surrounded him. The allusion to Gaa Amyntianus is probably an indication that he may have once belonged to the Galatian king Amyntas and was integrated into the Imperial

439 CIL VI 9166: A. Mucius L. l. Attalus / arg(entarius) vix{s}it annos LXXXXIII / A. Mucius A. l. Philotimus / A. Mucius A. l. Bithus frat(res) . 440 CIL VI 5982: Anteros / arg(entarius)/ sub Hilarum / qui fuit ; CIL X 1914: Dis Mani(bus) / Bromius / argentari(us).

172 household as part of his bequest in 25 BCE, though Isocrysus’ legal status and position relative to the Imperial household is uncertain. 441

In any event, most of the potential or declared servi argentarii appear in simple monuments, indicating only their names and positions. There is, however, some limited evidence of a more conventionally structured supervisory system for slaves acting as bankers. In addition to the aforementioned Anteros, who was a single-named argentarius working under someone named

Hilarus, both of the two unambiguous slaves appear to have been functioning under their masters’ direction in slightly unusual circumstances. 442 It is worth pointing out here that these two confirmed slaves, the only ones in the sample, were owned in the first case by a woman and in the second case by two Publii Octavii; it is perhaps not insignificant that there are no positively documented argentarii servi outside of the Imperial household in Italy owned by a single male individual, either free-born or freed. Yet another probable slave, Nicephor, also appears to have been owned by a woman. 443 Andreau asserts that “les argentarii esclaves connus travaillent dans la maison du maître, et remplissaient la fonction d’orfèvres” and further notes that “le vocabulaire des fonctions d’esclaves n’est pas nécessairement le même que celui des métiers”, 444 which is perhaps true if we consider, as he does, Imperial slaves among the sample of representative argentarii . The idea that private argentarii with female masters are entirely “étrangers à la vie financière” 445 or that they should even be considered as functioning within a household, however, should perhaps be explored a little further.

441 CIL VI 4715: Isocrysus argentarius, / Gaa Amynt(ianus) ; cf. Andreau 1987: 102; Chantraine 1967: 354; Boulvert 1974: 25-26. 442 CIL VI 9155: Acutus / Sponsae ser. / arg(entarius) ; CIL VI 9172: Xenoni / P(ubliorum) Octavior(um) / argentar(io) 443 CIL VI 37381: Nicephor, Caeciliaes / Crassi, argentarius, / et Calpis, filia ; this is almost certainly the same Caecilia Metella whose monumental tomb stood on the via Appia – CIL VI 31584: Caeciliae / Q. Cretici f. / Metellae, Crassi. – and who married to the son of the triumviral Crassus; cf. Syme 1986: 57. 444 Andreau 1987: 93. 445 Andreau 1987: 93.

173

These slaves might, indeed, fulfill the role of decorating the halls of illustrious women as workers of fine silver, as may well have been their function in the Imperial household; for an upper-class household such as that of Caecilia Metella, this was perhaps Nicephor’s job as well.

Nothing necessarily precluded women from employing a slave or freedman as a banking representative, so long as she was in a legal position to do so. The Digest suggests that women engaging directly in money-lending was frowned upon, though the language is soft and does not seem to represent any law explicitly banning women who were legally capable from the practice in any certain terms. 446 Even if we take Callistratus’ passage as a direct prohibition, it does not seem to disqualify women from conducting such business through slave agents and an actio de peculio could equally be brought against a man or a woman.447 Despite this, it is nonetheless true that what was probably a more common form of women-conducted banking and moneylending were smaller micro-loans offered in more informal and ad hoc circumstances, 448 rather than through long-running banking enterprises conducted directly through a slave.

Furthermore, in referring to argentarii more broadly, Andreau elsewhere notes that technically-focused silversmiths were known by various titles, including fabri argentarii and argentarii vascularii , as well as associated titles like tritor argentarius and excusor argentarius , these more technical positions seem never to have been referred to as simply “ argentarius ”. 449

This last title appears to have been reserved exclusively for bankers. 450 To be sure, of the twelve fabri argentarii and others associated with the more technical side of silverwork found in the

446 Callist. Dig . II, 13, 12: Feminae remotae videntur ab officio argentarii, cum ea opera virilis sit. 447 Ulp. Dig . XV, 1, 3, pr. and 2: Licet tamen praetor, si cum eo qui in potestate sit gestum sit polliceatur actionem, tamen sciendum est et si in nullius sit potestate, dari de peculio actionem… Parvi autem refert, servus quis masculi an mulieris fuerit: nam de peculio et mulier convenietur. 448 Lazaro Guillamon 2003: 157-160. 449 Andreau 1997: 139, n. 15. 450 Andreau 1999: 30; cf. Gummerus 1915: 135.

174

Italian epigraphic record, none were obviously employed within a household and, in fact, most were evidently working in independent or semi-independent businesses, 451 so it may well be the case that the servile argentarii represent the apparently absent professional fabri argentarii in domestic service. Nonetheless, such a difference in terminology is odd and the conditions of

Roman law do not seem to have categorically prevented women from employing slaves in such a way. This is particularly true if we believe that these slaves may have been working outside of the household under the direction, for example, of a freedman of Sponsa or Caecilia Metella. Under such circumstances, they would, of course, still legally be the slaves of the two women and there would be no particularly cogent reason why their freedman director should appear on their epitaphs. That Anteros is described as “ sub Hilarum ” without a doubt alludes to a carefully ordered, tiered system of positions, one in which a probable slave like Anteros received direction and training through his supervisor Hilarus.

With the Publii Octavii – though it’s not confirmed by the inscription – the situation would reasonably seem to be two colliberti who collectively owned a slave argentarius . It is possible, of course, that the praenomen-sharing Octavii were free-born relatives of each other, perhaps brothers or co-heirs. While it certainly could be a coincidence arising from a fairly common name, there is another freedman from the same period who had jointly as his former masters two Publii Octavii, though this libertus Trophimus appears without any occupational title, 452 and so we cannot be certain of whether he was part of the same familia as Xeno, let alone whether he was also engaged in some form of banking. Even so, the joint ownership and probable manumitted status of the two

Octavii suggest the sort of organizational arrangement seen in the Murecine tablets and, indeed,

451 CIL V 3428; CIL VI 2226; CIL VI 9390; CIL VI 9391; CIL VI 9392; CIL VI 9393; CIL VI 9950; AE 1920, 104; AE 1928, 77; AE 1996, 416; GLEUSA 14; Insc. Aquileae I, 701. 452 CIL VI 23323: P. Octavius PP. l. / Trophimus.

175 reflected elsewhere in the other Italian inscriptions. Freedmen not only frequently appear as argentarii , but very often show evidence of having freedmen patrons themselves.

If analysed organizationally, many of the inscriptions show similar clusters of colliberti and otherwise interrelated freedmen involved in financial firms, which were often unified by the scope of their geographic and economic activity, evidence of a system of continuity. As Andreau points out, seven patrons of freed argentarii are mentioned in inscriptions. Though two of these patrons “sont de grands personnages” 453 , three were certainly freedmen themselves. 454 There is frequently also evidence of a specialized focus, of financial services offered in a specific economic context – among importers of wine or on the edge of the Forum Romanum, for example – similar to the way in which the Sulpicii primarily transacted with the shippers and importers of Puteoli.

Similar, too, is the role that freedmen, themselves, play as patrons in their own right and the relative absence of free-born patrons, or at least patrons whose primary economic concerns might be considered to be somewhat removed from banking. Obviously, the level of structural detail exhibited in multiple documents of the Sulpician firm is far more comprehensive and revealing than any individual inscriptions, yet a number of the latter also suggest the employment of smaller groups of specifically trained expert slaves. It would make sense if it were the case that, like the operation of the Sulpicii revealed in TPSulp 48, lower tier transactions were often conducted by slaves whose responsibilities were not so sophisticated that they could be called argentarii or coactores , but who might eventually be elevated within the business to more prominent positions.

This would explain some of the evidence for “multi-generational” groups of liberti operating seemingly cooperatively, or at least occasionally in conjunction, with each other.

453 Andreau 1987: 408; they were Livia ( CIL VI 4328) and Germanicus ( CIL VI 5184) and so are not included in my own sample because of their proximity to the Imperial household. 454 CIL VI 9181; He also lists CIL VI 4329: C. Octavius / Parthenio / C. Octavi Chresti l. / argentarius. , although this is less clear.

176

Indeed, there seems to have been a somewhat complex freedman-staffed firm of both argentarii and vinarii operating in the Forum Vinarium, as two early 1 st century CE inscriptions, one of which is now lost, from the viae Appia and Labicana reveal. 455 These were the Caucilii, whose interrelationships are worth parsing further, since they demonstrate a remarkable similarity to the clustered, non-linear organizational strutcture of the Sulpicii at Pompeii. Two separate inscriptions describe this collection sharing the rare gentilicium of Caucilius and appear to record members of the same conglomerate. There are eighteen different individuals if we conclude that the Salvius, Lysimachus, and Callipus from CIL VI 9182 are the same individuals mentioned in

9181. This identification, taking both inscriptions into account, would make some sense, since

Callippus appears to have been the patron of Salvius and so would have been in a position to assign a place arbitratu . Untangling the links between them is made particularly difficult by the repetition of both praenomina and cognomina within the group. Nonetheless, there are a few links that can be clearly discerned.

The only masculine name to appear in the longer inscription without any libertination is P.

Caucilius Speratus, recorded at the end and himself also identified as an argentarius de foro vinario . It is possible that he is the patron of this group, but it is far from certain that he is the

Publius mentioned throughout, or, indeed, that the Publius mentioned throughout is even necessarily the same single individual. Whether there was a single, fountainhead patron uniting all of the Caucilii is uncertain, but the group nonetheless displays some of the clustered vertical

455 CIL VI 9181, now lost: P. Caucilius P. l. / Lysimachus Felix / P. Caucilius P. l. / Felix argent(arius) / de foro vinario / P. Caucilius P. l. / Expectatus / vixit ann. IIII / Caucilia P. l. Auge / P. Caucilius Lysimachi / l. Felix / P. Caucilius P. l. / Tiridates / P. Caucilius P. l. / Callippus Felix / Bantia Secunda / P. Caucilius Callippi l. / Salvius / P. Caucilius Callippi l. / Eutychus argentarius / de foro vinario / P. Caucilius Eutychi l. / Hyginus argentarius / de foro vinario / P. Caucilius Salvi l. / Eros coactor / vinarius de foro vinario. / P. Caucilius P. l. / Auctus / [C]aucilia P. l. Helena, / P. Caucilius Speratus / argentarius / de foro vinario / Sentia Veneria / sacerdos / P. Caucilius P. l. Alcaeus ; and CIL VI, 9182: [P.] Caucilius P. l. / Salvius // P. Caucili[us P. l.] / Helles / argentari(i) de foro vinario / arbitratu Lysimachi et Callippi libertorum.

177 organization of the Sulpicii. Callippus Felix, whose occupation was not identified, had two argentarii as his freedmen: P. Caucilius Eutychus and P. Caucilius Salvius. In turn, each of these men are named as the patrons of freed bankers, Eutychus of the argentarius de foro vinario P.

Caucilius Hyginus, and Salvius of the coactor vinarius , P. Caucilius Eros. Two other argentarii also appear: the aforementioned Speratus, whose status is unknown, and P. Caucilius Felix, one of the many Publii liberti . Also worth noting is the geographic and economic specializing that all of the Caucilii shared. That all of them provided financial services in the forum vinarium is not an accident. Their presence in the Forum Vinarium would suggest “the importance of auctions for the initial sale of goods that reached Rome” 456 – that is, there was a need for large sums required for purchasing items at wholesale. Here, too, creditary and banking services – or at least money- changing – would be a convenience for buyers making even smaller purchases from wholesalers. 457

With the Caucilii, Andreau sees a fairly straightforward example of training through apprenticeship, of grooming the skilled slave for eventual manumission and assumption of control of the business when the patron directing it withdrew. 458 While the broader strokes of this description are no doubt true, we have seen from the example of the Sulpicii above that such an arrangement could well be a little more complicated. In fact, a less neat succession would often be beneficial to both the freedman and his patron, particularly in the banking sector, where complicated transactions would often require the representation of an agent like a procurator libertus , whose trust and skill could be assured and reliable. The situation of the Caucilii actually argues for a more multiplex line of succession in the style of the Sulpicii, rather than the tidy

456 Holleran 2012: 81-82; 95-98. 457 Garcia Morcillo 2005: 210. 458 Andreau 1987: 410.

178 endowment Andreau implies. If we take Callipus Felix to be the head argentarius of a firm evidently specializing in providing various financial services relating to the wine industry, why would both of his liberti argentarii Salvius and Eutychus each have freedmen with slightly different skills working under them? We would expect to observe a clearer line of ownership and manumission, instead of the cluster of distantly agnate freedmen unified by similar but slightly different expertise that we do observe. It is worth noting that Eros is identified as a coactor vinarius . This suggests that members of the firm had some involvement in the auction of goods.459

Like the Sulpicii, the Caucilii may have dabbled in resale of forfeited pledges of merchandise as well.

Other bankers can be observed working on the periphery of the wine industry, too. A statue base from Falerii Novi commemorated Q. Fulvius Chares and was established by two of his freedmen, Doctus and Festus: Q. Fulvio Chareti, / argentar(io), coactor(i) / de portu vinario / superiori, / patrono optimo / et indulgentissimo / Doctus et / Festus lib(erti) .460 Similar to the

Caucilii, his banking activity was centred both geographically and probably economically around the wine trade. The situation with Fulvius Chares, thought, provides some interesting differences worth highlighting. His own legal status is indeterminate, though he may be the Chares who set up an epitaph at Rome for his parents in CIL VI, 18690. 461 What is fairly clear, simply based on the fact that the statue base was found at what was likely his own wine-producing farm, 462 is the importance of the link between his urban and rural labour. Whether Doctus and Festus were

459 Andreau 1987: 93; on these Caucilii specifically, Bianchi and Munzi 1999: 132-135; On the importance of auctions, cf. Garcia Morcillo 2008: 257-275. 460 CIL XI 3156: “For Quintus Fulvius Chares, argentarius , coactor of the upper portus vinarius , the best and kindest patron, his freedmen Doctus and Festus [made this].”; cf. Holleran 2012: 79; the portus vinarius superior was probably the distribution point of wine coming from vineyards in places further inland in the Tiber valley (like Falerii Novi). 461 CIL VI 18690: D(is) M(anibus) / Q. Fulvio / Thallo / et Trophime, / parentibus opti/mis, Chares fili/us . 462 Chioffi 2012: 323, n. 16.

179 freedmen primarily active in Falerii Novi as upper-echelon agricultural workers or among his banking staff at Rome, they nonetheless chose to commemorate their patron not as a vinarius or as a simple, conventionally non-occupationally identified landowner, but rather as an argentarius coactor de portu vinario superiori , a banker at Rome in the port specializing in receiving wine from the Italian hinterland further up the Tiber. Such a publicized identity among the vineyards of the upper Tiber valley would be intrinsically useful to a broader economic strategy and suggests a conscientious effort to effectively pre-emptively advertise specialized financial support in the actual areas of production within Italy, reflecting the evident creditary specialization that existed in larger markets, both at Rome and in major ports like Ostia and Puteoli.

4.5 Localized Economic Specialization in Banking and Argentarii and Nummularii

In these examples, we see the clear demonstration of a directed focus when it came to what specific enterprise or mercantile sphere within which the business of banking is being conducted.

As alluded to already, the Sulpicii demonstrate a comparable sort of concentration. The importance of the relationship between financiers and negotiatores , which helped to fuel this sort of specialization, was already recognized in Antiquity. Seneca highlights it when he advises, “ opus erit tibi creditore: ut negotiari possis, aes alienum facias oportet… ”. 463 It is evident that the

Sulpicii primarily extended commercial credit to merchants and businessmen active in the port of

Puteoli, themselves mainly maritime importers of grain and other foodstuffs. 464 Here, too, there was a considerable degree of localized specialization, as with the argentarii vinarii and other

463 Sen. Ep. CXIX, 1: “It will be necessary for you to contract a loan: in order to do business, you will have to take some debt on…” 464 Camodeca 1994: 103-128; Terpstra 2013: 15.

180 specialist bankers at Rome, in their lending practices. As Andreau points out, the kind of complicated operations that the Sulpicii and others in their archive engage in – that is direct loans to merchants and importers of a uniquely trade-related nature – are unattested in the literary sources and repudiate the idea that Roman was limited to simple consumption loans. 465 While not all of the transactions of the Sulpicii involve debtors invested in the shipping industry, it is clear that the firm’s financial activities had this as their focus.

It is not entirely clear what proportion of their business was comprised of commercial loans to shippers and merchants and what of more conventional credit, but within the existing documents, there are easily identifiable wholesalers who receive credit. The libertus L. Marius

Iucundus, 466 as an example, stored significant amounts of grain as security for a loan, indicating that he was most likely a large-scale importer. Another freedman, C. Novius Eunus, traded in

Alexandrian grain, chickpeas, spelt, lentils, and something called monocopius , though Sulpicius

Faustus was only an intermediary in his obtaining a loan from an Imperial freedman. 467 The dating of these loans, particularly the transactions of Iucundus made in mid-March just before the beginning of the shipping season, makes it pretty clear that these were funding wheat-import voyages to and from Egypt and North Africa. Considering that there was greater potential for profit from simply selling off the grain in their possession, it is all the more likely that “Jucundus et

Eunus empruntent pour réaliser d’autres opérations de type commercial (sans doute l’achât d’autres denrées alimentaires), sur lesquelles ils espèrent dégager un benefice qui leur permettra de rembourser leur emprunt sans les priver des sommes qu’ils tireront de la vente des céréales” 468 .

TPSulp 49 provides us with evidence of Sulpicius Cinnamus carrying out a financial transaction

465 Andreau 1999: 74. 466 TPSulp 53 and 79; cf. Camodeca 1994: 104-109; Terpstra 2013: 21. 467 TPSulp 45, 51, 52, 68, and 67. 468 Virlouvet 2000: 143.

181 with the peregrine Purgias, also somehow implicated in the grain trade. 469 There is also a loan documented in the archive, written partly in Greek, partly in Latin, arising from the contracting of a ship for a voyage from a Carian named Menelaus. Although the Sulpicii seem to be absent from the transaction, 470 they perhaps introduced the parties to each other or were holding the contract in trust for one of their clients.

That there was, among the Sulpicii, a familiarity with the inner workings of the shipping trade and the port of Puteoli is unmistakable. Not only do they appear as creditors to those directly involved in the industry, but in some cases also as their signatories and sureties. There are certainly curious, albeit isolated, examples of Sulpicius Faustus directly investing in trade. In one tablet, possibly dated to August 48 CE, it looks as if Faustus is documented as having bought 58 pounds of ivory at 9 denarii a pound from an imperial freedman, 471 though no indication is given as to what his ultimate aim was in making the purchase and the tablet is fragmentary. In another, from

29 CE, a certain M. Caecilius Maximus acknowledges owing 3,000 sesterces to Faustus from a sale of aerugo , or medicinal verdigris.472 This tablet may represent possible proof of Faustus entering into a short-term trading partnership with Maximus, based on the formula quod mihi cum eo convenit praestarem [oportere] . In any case, it certainly signifies that he had an unfulfilled contractual obligation to Faustus. 473

Although obviously epitaphs and other inscriptions do not provide the level of detail of commercial and social connections, there are hints that the Sulpicii were by no means unique in their links to shipping or their narrow priority of focus on a specific trade or locality. Two freedmen

469 In what capacity, specifically, is uncertain due to the damaged condition of the tablet. 470 TPSulp 78. 471 TPSulp 101. 472 TPSulp 66. 473 Gaius Inst. IV, 2.

182 argentarii , M. Canuleius Philonicus and L. Canidius Euelpistus, occupied businesses “ post aedem

Castoris ”, which must have been fairly desirable real estate for its proximity to the Forum

Romanum. 474 The former affirmed his libertination, while the latter built a tomb for L. Canidius

Priscus, identified as “ patronus suus indulgentissimus ”. Other freedmen were commemorated in

Italian towns, despite clearly being most active in the capital, as with Fulvius Chares above. L.

Domitius Agathemerus, who was commemorated in Praeneste on a dedication to Fortuna

Primigenia, was identified as “ a VII Caesares (!) argentarius coactor ”, 475 operating in an unidentified neighbourhood of Rome, somewhere in the Trastevere. 476 Two other inscriptions seem to identify the same area, with both coincidentally involving members of the wine trade. 477

It’s been taken for granted that Domitius was himself the freedman of the Neronian actor L.

Domitius Paris. 478 Though the association with Curtia Euphrantis is not clear, L. Domitius

Epictetus may well be either a collibertus or freedman of Agathemerus.

If we consider coactores and coactores argentarii like Domitius Agathemerus as a group, there are some broad similarities to the numbers for argentarii , but they also constitute a more uncertain cohort, particularly when it comes to status distinction. Of nineteen instances, five (26%) are definite freedmen, six (~32%) are probable freedmen, five (26%) are too fragmentary to distinguish status, and three (~16%) are possible ingenui . Significantly, among this group, there is

474 CIL VI 9177 (L. Canidius Euelpistus) and CIL VI 30748 (M. Canuleius M. lib. Philonicus). Other freedmen entrepreneurs in this area included a group of sagarii (CIL VI 9872) and possibly also a faber argentarius (CIL VI 9393). 475 CIL XIV 2886: L. Domitio / Agathemer(o), / Paridis / lib., a V̅ I̅ I̅ / Caesares (!) / argentar(io) / coactori. / L. Domitius / Epictetus / et Curtia / Euphrantis / Fortunae / Primigen(iae) / d(onum) d(ederunt). / L(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). 476 cf. LTUR IV 266. 477 CIL IX 4680: A. Herennuleius / Cestus, negotiator / vinarius a Septem / Caesaribus idem mercator / omnis generis mercium / transmarinarum, lictor, / vivos sibi fecit et libertis / libertabusque suis / posterisq(ue) eorum ; less certain is CIL VI 712: D[eo] / Soli Vi[ctori]. / Q. Octavius Daphnicu[s], / negotias vinarius a / Sep[t(em) Caes(aribus)?] / tricliam fec(it) a solo impen[sa] / sua, permissu kalator(um) pon[tific(um)] / et flaminum, cui immunitas / data est ab eis scarum faciend[i] ; cf. Chioffi 2007: 23-26. 478 Andreau 1987: 292 and 379.

183 neither a confirmed slave nor any unambiguous free-born Roman citizen. Despite the slight differences in the conduct of their affairs, many of the same characteristics of regional and topical specialization are observable among the coactores , as well. This is perhaps to be expected, because of their connections to auctions and wholesale. A curious inscription in the Capitoline Museum alludes to two colliberti coactores , both evidently operating in the same location. 479 The exact relationships of the Histumennii are open to conjecture, but it seems as though Philomusus may well be the freedman of Bato, the other coactor de subura , and so we would have a situation much more in line with Andreau’s scenario of straight succession. Whether Apollonius, however, had had a professional relationship with Bato, who was evidently his collibertus , is also a possibility and would create an organizational structure more like others that we have already seen.

The final main occupational title for bankers, the nummularii , shows a relatively high proportion of freedmen and slaves, though we should perhaps be a bit careful in attempting to draw too firm conclusions from a comparatively small sample group. These men were chiefly limited to simple money-changing and assaying of coinage and never engaged in the sorts of creditory practices of other types of bankers. 480 The necessarily smaller scale of these enterprises probably helps to explain some of the organizational differences between this and other forms of banking.

However, that does not mean that there were no professional and personal links between argentarii and nummularii . An inscription from Rome registers two bankers, a nummularius , Laetus, who died at eighteen, and an argentarius , Clarus, libertus of another Lucius, who were both active in the ab sex areis region of the city. 481 This is the only inscription that mentions a nummularius and

479 AE 1990, 74: A. Histumennius P. l. / Apollonius / A. Histumennius A. l. / Bato coactor de subura / A. Histumennius A. l. / Philomusus coactor de subura. / hoc sepulcrum factu(m) est / ex testamento arbitratu A. Histumenni A. l. / Philomusi. 480 Andreau 1999: 31. 481 CIL VI 9178: L. Suestilius / L. l. Clarus / argentarius ab / sex areis sibi et / L. Suestilio Laeto / nummulario ab / sex areis / vixit ann(os) XIIX / in f(ronte) p(edes) XIX in ag(ro) p(edes) XIIX.

184 an argentarius together, though the lack of libertination or filiation confuses matters somewhat.

Suestillius is a rare gentilicium among free-born Romans and only one ingenua is attested bearing it. 482 Nonetheless, it is not certain that Laetus was the freedman of Clarus and his young age at death might well indicate that he is rather Clarus’ son. The fact that they both worked in the same neighbourhood does not necessarily mean that they worked out of the same specific place of business. 483 While their differing expertise is not necessarily complementary, it is nonetheless not beyond the realm of possibility that they provided services out of the same location or that Clarus’ intention was to train his young protégé in a slightly more straightforward form of money-changing before introducing him to the more complex operations of the ars argentaria . Of the fifteen individual nummularii generally, seven (~47%) were certainly liberti , two (~13%) were probably liberti , three (20%) were slaves, two (~13%) were free incerti , and one (~7%) was definitely an ingenuus .

One of the few funerary inscriptions documenting a slave employed as a nummularius contains some interesting details about social relations. 484 Nothus, a servus nummularius of L.

Selicus Geminus, was commemorated by his mother, who was a freedwoman of the same man.

What makes the situation remarkable, however, is the fact that she also buried another son, Q.

Sallustius Ianuarius, who had been owned and manumitted by a different master, and her coniunx

Hesperus, a slave of yet a different master. It is unclear from the inscription whether this Hesperus was the father of one or both of her sons. Nothus’ age is also noted as twenty-three, providing us with one of the few examples of an age at death given for a slave or freedman involved in banking;

482 CIL VI 10640: P. Ae[lio] / Aug(usti) liber[to] / Anteroti / Suestilia L. f. / Aeliana parenti ; though AE 1997, 232 may be another: Nump(h)e Suestilia, / vixi(t) annos XVIII, pia, / frugi, amans suorum ; cf. Andreau 1987: 396. 483 Andreau 1987: 216. 484 CIL V 93: Notho L. Selici / Gemini ser. nummul(ario) / an(norum) XXIII f., / Q. Sallustio Q. l. Ianuario f., / Hespero C. Orbi Quarti ser. / coniugi. / Mutilia L. lib. Nothis.

185 his relative youth makes it less surprising that he was not manumitted before his death. There are, however, some traces here of a continued contact between a mixed biological family of liberti and slaves from different households that suggests a social freedom tolerated by their masters. While we do not know the occupations of his brother and father, Nothus’ position as a nummularius may have factored into this privilege.

Though they probably operated more modest businesses than argentarii , coactores or even negotiatores who engaged in banking, the nummularii inscriptions do display some similar organizational trends similar to other banking enterprises. As with many others, two of the nummularii inscriptions explicitly name the locations of their businesses – one near the Circus

Flaminius and the other in the neighbourhood of Mercurius Sobrius – and also evince relations between freedmen bankers and their own libertae .485 Another records two nummularii colliberti , who probably operated some sort of a joint business in Beneventum. 486 The Basilica Iulia on the edge of the Roman Forum unsurprisingly seems to have been a popular location for money- changers ar Rome. There are at least two nummularii who probably had their businesses nearby. 487

Though neither have libertination, Marcius Fortunatus, forty-two when he died, and Marcia Zoe were either colliberi who married, or she was both his liberta and wife.

It is worth pointing out here that twenty-one (26.25%) of the eighty total banking inscriptions name the specific location of the businesses that the individuals occupied. This is a remarkably high proportion, even compared with the other types of shops. Only one of these

485 CIL VI 9713: [M. S]alvio M. l. Secundo / [nu]mmulario de circo / Flaminio / [Salvi]a M. l. Phaedime patron(o) / [---] suisque ; CIL VI, 9714: C. Sulpicius C. l. Battara / num(m)ularius a Mercurio / Sobrio et Sulpicia Hilara / C. Sulpici Battarae l. [--. 486 CIL IX 1707: L. Helvio L. l. Hilaro / nummulario / Mercuriali / Messiae Q. l. Diodorae / L. Helvio L. l. Paeto nummula/rio. 487 CIL VI 9712 and CIL VI 9711: D(is) M(anibus) / L. Marci Fortunati / nummulari(i) / de basilica Iulia / qui vixit ann(is) XL/II mens(ibus) III dieb(us) / XVIII fecit Mar/cia Zoe coniu/gi b(ene) m(erenti) / cum quo vix(it) / ann(is) XXIIII.

186 location-naming inscriptions comes from outside of Rome and if we only take into consideration neighbourhoods of Rome, the proportion of bankers who name their place of business jumps to a remarkable 46%. 488 Joshel discusses the significance of the shop address in occupational inscriptions at some length and concludes that this convention generally served to emphasize that the liberti were the heads of their own establishments, as well as the collective identity of their businesses built around an extended familia of liberti or colliberti .489 When it comes to bankers, specifically, she is right to note that the named locations sometimes also had the effect of indirectly naming the area of their economic specialty, as with the Portus Vinarius and the Forum Vinarium , or, slightly more obliquely, the Forum Esquilinum .490 Perhaps most importantly, though, the dual emphasis on collective identity and location probably also served to create a sense of continuity and concatenation of economic activity among self-perpetuating groups of freedmen whose legal status and professional demands would necessarily require a more creative way of doing so outside of a biological bloodline.

4.6 Negotiatiores , Negotiantes , and Mercatores in the Epigraphic Record

As an epigraphic category, negotiatores and negotiantes constitute an extremely broad and diverse group, to the point that it is somewhat difficult to consider them as a unified whole. Their statuses and the scale of their economic activities run the full range from the probably small-scale, localized negotiatrix frumentariae et legumiariae Abudia Megiste, who was manumitted and subsequently

488 cf. Joshel 1992: 107, whose percentage is higher than my calculations at 50%. 489 Joshel 1992: 106-112. 490 CIL VI 9189; CIL VI 9181; CIL VI 9182; CIL VI 9179.

187 married her patron 491 to L. Scribonius Ianuarius, a negotians vinarius , whose position as curator corporis maris Hadriatici indicates that his scope of economic interests were probably much wider. 492 Similarly, status could range from the decurion and negotiator iuvencarius T. Elvius

Fregellanus, evidently a successful butcher, 493 to the slave Euxinus, the negotiator L. Volusi

Saturnini patris entombed in the columbarium Volusiorum .494 Bearing these things in mind, I’ve attempted to approach the epigraphic cohort of negotiatores with some degree of added caution, since some surely engaged in economic activities more in common with the institores of the previous chapter, while others undoubtedly had more wide-ranging shipping, importing, and banking interests. It does seem to generally hold true that negotiatores during the Empire seem to have been primarily engaged in commercial and mercantile activities, while in the late Republic, they chiefly pursued private banking, 495 though obviously does not apply universally and they continued to constitute a fairly diverse group throughout antiquity. This general impression may also be related to the fact that sources indicate an intensified focus on specific products (or at the very least an increasingly specific vocabulary) in the early Empire. 496 In what is perhaps an excess

491 CIL VI 9683: Di{i}s Manibus / Abudiae M. lib. / Megiste piissimae fec(it) / M(arcus) Abudius Luminaris / patronus idemque / coniux bene merenti / negotiatrici frumentariae / et legum[i]naria(e) ab scala / mediana sibi et libertis / libertabusque posterisq(ue) / et M. Abudio Saturnino / filio trib. Esq. seniorum / vixit annis VIII. 492 CIL VI 9682: L. Scribonio Ianuario / negotianti vinario / item naviculario cur(atori) / corporis maris Hadriatici / L. Scribonius Festivus / frater et / M. Manlius Callicarpus / socer fecerunt / et lib(ertis) libertab(us) Scriboni posterisque eorum. 493 CIL X 5585: D(is) M(anibus) / T. Elvio Fregella/no, co(n)iugi incompara/bil(i) atq(ue) kar(issimo), neg(otiatori) iu/venc(ario), dec(urio) Fabrat(ernorum) No/van(orum), omnib(us) honorib(us) / perunct(o), qui vix(it) ann(is) / XXXVIII, mens(ibus) VIIII, / dieb(us) XII. Caecilia Vic/torina, cum qua / vix(it) ann(is) XVI, mensib(us) / VI, dieb(us) XIIII, bene / de se m(erenti) f(ecit) ; “To the Divine Shades of Titus Elvius Fregellanus, an incomparable and most beloved husband, a negiator of meat, decurion of Fabraterna Nova, a holder of every office, who lived 38 years, 9 months, 12 days. Caecilia Victorina, with whom he lived 16 years, 6 months, 14 days, made this for her well-deserving spouse from her own money.”; cf. Chioffi 1999: 57-59. 494 CIL VI 9653: Euxino L. Volusi Saturnini p(atris) / negotiatori. / Acanthus L. Volusi Heleni l. / h(onoris) c(ausa) fecit ; “For Euxinus, negotiator of Lucius Volusius Saturninus, the father. Acanthus, freedman of Lucius Volusius Helenus, made this because of his esteem.” 495 Verboven 2007: 94; in the same chapter, Verboven also provides an epigraphic catalogue of the entire Empire, although his numbers and criteria for Italy differ from my own. 496 Minaud 2011: 168-169.

188 of this careful approach, even in cases where the negotiator was clearly a second-generation, free- born descendent of Imperial slaves, I have omitted them, since their relationships tend to indicate residual connections to other individuals with relationships to the Imperial household. 497

Additionally, I have not included the numerous inscriptions that commemorate groups of negotiatores acting collaboratively or commemorated together in my general calculations, 498 although the influence and prominence of these groups continued well into the Empire, particularly in the capital and at Ostia, and undoubtedly these further supported and stimulated multiplex relationships of negotiatores between each other. 499

Nonetheless, the unavoidable economic heterogeneity of this group does mean that its status patterns are a little different from other occupational categories in this chapter. Sixty-six inscriptions name individual negotiatores in Roman Italy. Eighteen (~27%) were certain freedmen and ten (~15%) probable freedmen, while three (~5%) can be confirmed as ingenui and four were

(~6%) single-named individuals or slaves. Other than five (~8%), which had names too fragmentary to discern status, the rest – twenty-six (~39%) individuals – were free incerti . The ages at death of negotiatores are equally unrevealing, though the two youngest are almost certainly slaves. These, two of the negotiatores in the monumentum Volusiorum , give ages of twenty-two and at least twenty (although the latter is fragmentary). 500 What business endeavours they engaged in is unclear, though the Volusii were known to have interests in both trade and banking, 501 perhaps

497 Examples of these include CIL VI 9665: Ti. Claudius Ti. fil. / Hor. Aquila negoti/ans ferrarius hoc mo/numentum se vivus sibi et / Aeliae Victorinae coniugi / suae item suis posterisque / suorum comparavit ; and CIL VI 33887: D(is) M(anibus) / M. Antonio M. filio / Claudia Terenti / oriundo civitate / Miseni omnibus / muneribus et / honoribus patriae / suae perfuncto / negotiatori / celeberrimo suariae / et pecuariae / MM. Antonii / Teres et Proculus / fili(i) et heredes / secundum voluntatem / ipsius. 498 As, for example, the negotiantes vascularii who honoured Caracalla in 213 CE in CIL VI 1065: Imp. Caes. M. Aurellio / Antonino Pio Felici / Invicto Aug. Parth. / max., Britann. max., / pont. max., trib. pot. XVI, / Imp. II, cos. IIII, p. p., procos., / domino / ìndulgentissimo / negotiantes / vasculari / conservatori suo / numini eìus / devoti. 499 Broekaert 2011: 228-234. 500 CIL VI 9652 and CIL VI 9654. 501 Buonocore 1984: 28.

189 even with distant connections to Puteoli and the Sulpicii. 502 Other inscriptions show slight similarities to earlier configurations of personnel. A gang of three Caii Messii liberti memorialized the eldest named merchant in the inscriptions, the ninety-year old C. Messius Eunomus senior .503

Here, the relationships are certainly reminiscent of the clustered structure of other business operations covered in this chapter, but without occupational titles, it is uncertain if the three liberti also had shared professional interests with patron and amongst each other.

Though it is sometimes difficult to determine what, precisely, the scope and focus of certain negotiatores was, some were certainly involved in importation and wholesaling. A common literary term for an importer or a shipper was a navicularius , but there is actually little inscriptional evidence in Italy for individual navicularii . Although there are numerous inscriptions from Italy documenting collegia and corpora naviculariorum , there are virtually none that commemorate a single navicularius acting on his own account. 504 Here, too, it seems odd that the term is avoided.

One would not expect navicularius to be singled out in particular as an especially shameful, eschewed title in any context other than among the Roman elite. It could be assumed that this is a geographic blip, but their relative absence seems to apply in the Empire at large as well. This suggests that the cohort of negotiatores hide a number of importers as well.

As with importation, there is probably also some terminological overlap between a negotiator and a mercator , a simple merchant. There are twenty-three individual mercatores in the inscriptions, thirteen (~57%) of whom were definitely liberti , two (~9%) probable liberti , six

(~26%) certain ingenui , two (~9%) ingenui incerti , and one (~4%) too fragmentary to surmise

502 Andreau 1999: 74. 503 CIL VI 9679: D(is) M(anibus) / C. Messi Eunomi Sen(ioris) / neg(otiantis) vin(arii) v(ixit) a(nnos) LXXXX / fecerunt CCC. Messi / Tr[y]phon Nymphidius / Philocalus / patrono optimo ; cf. Broekaert 2013: 83, § 123. 504 For a detailed discussion of the term and its use, see Broekaert 2013: 216-222, who, following this, also includes a catalogue of its epigraphic appearances. It should be noted, though, that most of his entries document curatores corporum naviculariorum , who may or may not be navicularii themselves.

190 status. In some cases, individuals independently identified as negotiatores and mercatores may have pursued broadly corresponding economic activities, particularly if they were smaller-scale sellers and resellers of goods. 505 That, however, is not the case in CIL VI 9675. 506 This suggests that the Romans themselves saw a distinction between the functions of negotiatores and mercatores .507 It is probably the case that the scale of a negotiator ’s activities and interests were broader than that of the mercator , that the latter’s commercial transactions were limited to fairly basic mercantile exchanges. 508 Some scholars have also suggested that the difference in terminology is more often a reflection of the status and wealth of the individual, that the negotiator was often simply a particularly successful mercator who wished to employ a term with fewer potentially disreputable implications. 509 That idea, however, does not really seem to be supported by this particular inscription, since there is no evident contrast in wealth or status between the two

Aruleni. In fact, contrary to this distinction, there is evidence that certain mercatores were immensely successful, both economically and socially. L. Marius Phoebus, a mercator olei

Hispani ,510 was one of the better-documented merchants of the mid-second century. In addition to his wide-ranging business interests, he was a viator , an apparitor associated with some official,

505 Cristofori 2004: 315. 506 CIL VI 9675: Hic siti sunt / L. Ar(u)lenus L. l. / Demetrius / nat(ione) Cilix / negotiat(or) sagar(ius) / Ar(u)lena L. l. / Rufa / coniunx // L. Arlenus L. l. / Artemidorus / nat(ione) Paphlago / mercator sagarius / Helenus et Nice liberti d(ederunt) ; another inscription, CIL VI 12331, suggests that Demetrius and Artemidorus may have managed a larger business and owned a slave in common: L. Arleno L. l. Philogeni patrono // L. Arlenus L. l. / Demetrius / L. Arlenus L. l. / Artemidorus / Arlena Rufa / coniunx / L. Arlenus LL. Helenus // L. Arlenus L. l. / Heraclida / L. Arlenus L. l. / Pamphilus / Arlena Iucunda / coniunx / Arlena Saturnina // sibi et suis fecerunt ; cf. Broekaert 2013: 33, § 15. 507 Broekaert 2013: 33, § 15 is resistant to drawing too firm an occupational distinction between the two terms in this inscription, since he believes that their “similar socio-economic background” and collaborative dedication to their patron indicate that they had similar business interests. While true, this does not necessarily preclude them from having a shared firm and different but complementary occupations. 508 Verboven 2007: 107-108; cf. Valencia Hernandez 1989: 201. 509 Baldacci 1967: 274; Broekaert 2013: 150-153 considers this interpretation of mercator far too reductive and suggests that the distinction is primarily based on the itinerancy of the mercator compared to the relative geographic fixity of the negotiator . 510 CIL VI 1935: D(is) M(anibus) / L. Mario / Phoebo / viatori / tribunicio / decuriae maio/ris mercatori / olei Hispani ex / provincia / Baetica ; cf. Liou and Tchernia 1994: 134-135; Huttunen 1974: 91; Broekaert 2013: 168 § 299.

191 though this remains a problematic aspect of the inscription. 511 If he is the same L. Marius Phoebus who memorialized his wife in CIL VI 28945, then he was free-born. 512 A number of amphorae from Monte Testaccio, several of which bear the date of 153 CE, attest to the extent of his operations in conjunction with two Vibii. 513 Whether Vibius Viator and Vibius Restitutus were brothers or colliberti is unclear. Although he appears to have been roughly contemporaneous, there is no particular reason to associate him with the P. Vibius Restitutus recorded in an inscription from central Samnium. 514 This mercator , admittedly, probably represents some of the higher ranks of success that a merchant could obtain, though it remains difficult to see just a status distinction as the basis for the different terminology.

Therefore what we probably have in the case of these Aruleni engaged in the cloak trade, is both an importer or wholesaler – Demetrius – and a more modest merchant – Artemidorus – slightly further down the supply chain. In fact, it is revealed in another inscription from the same monument that Demetrius and Artemidorus were colliberti , despite the fact that one presumably engaged in larger and more sophisticated commercial transactions than the other, and that Helenus was a freedman of both of them. 515 The legal status of the jointly-manumitted Helenus (and presumably also Nice) all but affirms that their commercial interests were pursued collectively as well. 516 It is no great stretch to consider the Aruleni to have created an at least partially collaborative enterprise, spread as widely as possible across the line of provision and distribution.

511 Purcell 1983: 133, n. 39. 512 CIL VI 28945: D(is) M(anibus) / Vidiae / Hagnae / L. Marius / L. f. Pal. / Phoebus uxori / sanctissimae. 513 CIL XV 3959b: [---]I // L. Mari Phoebi et / Vibior(um) Viat(oris) et Rest(ituti) // [CC]VVVI ; CIL XV 3952: XCI // L. Mari Phoebi et/ Vibior(um) V(iatoris) et R(estituti) // CCIII / Praesente [et Rufino co(n)s(ulibus)] / A[1]eu[---]CV[- --] / Ianuar[ius ---]s , [153 CE]; CIL XV 3943-3959. 514 AE 1975, 316: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Felici P. Vibius / Restitutus{s} / frat(ri) et Vibia / Onesime fil. p(osuerunt ). 515 CIL VI 9675: L. Arleno L. l. Philogeni patrono // L. Arlenus L. l. / Demetrius, / L. Arlenus L. l. / Artemidorus, / Arlena Rufa / coniunx, / L. Arlenus LL. l. Helenus, // L. Arlenus L. l. / Heraclida, / L. Arlenus L. l. / Pamphilus, / Arlena Iucunda / coniunx, / Arlena Saturnina / sibi et suis fecerunt. 516 See the next chapter for a discussion of joint-ownership and manumission.

192

Many mercatores exhibit these sorts of correspondingly complicated constellations of interrelated liberti and colliberti and in this respect demonstrate a greater resemblance to banking consortia and the small production groups than the more frequently individualist negotiatores . As with these other groups, mercatores like the Aruleni employed these structures of diverse but complementary occupational relationships to their economic benefit, attempting to ensure that their own manpower was deployed most efficiently. Both a group of manumitted Scantii from Rome 517 and a group of freed Casellii and Domatii from Beneventum, united apparently by the marriage of two liberti patroni ,518 demonstrate other probable clustered groups of freedmen merchant enterprises. These somewhat impressionistic observations about merchants in the broader epigraphic record are supported by a further analysis of the structures evinced by traders and merchants present in the

Murecine archive.

4.7 Between Banking and Trading: Mercatores and Negotiatores in TPSulp

To be sure, business-related interactions between bankers and negotiatores constituted an essential component, not just of an individual’s ability to function in business, but of the Italian economy more broadly. This necessary commercial contact, the fact that both occupational spheres frequently conducted the same creditary and financial transactions with each other, probably helps to explain some of the more prominent organizational and legal status parallels that can be observed among Roman bankers and businessmen. Each required similar expertise, training, and

517 CIL VI 9630: LL. Scantii L. l. Demetrius et Heliades / mercatores / Scantia L. l. Ammia / Scantia Sp. f. Putilla / L. Scantius L. f. Status / L. Scantius L. l. Zethus de sua pec(unia) fac(iendum) cur(avit). 518 CIL IX 1713: Q. Caesellius Q. l. Surus / mercator / Domatia |(mulieris) l. Fausta / C. Domatius |(mulieris) l. Pylax / mercator // Q. Caesellius |(mulieris) l. / Pamphilus patronus / Domatia |(mulieris) l. Talia / patrona / Albanus delicia // Q. Caesellius Surus et Domatia Talia / vivi sibi et su{e}is fecerunt.

193 specialized literacy, in addition to similar interpersonal structures and relationships to facilitate the specific forms of representation that were often required in moneylending contracts and complex credit arrangements. The same beneficial aspects of slave and freedman representations applied equally to both parties in these transactions.

The evidence of Faustus’ non-banking dealings mentioned above might lead one to conclude that the Sulpicii were themselves practicing merchants who occasionally acted as creditors to or credit intermediaries for other merchants and importers. However, an utter lack of positive evidence that these were anything more than occasional, isolated transactions, particularly as the business of the Sulpicii developed, contradicts this hypothesis. It should be noted first that the above-mentioned contracts are, in the case of the first, disappointingly incomplete and, the other, concluded at a very early date. Nowhere else in the archive is there any proof of any sort of continued direct participation in importation, nor do any of the Sulpicii appear anywhere as wholesalers of goods of any sort. It is of course conceivable that Faustus at one point was engaged, in one capacity or another, in the shipping industry and this may even constitute the source of base capital with which he managed to enter and pursue a career in faeneratio . There is, however, absolutely no clear evidence from the archive that this was continued afterwards. It is quite apparent that the Sulpicii were “either never traders, or traders no longer, having decided to devote themselves solely to moneylending”. 519

What the Sulpicii often appear to have done is act as intermediaries between two different parties, one of which was fairly regularly a trans-maritime trader, though probably in these transactions both could be described as negotiatores . This is almost undoubtedly the case in the transactions between the grain and legume merchant Caius Novius Eunus, who contracted what

519 Andreau 1999: 76.

194 turned into a troublesome loan, and his creditor, the Imperial slave (later freedman) Hesychus, as documented in six different triptychs. In the initial mutuum cum stipulatione , or loan contract, from

37 CE, Faustus appears as a signatory witness, 520 though there is no other indication as to the extent of his involvement. However, in another document, dated to the following year, Eunus acknowledges that there is still money owed – pecunia debita – to Hesychus from the loan of the previous year. This sum is, as Eunus writes, “ sesterti[os mile] centum trigina / numm[os], quos ab eo (Hesucho) mutuos / su[p]ssi et [redam] ipssi aut C. Sulpicio [Fausto], cum petiaret ”. 521 Thus, we do see clues that Faustus very likely played a larger role in the loan arrangement than simply that of a signator to the original contract, that, in reality, he also offered brokerage services between the two persons concerned. Eunus could pay back Hesychus either directly or through

Faustus if it were preferred, with the implication that Faustus was legally empowered to recover payments on Hesychus’ behalf.

Caius Novius Eunus is one of the most prominent of the agents actively involved in the grain trade in the Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum . He was also one of the principal chirographs of the tablets. His history, according to the Tabulae , is an informative example of how the career of a freedman grain merchant might progress. In one of the tablets, he is identified among the signatory witnesses, as the freedman of C. Novius Cypaerus, confirmed in the same document to be a Puteolan horrearius , or granary-keeper, and probably a freedman, himself. It seems likely that his experiences as a slave of Cypaerus would have served Eunus well as a freedman in his chosen profession. Indeed, we see that he continued to work closely with his former master. In one passage, a slave of C. Novius Cypaerus, the chirograph Diognetus, writes: “ hodie ab Caio Novio

520 TPSulp 51. 521 TPSulp 67.

195

Euno, item in isdem horreis imis intercolumnia, ube repositos habet saccos legumenum ducentos, quos pignori accepit ab eodem Eunum(!). ”522 and this is not the only attestation in the texts of

Eunus storing wares in the granaries of Cypaerus. 523 Although, interestingly enough, theirs was not the typical former master-slave relationship, there is no evidence of the requisite obsequium demonstrated by the ex-slave. In fact Andreau, rather baffled by this, speculated before the publication of the newest edition of the Tabulae Sulpiciorum clarified the point: “Ce dernier [Caius

Novius Cypaerus] est-il un affranchi du même patron qu’Eunus? Ou bien est-ce le patron d’Eunus?... Eunus a besoin des horrea pour entreposer les marchandises qu’il ne vend pas tout de suite, mais rien n’indique dans ces tablettes que l’un des deux Novii soit subordonné à l’autre...” 524

His confusion underscores the strange novelty of Eunus’ relative independence as a freed businessman in the context of the documents. While it may simply be that evidence of a more typical commercial rapport does not survive through the Tabulae , one cannot dispute a number of extraordinary features of the affairs of C. Novius Eunus. When, as an example, he borrows money, he does not avail himself of his ex-master, as would be typical of a freedman in dire financial straits, 525 but rather he borrows from another character, a slave named Hesychus. This is a peculiar course of action, although, to be sure, Eunus was in a peculiar and unique mercantile situation.

This relationship between Eunus and the slave deserves further clarification later. Cypaerus’ name does appear as a signatory witness on one of Eunus’ loan agreements, 526 so their commercial

522 TPSulp 45. 523 TPSulp 51 and 52. 524 Andreau 1997: 31. 525 Obviously this is not a question of the provision of alimentary support, as in Modest. Dig . XXV, 3, 6: Alimenta liberto petente non praestando patronus amissione libertatis causa impositorum et hereditatis liberti punietur: non autem necesse habebit praestare, etiamsi potest ; “The patron, by not providing nourishment to the freedman seeking it, is punished by the loss of the conditions imposed on the freedman because of his manumission and of a claim on his inheritance; but he is not obligated to provide support, even if he is capable.”; but one would still expect the commercial support of the patron in this instance, when large sums of money and the considerable effort of a shipping voyage were involved. 526 TPSulp 52.

196 relationship was perhaps not as distant as it might initially seem. Despite the fact that it is entirely possible, probable even, that C. Novius Eunus received a grant of money from his former master when he was first establishing his firm, he appears in the Tabulae as a grain merchant surprisingly unconstrained by his freedman status in the business world; were the fetters of obsequium as constrictive and chafing as previously thought? It is more likely than not that this is an idiosyncrasy of Eunus, an aberration from standard convention, caused by the environment in which he was conducting business. As we have seen, freedmen seem to have constituted a large majority of the

Puteolan business community represented in the Tabulae .

While it is clear that Eunus was a grain merchant, it is not entirely apparent in what capacity he acted as a merchant. All of the writings bearing his signature or written by him are dated between July and September, which could possibly indicate that he travelled to Puteoli from Egypt with the fleet, as Andreau posits, during the summer sailing season 527 , purchasing the wheat there and reselling it in Puteoli. However, it seems just as possible, given the evidence, that he lived at

Puteoli and was a sort of price speculator, purchasing legumes and grain, in particular, when it was readily available during the summer, and holding it until winter, at which time it would retail at the most expensive price. It is certain that grain speculation was a serious, escalating problem in the early Empire; Claudius was forced to take a number of measures, during his reign, in order to curb the practice. Indeed, it seems Eunus would have been well positioned socially to achieve this, with his former master in charge of a private granary. However, before any more speculation concerning his general business methods, it might be best to examine the Tabulae more closely.

A number of the passages of Eunus involve a certain Hesychus, identified as a slave agent of the Imperial freedman of the Emperor Gaius, Tiberius Julius Evenus. He appears, sometimes

527 Andreau 1997: 30.

197 called “Hesscus” and “Hesicus”, in the texts concerning both the Sulpicii and the Novii and seems to have had close business relationships with the two parties equally. In fact, in the extant texts,

Hesychus is the tie that binds C. Novius Eunus to the Sulpicii. Indeed, TPSulp 67 begins: “ Caius

Novius Eunus scripssi me debere Hesuco... sestertios mile centum trigina nummos, quos ab eo mutuos supssi et redam ipssi aut Caio Sulpicio Fausto, cum petiarit ”. 528 This particular document is dated to August 29, 38 CE, though there is another record of a similar loan given to Eunus by

Hesychus on September 15 of the following year. On that occasion the sum was higher, 15,000 sesterces, yet C. Sulpicius Faustus is again named as intermediary in the collection of the debt.

Aside from acting as a financial agent, however, it is unclear in what capacity Faustus is acting.

Since it was found in an archive dominated by Sulpicii, it is possible that he was also retaining a copy of the agreement on behalf of one or both parties. In any case, from these particular texts, intriguingly, we see that Hesychus was lending money to Eunus even when he had a shipment of grain or beans in storage. In fact, in one of the Tabulae, in which Hesychus rents one of Cypaerus’ granaries, we see that Eunus has actually used his stock as a surety. 529 In TPSulp 79, another grain merchant, L. Marius Iucundus, also put up stored grain as a guarantee, although the rate he was paying for rent in the granary was not nearly as favourable as that obtained by Eunus from his former patron.

Bearing in mind that these loans all occur during the summer, it is a distinct possibility that

Eunus, with the financial backing of Hesychus, was engaging in grain speculation; waiting until winter, when the inability of ships to navigate the Mediterranean meant that grain supply was restricted and the price rose, the speculator could make a healthy profit by sitting on a stockpile

528 TPSulp 67. 529 TPSulp 51.

198 and then selling it wholesale. However, if this were true, it would certainly be contrary to the interests of the Emperor. That the slave agent of an Imperial freedman would provide a loan to facilitate speculation is rather remarkable, although the environment was ideal for corruption. In that scenario, all major protagonists – Eunus, Cypaerus, Hesychus and even C. Sulpicius Faustus

– would then be working in coordination with each other to some degree or another. 530 Perhaps

Cypaerus and Eunus did maintain a close relationship, but it had something of an ignominious character. Of course, it is probably not as underhanded or fanciful a situation as that. First, any financial support Eunus may have received from his patron would not likely be recorded in the form of a loan contract and it certainly would not require the services of financial intermediation offered by the Sulpicii. Eunus did receive a preferred rate for his pledge stored in the granary that

Cypaerus oversaw and the former’s commercial pursuits are evidently related to the training he received while working for his former master. It is clear that, whether their aims were underhanded or not, many of Cypaerus’ business acquaintances were Eunus’ as well, and they were both engaged in different facets of the grain industry and clearly had an expansive network of commercial connections and interconnections that could be mutually exploited.

A slightly less complicated situation exists with the representative Iucundus, though he appears to have had similar economic aims as Novius Eunus. There are a number of other Luci

Marii, probably also liberti , who appear in the orbit of the Sulpicii. L. Marius Hermeros 531 and L.

Marius Florus 532 appear in two separate vadimonia , requiring that Cinnamus appear at Puteoli in suits concerning five different loans. Two other tabulae record the testationes adfixi libelli de pignore vendundo , the announcements of the intention to sell a pledge of “ purpuras laconicas

530 cf. Andreau 1997: 31-32. 531 TPSulp 1. 532 TPSulp 8.

199 reliquas (!), / quas L. Marius Agathemer / C. Sulpicio Cinnamo pignori / dedisse dicitur… ”. 533 It seems fairly obvious from the tabulae that Marius Agathemer was a merchant and probably importer of luxury purple dye, who pledged some of his product to take on a loan from Cinnamus.

Evidently, though, he defaulted on the loan and lost his surety to Cinnamus. Purpura laconica , mentioned by Pliny the Elder as one of the costliest of the myrex dyes while discussing another type of pigment, 534 was certainly an expensive item. While we don’t know the circumstances of the earlier transactions, it does not seem improbable that the other two L. Marii were also merchants or importers, although we have no idea what product, if any, they traded.

With L. Marius Iucundus, the earliest of the Marii with whom any of the Sulpicii conduct business, it is quite clear that he was a mercator frumentarius .535 In TPSulp 79, he pledged 13,000 modii of triticum Alexandrinum on a loan of 20,000 sesterces from Faustus on March 15 th , 40 CE and gave the latter permission to sell it should he fail to repay the loan by the Ides of May that same year. 536 There is no sense of why this business is being conducted in March, an odd time for such a massive amount of grain to still be in storage. It is possible that grain shippers regularly hoarded some of the stock from the previous shipping season in order to have security for loans at the beginning of the spring. 537 In the same tabula , he reveals that he is a freedman of Dida, though he does not appear to be operating on behalf of his patron in any direct way. His patron’s cognomen

533 TPSulp 83; TPSulp 84 is a virtual copy. cf. Garcia Morcillo 2005: 84; Bove 1984: 540; on the odd use of the accusative, see Adams 2007: 443-444. 534 Pliny NH XXXV, xxvi, 2: “ Quare Puteolanum (purpurissum) potius laudetur, quam Tyrium, aut Gaetulicum, vel Laconicum, unde pretiosissimae purpurae. ” cf. Marzano 2013: 151. 535 Tran 2013/2014: 1005. 536 TPSulp 79; the loan, itself, is recorded on the same day in TPSulp 53; cf. Tran 2013-2014: 1005. 537 Livy suggests this was happening in the mid-Republic, in the early 180s BCE: Livy AUC XXXVIII, xxxv, 5: Et duodecim clipea aurata ab aedilibus curulibus P. Claudio Pulchro et Ser. Sulpicio Galba sunt posita ex pecunia qua frumentarios ob annonam compressam damnarunt ; “And twelve golden shields were set up by the curule aediles Publius Claudius Pulcher and Servius Sulpicius Galba from the money which they had fined the grain-shippers for hoarding the grain supply.” The motivations here were probably to drive up grain prices, though, rather than ensuring surety for loans in the following year.

200 was typically a servile name of Thraco-Illyrian origin, 538 but there is no positive confirmation that

Dida, himself, was a freedman. 539 Though there are no explicit links between any of the Marii other than Iucundus and Dida, it is highly doubtful that we are dealing with anything other than a loosely affiliated group of negotiatores specializing in the importation and wholesale of various goods at Puteoli. In this instance, even more so than with the Novii, we would appear to have multiple members of different clustered groups of freedmen with long-standing links with one another; some Marii deal with Cinnamus, some with Faustus, but there is nonetheless evidence of protracted relations between the two groups.

Banking and larger-scale commercial representation of this sort was the leading edge of

Roman attempts at creating something like economic agency. In banking and trade, the development and exploitation of lateral relationships and the employment of broader webs of economic connections were far more important for economic activities than the legitimization of a single former master. This was naturally best accomplished by the sort of organization that we see among the Sulpicii and other freedmen groups involved in these sorts of occupations. A collibertus , like Eutychus, could easily stand in for Cinnamus as a procurator when necessary, since their client networks and transactional experience loosely overlapped. Though Cinnamus was in a position to represent his former master Faustus as well, the authorization of his activities was supported and legitimized by the social and legal relationship he had with his patron. Here representation was necessarily divorced from the static permanence of the agrarian sphere, the exigent long-term preoccupation with specified landed properties, but was also free from the hierarchy and ostensibly meritorious stratification of the more domesticated economy and the

538 Solin 1996: 613. 539 Camodeca 1999: 182.

201 narrower, more specialized limitations of highly-skilled freed manufacturers. This was in part due to the non-economic pressures of management in each of these sectors. The notion, not just of the beneficium libertatis , but also simply of the elevation and recognition of slaves before manumission, was an essential strategy of domestic management. In banking and business, on the other hand, potential social, economic, and legal ties were significant factors in how individuals could conduct business with each other.

In turn, the economic situation among slaves and freedmen in the Roman financial sector bred a creative system of pragmatic legal linkages, but one that was more liberated from the social ties of other servile career paths. Emphasis on the social standing of patrons was less crucial, since such social capital was always secondary to actual, realized, ad hoc economic support. This last, after all, had the benefit of coming from a variety of sources and not just your own patron, though that patron might well be responsible for establishing the initial capital, the social network, and the foundations of the trained servile workforce by which an ostensibly “independent” freedman could operate. It’s not so much the Trimalcionesque independence envisioned by Garnsey,540 but rather something in practice more nucleated and morphologically adaptable to the realities of the

Italian economy of the early Principate.

540 Garnsey 1981.

202

Chapter 5

Freedmen in Manufacturing and Crafts

5.1 Introduction

Across the Empire there was a general habit of greater specificity in occupational titles among craftsmen and shopkeepers than in other sectors of Roman economic life. 541 The markets of Italy in particular created demand for specialized production and a high degree of specialization is reflected in the job titles which appear in the epigraphic record, especially in urban areas.

Freedmen who engaged in production, small-scale trades, and retail appear in epigraphic sources with an exceptionally wide variety of professional terminology. This also reflects the diversity of activities, transactions, and relationships – perhaps technical more than legal or economic – that these liberti were engaged in in this broadest sector of the Roman economy. Direct legal and economic connections between freedmen-run small-scale production units and retail businesses and the patrons supporting them were typically more complicated than in agricultural and domestic spheres. The intimate relationship of a cubicularius or a dispensator to their master was self- evident; their reliance on and accountability to their master when it came to their economic well- being was self-evident. Similarly, a vilicus might only occasionally meet with and receive direct instruction and appraisal from his master, but he also had an undeniable connection to the landed property of his dominus ; that elements of this economic dependency might not be wholly severed after manumission is perhaps to be expected. Continued relations with semi-independent freedmen artisans and shopkeepers, though, is more difficult to ascertain. In some cases, this may be because

541 Treggiari 1980: 56; Cristofori 2004: 18-23; Ruffing 2016: 115-123; for the East, see Ruffing 2008: 103-207.

203 they had established their own separate businesses or had inherited workplaces that had once been part of their peculium , and so their patron’s interests were limited only to the broader social and legal ties between them. Relying on a skilled freedman’s operae to produce a specific good would have been a very practical way to exploit their expertise and would not have required the energy of constant administration or the expense of regular infusions of cash. Even if they continued to work in businesses nominally owned by their patrons, these freedmen also would not have been required to conduct sophisticated legal or economic transactions as the former’s representatives when compared to freedmen bankers or investors. A simple wage arrangement and perhaps occasionally overseeing specific sales and loans, which could be covered by the simple use of a direct mandatum if it had to be, would probably have been all that patron and freedmen needed to sustain the arrangement. As these would have been largely ad hoc compacts and loose organizational structures, they are not as easily discernible in occupational epigraphy. Nonetheless, trends in the inscriptions explored in this chapter – joint patronage, groupings of similarly-skilled colliberti , instances of patrons and freedmen working together, and inheritances and other economic links between patrons and freedmen – all strongly support the idea that less formalized mechanisms like operae and productive collaboration weighed heavily in the economic choices of freed manufacturers.

Liberti seem to have been particularly numerous among artisans, at least in Italian inscriptions, and they were especially well-represented in the urban centres of Italy. 542 This conclusion is of course based on epigraphy, and so we should certainly not take it for granted that it reflects an actual numerical superiority in practice. Other scholars have already remarked on the predominance of freedmen craftsmen in the epigraphic record, with Joshel noting that freedmen

542 Mouritsen 2011: 206; Tran 2013/2014.

204 outside of households were most likely to be artisans and that a plurality of artisans were freedmen. 543 Their numbers are no doubt exaggerated by the outsized representation of professionalized liberti in the inscriptions, yet, even taking this distortion into account, freedmen were clearly very active in goods production. Considering the widespread activity of freedmen in this area of the Roman economy, we should expect to see more evidence of continued economic connections between patrons and liberti . That this evidence is not as immediately apparent as elsewhere, though, is not a sign that it did not exist, but rather that patrons and freedmen in this area of the economy largely relied on the fundamental social and legal institutions of the freedman- patron relationship, namely operae and obsequium , as well as other less tangible customs like grouping similarly skilled freedmen together and exploiting shared economic networks. 544

Broadly speaking, though, Roman manufacturing units were by their nature fairly individualized and horizontally-integrated.545 Even as the workforce became more specialized and economic growth occurred in the late Republic and early Empire, Roman manufacturers generally resisted employing compound and integrated production structures, largely because “labor market conditions and social institutions… vitiated the main advantage of vertical integration, namely its ability to reduce certain kinds of transaction costs”. 546 Instead, craftsmen seem to have been more likely to organize themselves in subcontracting and looser supply networks, where separate, specialized units remained smaller and more independent of each other, particularly when dealing with the production of more complex luxury goods. Thus, any sort of more direct legal authority

543 Joshel 1992: 128; in general, 124-134. 544 cf. Kirschenbaum 1987: 127-140. 545 Kehoe 2007: 561; for earlier developments, cf. Morel 2007: 501. 546 Hawkins 2012: 176.

205 over an individual, such as a procuratorship, or a group of freedmen craftsmen was less essential than underlying socio-legal links and economic support.

Moreover, perhaps more than other sectors, Italian artisanal production could potentially be susceptible to both seasonal fluctuations, which could affect both supply and demand, and arbitrage of labour to other provinces in the empire. 547 This, too, may have encouraged developing more insulated and localized units of production. Additionally, it may have resulted in a desire on the part of upper-class patrons to insulate themselves from any potential financial losses their liberti could incur. 548 More direct legal control over the running of a workshop, through a procuratorship or an extension of an institorian arrangement, was certainly possible, but it would inevitably have involved greater financial risks for the principal, since, in the end, all property the freedman would be administering would remain possessions of his former master and not his own.

In production there were also distinctly different problems of outlay and of development of technical skills relative to other economic sectors. Granted, agricultural slaves required their own farming equipment and the training to use them, but the expense of the former and the complexity of the latter were, with some exceptions, comparatively low. Additionally, potential losses due to a slave’s incompetence were more limited. The economic damage of a cubicularius who folded a toga improperly was not as significant as a founder who was incautious in pouring bronze into a cast. The structure of agricultural management meant that individual errors could be either easily avoided or quickly corrected. Yet there remains a fairly important truth to the skepticism that “there was little capacity for developing a class of artisans, let alone entrepreneurs

547 Hawkins 2012: 183-186. 548 On the apparent resistance of upper-class Romans to involve themselves in industry generally, see Kehoe 2007: 549-550 and 560-566.

206 who were fully independent of elite patronage and control”, 549 not least because the financial outlays and extensive investment in specialist training would have entailed some continued contact.

Attempts to quantify what the expense of this might have been are obviously difficult, not least because it’s not always clear how this sort of slave training was accomplished. 550 The majority of this sort of manufacture would have been mostly extraneous to the daily needs of all but the wealthiest households. Obviously, if you were a skilled shopkeeper yourself and had just purchased a young slave to supplement your workforce of one, you simply had to provide rations and your own direction. Generally speaking, though, it is unlikely that a master would be able to afford to provide their slave with the technical training necessary to become a skilled or even semi- skilled craftsman unless they had a pre-existing personal interest in the type of production in question or they possessed the surplus capital to be able to invest in additional production outside of the household. One possible solution to this may be found in a Digest passage, which suggests that individuals could actually mandate skilled workers to buy and train slaves on their behalf and even make money on their resale for double the price. 551 A master who might want to establish a workshop making silver plate, for example, could have all other prerequisites established – supply lines, production space, and even a potential servile workforce – but lack the technical skill himself to train that workforce. In Egypt, in particular, apprenticeship contracts give us a sense of one way

549 Frier and Kehoe 2007: 134. 550 Tran 2013: 164; Herrmann-Otto 1994: 323-339; cf. Keegan 2017: 108-118, who argues that some upper-class families may have had their slaves trained in the Palatine paedagogium alongside Imperial slaves, though such training would not have been in the type of technical production covered in this chapter. 551 Paul. Dig. XVII, 1, 26, 8: Faber mandatu amici sui emit servum decem et fabricam docuit, deinde vendidit eum viginti, quos mandati iudicio coactus est solver; mox quasi homo non erat sanus, emptori damnatus est…; “A builder, by mandate of his friend, bought a slave for ten aurei and taught him the trade, and then sold him for twenty, which he was compelled to pay by action of mandate; later, since the slave was not healthy, he received a contrary judgment initiated by the buyer...”; the 2:1 skill premium seems to have applied to free wages as well; on this, see Rathbone 2009: 314-317; Bernard 2016: 80-83.

207 in which the human capital of craftsmen could be developed. We are probably correct in concluding that evidence survived exclusively in Egypt because of the conditions there, while the institution, itself, was more widespread in the Empire 552 and its benefits were exploited in Italy, as well. 553 In the Italian inscriptions, though, we most often see evidence for the clustering of freedmen together, or freedmen and patrons working collaboratively in the same establishment.

This suggests, perhaps unsurprisingly, that a significant amount of a slave’s technical knowledge was probably developed over time while they worked with more experienced craftsmen. 554 While the apparent lack of the formal institutional structures that existed in Egypt is not proof that these did not exist in Italy, 555 the evidence nonetheless implies that grouping of conservi and colliberti had a similar and important functional purpose. This had the added benefit of being able to assign the slave to different skilled tasks within a manufacturing unit, and so diversify their competence and better exploit a smaller but multi-skilled workforce. If a variety of different specialist stages of manufacture could be passed off without worry of error, then this added to the overall production flexibility of the small workshop, especially if there were two or more slaves employed. It also had the added effect of making a secure core workforce, which could actually help train new workers itself if needed, more desirable. Retaining a servile labour force was one of the most efficient ways that this reliability could be achieved.

Clearly, though, not all workshops or stores would have required every single worker to be highly-skilled and some basic tasks within a workshop could no doubt have been accomplished

552 Bradley 1991: 119-124; Bergamasco 1995; Saller 2012: 75-77; Tran 2013: 147-185; Liu 2016: 217-224. 553 Freu 2016: 183-197. 554 Tran 2016a: 257-261. 555 Bradley 1985b: 324-325; cf. Saller 2012: 76-79.

208 with little professionalized training. 556 Though it is from a sigillata production facility at La

Graufenesque, a list of six slaves rented provisionally by someone named Atelia to a pottery firm catalogues the jobs they did while there. 557 These included unspecific assignments to an individual workspace, collecting firewood and raw materials, and general transport duties, none of which required any particular instructed skill. Although the evidence is not from Italy, production facilities there would undoubtedly have required and employed unskilled temporary workers in a very similar way. Especially in the urban markets of Italy, this free unskilled labour was probably fairly easy to acquire for owners of workshops, whether through pre-existing social networks or by advertising to or simply soliciting the general public. 558 While this sort of temporary workforce and permanent slaves were obviously discrete labour pools, it nonetheless suggests that there would have been enough additional non-technical tasks in Roman workshops that less experienced servi would not be an economic drain on production while they were learning on the job. It would not necessarily have affected the preference for slaves as skilled labourers.

This does, though, raise another issue with the epigraphic evidence worth briefly emphasizing. The temporary, spot-market workers in manufacturing, even in the unlikely event that they were commemorated by an epitaph, generally would not have used occupational titles. 559

556 On this specifically in fullonicae , for example, Flohr 2011: 96: “…it is likely that the lowest position, in terms of desirability, was taken up by the work of in the stalls. This was not only relatively easy, as it required muscular power rather than trained skills, it was also less responsible, as the results could be checked by workers involved in later stages…”. 557 Marichal 1988: §169, 226-228; cf. Aubert 1994: 210-211; Bémont 2004: 129; Tran 2013: 98-99. 558 Holleran 2016: 90-102. 559 A playful graffito from Pompeii suggests that this sort of peripatetic labour could be the subject of a joke, but it does not appear in the funerary epigraphy; CIL IV 10150: [ Cum] de[d]uxisti octies, tibi superat ut (h)abeas sedecies. Coponium fecisti, cretaria fecisti, salsamentaria fecisti, pistorium fecisti, agricola fuisti, aere minutaria fecisti, propola fuisti, languncularia nunc facis. Si cunnu(m) linx{s}e{e}ris, consummaris omnia ; “Since you have held eight jobs, all that remains for you is to have sixteen. You were a tavern-keep, a clay-man, a fish-pickler, a baker, a farmer, a maker of bronze miniatures, a retailer, and now you are small bottle man. If you perform cunnilingus, you’ll have taken on everything.”

209

The skilled labour market was probably variable and tight and there was risk in depending on it indefinitely for more than manual work. 560 Hawkins has recently argued that the Romans probably chose to rely on slaves for labour in most instances of manufacturing rather than risking using the spot market to supplement their specialized workforce,561 although this is a difficult proposition to verify, especially considering the nature of epigraphic evidence. For specialist techniques, in particular, the payoff of being able to make use of the coercion inherent in employing skilled servi , even if they were underutilized for parts of the year, likely outweighed the expenses involved in procuring and retaining slave labour. This helps to explain why so many artisans with occupational titles reveal histories as slaves.

Finally, when dealing with small production units, the issues of communication would have been very different. Much more so than in modern enterprise, “long-distance business arrangements added to the costs of information and exacerbated problems caused by asymmetries of information between agent and principal”. 562 This effect would have been more negligible in cases where the master was actually present, but this was not always the case. As numerous scholars have pointed out, 563 the employment of a semi-independent slave acting as a manager of a store or workshop or running them through their peculium avoided many of the potential problems that could exist in normal operation. This was probably the most typical type of arrangement through an agent or dependent in Roman Italy, since the slave-owner’s legal control could abate the insecurity involved in asymmetric transactions, as discussed in the introduction to this dissertation. Indeed, the coercion inherent in his authority over his slave would have been

560 Saller 2012; Hawkins 2016a; contra Bernard 2016: 83. 561 Hawkins 2016a: 36-61. 562 Frier and Kehoe 2007: 132. 563 Frier and Kehoe 2007; Broekaert 2016; Aubert 1994.

210 profitable for the master not just in terms of communication, but also training, and would obviously have ensured that he retained his workforce, so long as he could provide them with basic sustenance.

This all means that a large number of skilled craftsmen slaves would have eventually become freedmen with clearly defined technical capabilities. The idea that initial capital investment and training were the full extent of patronal involvement, though, somewhat overshadows the influence that relationships and structural pressures could continue to have even after manumission. Not only was grouped training important, but many of these workshops would have been reliant on the security of marketplaces established through existing social connections. 564 The direct social ties of patronage had this additional significance. Certainly a large number of freedmen craftsmen appear in the inscriptions, often working together with groups of either their own liberti or colliberti in smaller workshops and stores. This would support the idea that employing slaves in these productive enterprises originally made economic sense to

Roman slave-owners, but then why would they not continue to hold these craftsmen as slaves, maintaining this legal status as masters seem to have done in other circumstances, with dispensatores and vilici , for example? This chapter will argue that, although the direct, economically advantageous authority granted to the owner of an artisan-slave was obviously transformed by manumission, this change was mitigated by other aspects of the patron-freedman relationship. The exigencies of direct representation were not as pronounced for skilled craftsmen as for freedmen administering their patrons’ property or finances, but rather the exploitation of their productive capacity was what former masters valued most and this could be mainly achieved by a simple reliance on underlying social relations. In this sector, former masters did not need to

564 Verboven 2002.

211 rely on legal institutions like the procuratorship to synthesize their legal authority, nor, it seems, did they feel compelled to keep their craftsmen enslaved. 565 Rather, from their perspective, social ties and other mechanisms already inherent in the relationship between freedman and patron allowed for an efficient exploitation of the former’s skills. Organizations of groups of colliberti could maintain a shared workspace at a reduced cost to the principal and an individual freedman’s operae , whose character was crucially different for craftsmen, could be capitalized on to produce specific goods. A former master could simply negotiate wages and rent with his own freedmen, limiting his personal liability in their individual daily transactions, while still benefitting from their successes and their labour, if he wished.

5.2 The Juristic Sources and Operae Fabriles and their Exploitation

The precise circumstances under which these freedmen were manumitted are often very difficult to ascertain from epigraphic sources and these circumstances are critical in attempting to determine their relationships to their patrons. The juristic sources provide some hints, although they should be read with some care. In one passage from the Digest , a slave, Pardula, was simultaneously manumitted by will and inherited a shop, an apartment, and a wine warehouse, as well as all of the tools and the slave workforce within it.

565 Of course, the ability to purchase their own freedom was probably higher for semi-independent and craftsmen slaves, but the same capacity among dispensatores did not result in remotely similar rates of manumission; cf. Hopkins 1978: 125-126, where he also says of incentivization of skilled workers by manumission, “but the regular emancipation of slaves subverted the original unconditional purchase of a slave’s total life-long labour. For skilled slaves, chattel slavery was effectively transformed into a medium-term labour ‘contract’.” On incentivization, see also Temin 2004: 523-526.

212

Tabernam cum cenaculo Pardulae manumisso testamento legaverat cum mercibus

et instrumentis et suppellectili quae ibi esset, item horreum vinarium cum vino et

vasis et instrumento et institoribus, quos secum habere consueverat. Quaesitum est,

cum vivo testatore insula, in qua cenaculum fuit quod ei legatum erat, exusta sit, et

post biennium eodem loco constituta nova, et horreum, quod eidem legatum erat, a

testatore venierit, vini autem venditio dilata sit, ut ex eo commodo venirent, an

universa legata Pardula consequi possit. Respondit ea, in quibus voluntas mutata

esset, non deberi. 566

The precise circumstances are a little difficult to work out, but the phrase “ quos secum habere consuerat ” would seem to imply Pardula, rather than either the unnamed testator or the warehouse itself. While the specific situation is almost certainly invented – after all, the legal travails of the unfortunate Pardula are probably too manifold and neatly instructive to have been collectively heaped on one person – it nonetheless shows that this sort of inheritance was not wholly implausible during the 2 nd century when Scaevola was writing. The idea that you might bequeath a slave who was an experienced winemaker and manager the entire shop along with the staff and equipment contained within was not, then, a shocking proposition.

There is another dimension of the passage which is worth exploring as well. In the above circumstances, Pardula’s master was apparently content to sign over an indeterminate number of

566 Scaev. Dig . XXXIII, 7, 7: “(Someone) bequeathed a shop and an apartment to Pardula, manumitted by testament, along with the merchandise, tools, and furniture which were there, and additionally a warehouse for wine, along with the wine, containers, equipment and institores , who he had been accustomed to have with him. The question arose whether Pardula could claim the entire legacy, since the the apartment block in which there was the apartment that had been bequeathed to him was burned while the testator was alive and had been rebuilt in the same place after two years, and the warehouse, which had been bequeathed to him, was sold by the testator, though the sale of the wine was delayed to sell at a better price. The answer was those things concerning which the testator had changed his mind were not owed.”; cf. Aubert 1996: 96-100.

213 slave managers and workers to Pardula in his will. The passage suggests that his former slave simply became the new master of this servile workforce. But what of situations where the master was still alive and might seek, despite freeing the most senior slave and allowing their peculium to go with them, to retain patronal rites over all slaves? Rather than cede your rights as a patron to your own freedman, would it not make more sense to retain those for yourself and your family? In the end, freedmen business collectives are perhaps more the vestiges of these quasi-independent slave workshops, rather than an indication that colliberti gathered together to open their own shops after unconnected and asynchronous manumissions. Most Digest passages envision slaves inherited by an instititor , but the nature of Roman juristic writing is problem-focused and freeing all slaves within a relatively small workforce was not a situation that really created any disputes of ownership or obligation, so would not necessarily be controversial. The master might simply be depriving his slave of a portion of their peculium – as was his right – while granting him a position of authority in a newly configured business, to which it would have been impossible for the former slave to offer any legal objection. The latter could, of course, simply walk away from such an arrangement, since he would not be legally obligated to take on this commitment, as he would with a procuratorship or a tutorship. Yet continuing to work in their patron’s business would clearly have been the most economically expedient course for most freedmen.

The prevailing presumption that slaves, as instrumenta of production, were bound to their place of work similar to the agricultural servile workforce receives support in both Roman law and in broader conceptions of small businesses. Scaevola implicitly links the slaves as means of production to the enterprise as a whole, when he discusses the bonding of a taberna to a creditor. 567

567 Scaev. Dig. XX, 1, 34, pr.: Cum tabernam debitor creditori pignori dederit, quaesitum est, utrum eo facto nihil egerit an tabernae appellatione merces, quae in ea erant, obligasse videatur? Et si eas merces per tempora distraxerit et alias comparaverit easque in eam tabernam intulerit et decesserit, an omnia quae ibi deprehenduntur creditor

214

Though he is not explicit, by res aliae Scaevola likely had in mind not simply the physical tools of production, but the slaves engaged in production, as well. We can infer from this that regular inventories of stock and instrumenta , including slaves, was a common requirement for managers in order to secure loans, among other things. 568 This opinion extends the legal analogy to agricultural property by placing an emphasis on the notion of the shop as a self-contained functional economic and legal unit, necessarily including the servile workforce active within. In this regard, the opinion very closely echoes a similar one surrounding questions of what constituted the contents of a bequest of agricultural land. 569 In this instance, too, no explicit enumeration or catalogue is made of the “equipment”, which inevitably comprised the slaves working there as well. Of course, with agricultural slaves, there was a distinction between slaves and furniture that might serve the master’s needs while at the property and those who simply served a productive purpose alone, 570 a distinction that would not have been necessary in the context of a workshop.

hypothecaria actione petere possit, cum et mercium species mutatae sint et res aliae illatae? Respondit: ea, quae mortis tempore debitoris in taberna inventa sunt, pignori obligata esse videntur ; “Where a debtor gave a shop as a pledge to his creditor, the question arose whether the transaction was void, or whether it should be held that under the designation of "shop" all of the property contained therein was pledged. And if the party should sell the said merchandise, from time to time, and procure other goods and place them in the shop, and then should die, could the creditor recover by an hypothecary action everything found there, as the merchandise had been changed, and other articles substituted? The answer was that whatever was found in the shop at the time of the death of the debtor was held to have been pledged.”; Aubert 1994: 97-98; Tran 2013: 25-26. 568 Aubert 2004: 140-142. 569 Papin. Dig . XXXIII, 7, 3, pr.: Fundum instructum libertis patronus testamento legavit: postea codicillis petit, ut morientes partes suas fundi superstitibus restituerent, nec instructi mentionem habuit. Talem in causam fideicommissi deductum videri placuit, qualis fuerat legatus, sed medii temporis augmenta fetuum et partuum, item detrimenta fatalium fideicommisso contineri ; “A patron left a tract of land, with its equipment, to his freedmen by his will, and he afterwards requested in a codicil that the legatees, at their death, should give their shares of the land to the survivors; but he did not make any mention of the equipment. It was held that the land which was devised should be considered just as if it had been left under a trust; but that the increase of animals and slaves which took place in the meantime, as well as the losses caused by death, should be included in the trust.” 570 Ulp. Dig . XXXIII, 7, 12, 27: Omnia quae eo collocata sunt, ut instructior esset pater familias, instructo, inquit, continebuntur, id est quae ibi habuit, ut instructior esset. Hoc ergo legato non agri instrumentum, sed proprium suum instrumentum reliquisse videtur ; “”; for a fuller discussion, cf. Kehoe 1994: 51-52.

215

In other Digest passages, the inclusion of slave institores and workers among both the property and the economic unit are made even more explicit. On questions of inheritance, it is taken as a given by a number of jurists that the servile workforce, whether manager or simple labourer, were bound up with the productive economic unit as a piece of property. As Paulus makes clear, this inevitably also included the slave institores who might be placed in charge of the administration of the business in question. 571 Though this is specifically applied to a taberna cauponia , the principle that it would include the slaves who were charged with running this specific enterprise would be applicable to other such situations. 572 And finally, in a passage of Pomponius, he includes an opinion of Servius about what was comprised in a bequest of the things necessary for the running of a shop. 573 In the sphere of small-scale production and tabernae , there are, then, some clear similarities to the legal and cultural conceptions of slave management with the agricultural sector. Their bondage to the economic unit as instrumenta , necessary tools of the production or sale of goods, is both as indispensable as a feature of broader economic management and, thus, as geographically focused as the vilicus or the field hand. This similarity is underscored by the virtually identical language that Ulpian uses when discussing questions of inheritance and instrumenta fundi .574

571 Paul. Dig . XXXIII, 7, 13: Tabernae cauponiae, instrumento legato, etiam institores contineri, Neratius existimat… cauponae autem, cum negotiationis nomen sit, etiam institores ; “Neratius believes that when a tavern with its equipment is bequeathed even the slave institores are included… indeed even the slave institores are included in the tavern, since it is the term for the business.” 572 Aubert 1994: 373; Tran 2013: 26. 573 Pomp. Dig . XXXIII, 7, 15, pr.: Si ita testamento scriptum sit: "Quae tabernarum exercendarum instruendarum pistrini cauponae causa facta parataque sunt, do lego", his verbis Servius respondit et caballos, qui in pistrinis essent, et pistores, et in cauponio institores et focariam, mercesque, quae in his tabernis essent, legatas videri ; “If such a clause were written in a will: ‘I give and bequeath whatever things were made and outfitted for furnishing and carrying out the business of my shops and my bakery and my tavern.’ Servius responded that by these terms the horses that were in the mills and the bakers and the slave managers and the cook in the tavern and the merchandise in the shops were all considered to be bequeathed.” 574 Ulp. Dig. XXXIII, 7, 8, pr.: In instrumento fundi ea esse, quae fructus quaerendi cogendi conservandi gratia parata sunt, Sabinus libris ad Vitellium evidenter enumerat. Quaerendi, veluti homines qui agrum colunt, et qui eos exercent

216

So the broad-strokes legal view of a servile workforce in a store or workshop did necessarily differ substantially from agricultural slaves, but the Roman jurists did certainly recognize the distinctive value of skilled servi in other ways. Further complicating economic relationships between skilled freedmen artisans and their patrons was the somewhat legally unique capacity for the exploitation of operae fabriles . Roman jurists were, if not fully agreed on the finer points, 575 quite clear that these types of freedman obligations were fundamentally distinctive from more conventional operae owed to their patrons. Julianus, one of the earliest to use the term, is fairly emphatic in the division:

Hae operae, quas libertus promittit, multum distant a fabrilibus vel pictoriis operis.

Denique si libertus faber aut pictor fuerit, quamdiu id artificium exercebit, has

operas patrono praestare cogitur. Quare sicut fabriles operas quis potest sibi aut

Titio stipulari, ita patronus a liberto operas sibi aut Sempronio recte stipulatur: et

libertus obligatione solvetur, si tales operas extraneo dederit, quales patrono

praestando liberaretur .576

praepositive sunt is, quorum in numero sunt vilici et monitores: praeterea boves domiti, et pecora stercorandi causa parata, vasaque utilia culturae, quae sunt aratra, ligones, sarculi, falces putatoriae bidentes et si qua similia dici possunt ; “Among the equipment of the farm are those things which were furnished for the sake of obtaining, collecting, and preserving the crops, as Sabinus clearly lists in his works on Vitellius. For obtaining, for example, there are men who cultivate the field, and there are those who oversee them or are placed in charge, among whom are the vilici and the overseers. Besides these are the tamed oxen and flocks provided for the sake of making manure, and the implements and tools of cultivation, which are ploughs, mattocks, hoes, scythes, pruning knives, forks, and whatever else can be said to be similar.” 575 Masi Doria 1993a: 58-73, especially 70-73 on the problems of how and when these were developed as a category of operae . 576 Julian. Dig. XXXVIII, 1, 23, pr.: “These operae , which the freedman pledges, differ greatly from those operae pertaining to a workman or a painter. In fact, if the freedman is a manufacturer or a painter, however long he is employed in that trade, he is compelled to render these particular operae to his patron. And so just as someone can stipulate that tradesman services can be performed either for themselves or for Titius, so can a patron lawfully stipulate that operae can be performed either for themselves or for Sempronius by their own freedman; and the freedman will be released from their obligation if they render such operae to another person as those which would release them if provided to their patron.”

217

Critical here is the line “ quamdiu id artificium exercebit ”, since it means that a patron could not, in legal terms at least, compel a freedman to continue to practice a specific craft. However, if that libertus did choose to make a living using his primary technical training as a painter, for example, there was effectively no legal bar to prevent their patron from insisting that they be provided with painting services. In manufacturing and skilled artisanal trades in particular, the likelihood that an experienced freedman would simply give up his craft was no doubt very slim.577 Certainly competition between patron and freedman was a possibility, but such commercial rivalries would have created economic pressure that would have only been more acute if the skills and businesses were particularly specialized. 578 This passage also suggests that these obligations of freedmen were not really characterized by their artisanal qualities, 579 but rather by their fungibility. Ulpian is likewise very clear that operae fabriles , unlike other services, could be rendered to another by order of the patron:

Sed officiales quidem futurae nec cuiquam alii deberi possunt quam patrono, cum

proprietas earum et in edentis persona et in eius cui eduntur constitit: fabriles

autem aliaeve eius generis sunt, ut a quocumque cuicumque solvi possint. Sane

enim, si in artificio sint, iubente patrono et alii edi possunt.580

577 Hawkins 2016b: 156-157. 578 Mouritsen 2001, 9: “… if skilled freedmen routinely established business of their own, it would inevitably have destabilised the local trade, also affecting the profitability of existing businesses.”; cf. Verboven 2012: 98, who also views collegia as fulfilling an important role in moderating competition between skilled freedmen and former masters. 579 Gonzalès 1997: 172. 580 Ulp. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 9, 1: “But obligatory services to be performed later are not owed to anyone other than the patron, since the ownership of them applies to the person of the one who performs them, and to the person of he for whom they are performed. Services relating to a trade, and others of the same sort, can be rendered by anyone and to anyone at all; for by all means, if they should be in a trade, they can be performed for another by order of the patron.”

218

This firm and fundamentally qualitative distinction is already evident in juristic sources which treat servi before manumission; the services of slaves trained as skilled craftsmen – servi artifices – and of slaves of a more general purpose – servi mediastini – are distinguished with a similar preoccupation on productive capacity as with freedmen. 581 Ulpian, citing a decision of

Mela, says, “ cum de servi operis artificis agitur, pro modo restituendae sunt, sed mediastini secundum ministerium: et ita Mela scribit. ”582 In this passage concerning leasing out the services of different slaves, it is clear that different valuations of skills were not simply a consequence of the market, but a recognized matter of law. Granted, the above-mentioned passage treats operae servorum , a category of services that should not be confused with freedmen operae . The former was less straightforward in some respects, since the issues surrounding usufruct of a rented craftsman slave were more complex and economically imperative. 583 Nevertheless, the nature of these particular skills and operae was different from other types of benefits that a freed slave might provide to their former master. There are further hints that this sort of exploitation could go beyond simple rendering of service to their patron, particularly in the context of the production of specialized goods. In Digest XXXVIII, 1, 25, Julianus details some instances in which patrons might rent out the services of their freedman. In these cases, he says, whether or not they should receive compensation in return is dependent on the nature of individual circumstances. 584 He goes

581 cf. Tran 2016a: 251-252. 582 Ulp. Dig . VII, 7, 6, pr.: “When an action is initiated for the operae of a slave who is an artifex , payment should be made in proportion to their value, but for a common servant, it should be in accordance with their duty: and Mela wrote this opinion.” 583 On the tension between the idea of slave as possession, from which a master drew usufruct naturally, and the economic necessity that the slave’s labour be treated as something that could be leased out, with consideration for the product of that labour, see Thomas 2002: 225-250. 584 Julian. Dig. XXXVIII, 1, 25, pr.: “ Patronus, qui operas liberti sui locat, non statim intellegendus est mercedem ab eo capere: sed hoc ex genere operarum, ex persona patroni atque liberti colligi debet. ”; “A patron who hires out the

219 on to give a few examples of specific situations in which the provision of operae fabriles would be unfeasible from the point of view of the patron; doctors manumitting slaves typically trained in the same occupation would evidently have limited use for such services in kind (unless they were unusually sickly), and so obviously could not make use of these operae themselves. 585 So the discretion of whether or not to exploit operae as this particular category of services, unsurprisingly, redounded to the patron. The same Digest passage concludes with an interesting detail that freedmen might sometimes request that such a situation occur, but that these services were unequivocally separate from remunerated work. 586

It’s worth pointing out that, while these operae fabriles included most artisanal tasks, they did not necessarily include all, 587 and the precise dating of when these distinctions came into effect is a little unclear. Even if the legal distinction wasn’t fully developed until the early 2 nd century

CE, this refinement was assuredly a reflection of earlier widespread economic practices. Ulpian does give the impression that at some point in the late 1 st century CE terms established by patrons for operae became so exacting and intolerable that authorities had to provide firmer guidelines, 588 though how firmly we should apply this vague, exordial statement to a prevailing economic reality

services of his freedman is not immediately understood to receive compensation from him; but this should be deduced from the nature of the services and the standing of the patron and the freedman.” 585 Julian. Dig. XXXVIII, 1, 25, 2: “ Item plerumque medici servos eiusdem artis libertos perducunt, quorum operis perpetuo uti non aliter possunt, quam ut eas locent. Ea et in ceteris artificibus dici possunt. ”; “Similarly, doctors often free slaves of the same profession, whose services they cannot otherwise use, unless they rent them out. The same can be said of other professions as well.” 586 Julian. Dig. XXXVIII, 1, 25, 4: Nonnumquam autem ipsis libertis postulantibus patroni operas locant: quo facto pretium magis operarum quam mercedem capere existimandi sunt ; “Sometimes, however, patrons rent out the services of the freedmen at their own request. When this is done, they are considered to receive the price of their services, rather than wages (for them).” 587 Gonzalès 1997: 172. 588 Ulp. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 2, pr.: Hoc edictum praetor proponit coartandae persecutionis libertatis causa impositorum: animadvertit enim rem istam libertatis causa impositorum praestationem ultra excrevisse, ut premeret atque oneraret libertinas personas ; “The Praetor published this edict in order to restrict the prosecution of terms imposed for the sake of obtaining freedom; for he perceived that the pledge of terms imposed for the sake of obtaining freedom increased exceedingly, so that it overwhelmed and oppressed freed persons.”

220 is a bit unclear. It does seem that patroni could insist that a freedman render services related to an ars even if they had learned that craft following manumission, 589 indicating just how important the exploitation of skilled handiwork was from a patronal perspective. The juristic sources do not supply a specific maximum of labour days that could be demanded from a freedmen, saying only vaguely, “ aut certe ita exigendae sunt ab eo operae, ut his quoque diebus, quibus operas edat, satis tempus ad quaestum faciendum, unde ali possit, habeat... ”590 Ten days per year is used as a typical example of a term of service in some of the juristic passages, 591 although Ulpian also gives one thousand days of service split between dual patrons as an example, obviously spread across the lifetime of the libertus .592 In any event, the terms would almost certainly have varied depending on the situation of the individual patron and freedman. 593 How operae were exploited in reality is unclear, since there are certainly numerous mentions of them in the juristic sources, but virtually none in the epigraphic ones. 594 It may well be the case that, as Fabre has suggested, some instances of freedmen working for their patrons in the epigraphic record disguise the use of operae .595 This

589 Callistr. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 38, 1: Si tamen libertus artificium exerceat, eius quoque operas patrono praestare debebit, etsi post manumissionem id didicerit. Quod si artificium exercere desierit, tales operas edere debebit, quae non contra dignitatem eius fuerint, veluti ut cum patrono moretur, peregre proficiscatur, negotium eius exerceat ; “If, however, a freedman practises a trade, he should provide to his patron services relating to it, even if he learned it after his manumission. But if he ceases to practise that trade, he should provide such services as would not be contrary to his dignity, such as living with his patron, accompanying him abroad, or conducting business for him.”; cf. Masi Doria 1993a: 113-114. 590 Gaius Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 19: “Or at least it is certain that services cannot be exacted from a freedman such that he does not have, along with those days on which he can perform the services, enough time to make a profit with which he can support himself.”; cf. Pescani 1967: 105; Treggiari 1969c: 77-78; Waldstein 1986: 284. 591 Paul. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 39 and Julian. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 23, 1 both use a ten-day term as an example. 592 Ulp. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 15, 1: … denique Celsus libro duodecimo scribit, si communis libertus patronis duobus operas mille daturum se iuraverit aut communi eorum servo promiserit, quingenas potius deberi, quam singularum operarum dimidias ; “finally, Celsus in his twelfth book writes that if a shared freedman has pledged to give to his a thousand operae to his two patrons or to a slave held in common by them, he owes five hundred to each, rather than one thousand halves to each.”; here Ulpian may be making a point about the indivisibility of operae , rather than representing a realistic number, though see Waldstein 1986: 380. 593 Masi Doria 1993a: 69. 594 Waldstein 1986: 15-20. 595 Fabre 1981: 331-335 but especially 337-342 for artisans.

221 is probably particularly true of skilled craftsmanship, where the production of specific goods, rather than the provision of wide-ranging services, was obviously the more desirable outcome for the patron. 596

Added to this is the fact that slaves could be and probably often were established as institorian managers of the shops where such goods were produced. In general, institores nearly always also identified themselves by a technical occupational title and probably simply continued to self-identify by their type of work after manumission. 597 It seems unlikely that these became procuratores administering the workspaces they had managed while slaves, because that level of representation of their principal was simply legally unnecessary. It may also be the case that many of the raw material and capital costs were largely shouldered by the freedmen themselves or were joint expenditures, which would have obviated some of the need for procuratorial representation seen in other contexts. At any rate, identifying freedman procurators by funerary inscriptions in this particular sphere of economic activity is not really possible for two reasons. First, those who are identified as private procuratores on epitaphs typically seem to have been agricultural procurators, which makes sense since, as mentioned in an earlier chapter, they were more likely to be defined by that particular relationship to their patron than other freedmen. There was not really any other vocabulary by which they could accurately describe their occupation in the agricultural sphere. Secondly, those who might fall into this category from among small enterprises were almost certainly more likely to identify themselves by their technical skills or their places of business, rather than by their legal relationship to their former patron. This is not simply because

596 On the potentially significant role of operae among urban artisans generally, see Hawkins 2016b: 133. 597 A good example would be CIL IX 3027: Dionysio / Cn. Mamili / Primi / sutori / institori / caligario / Q. Avidius / Bassus / p(osuit) ; the only other two inscriptions in Italy are CIL VI 10007 (an institor unguentarius ) and CIL XI 1621 (an institor servus seplasiari negotiantis ); cf. Aubert 1994: 30-32.

222 they might wish to obscure a relationship with a patron who financially backed them, but more importantly because specialist skills and human capital were so frequently emphasized in occupational inscriptions. 598 It is entirely possible that the goldsmith M. Nerius Quadratus had more complicated economic and relational ties to his former master, but he simply identifies himself as an aurifex operating a shop at Rome, without any particular reference to a patronus .599

On the other hand, the freedman M. Canuleius Zosimus, a specialist in precious metal plate engraving, was commemorated by his patron and evidently the two had a continued close business relationship. 600 That he did nothing “ sine voluntate patroni ” makes it absolutely clear that, even after his manumission, there was an ongoing social and financial relationship in which Zosimus’ patron took a very active role. While this may seem like just a particularly effusive epitaph for a trusted freedman, the wording of the inscription is interesting. The term “ voluntas ” in particular is worth emphasizing, since the willingness of the principal, whether patron or master, had specific legal significance in the context of both institorian and procuratorial arrangements. Gaius asserted that both exercitorian and institorian arrangements relied on the notion of voluntas patris dominive 601 and this is also affirmed by Ulpian and other jurists in the Digest .602 So, too, did the

598 Joshel 1992: 154 on artisanal work. 599 CIL VI 9736: Nostia |(mulieris) l. / Daphne, / ornatrix de / vico Longo. // M. Nerius M. l. / Quadratus, / aurifex de / vico Longo. // Nostia / Daphnidis l. / Cleopatra, / ornatrix de vico / Longo ; “Nostia Daphne, freedwoman of a woman, hairdresser of the vicus Longus . Marcus Nerius Quadratus, freedman of Marcus, goldsmith of the vicus Longus . Nostia Cleopatra, freedwoman of a Daphne, hairdresser of the vicus Longus .”; it is interesting that he appears to have worked with two hairdressers, one of whom was perhaps his wife, in what was likely an upscale shop. 600 CIL VI 9222: D(is) M(anibus) / M. Canulei / Zosimi. / Vix(it) ann(os) XXVIII. / Fecit / patronus lib. / bene merenti. / Hic in vita sua nulli ma/ledixit, sine voluntate / patroni nihil fecit, / multum ponderis / auri arg(enti) penes eum / semper fuit, concupiit ex eo / nihil umquam. Hic artem caela/tura Clodiana evicit omnes ; “To the Divine Shades of Marcus Canuleius Zosimus, who lived 28 years. His patron made this for a well-deserving freedman. This man spoke ill of no one in his life, did nothing without the consent of his patron; there was often a great weight of gold and silver in his presence and he coveted none of it at any time. This man surpassed everyone in the craft of Clodian engraving.” 601 Gaius Inst . IV, 71: Cum enim ea quoque res ex voluntate patris dominive contrahi videatur, aequissimum esse visum est in solidum actionem (in eum) dari ; “Since such a contract seems to be made with the willingness of the father or master, the most just course seems to be to grant an action for the recovery of the full amount (against the latter).” 602 Ulp. Dig. XIV, 1, 1, 20; Paul. Dig . XIV, 1, 6, pr.; cf. Aubert 1994: 9-12.

223 procuratorial arrangement, since the major mechanism by which the procuratorship gained its effect was through post-hoc ratification by the principal, a clear expression of their voluntas . In this case, it may allude to the fact that Zosimus had some independence in the day-to-day running of the business, but it almost certainly does not signify a permanent procuratorship.

The additional detail – that Zosimus often had a large amount of precious metal in his possession that wasn’t his – obviously implies that this material belonged to his patron. 603 This, too, is a meaningful detail, since it indicates quite clearly that he was not merely established in an independent workshop by initial capital by his patron, but in fact was employed in a workshop where his patron continued to exert a far more extensive and long-term control over all aspects of

Zosimus’ production of plate. Here, we clearly have a situation where Zosimus effectively worked for his patron, in a workshop with raw materials and tools supplied by his patron. What circumstances these were, precisely, is more unknowable. He probably was engaged as a simple wage worker in his patron’s shop. Since he was manumitted at twenty-eight years old, he was probably a Junian Latin, and it is certainly possible that his patron had made a pledge to aid him in obtaining full citizenship later to further ensure his loyalty. 604 In any event, it would not have been necessary for him to act as a procurator, since complex legal representation was not an economic imperative when it came to producing goods or even managing a shop; this could be accomplished by a simple mandatum and wage arrangement, where Zosimus’ productive and technical capabilities were what counted most. Still, this makes clear that in some cases patrons continued to have a coercive effect on the economic and professional choices of even the most skilled craftsmen liberti .

603 Broekaert 2016: 234-235. 604 As suggested by Hawkins 2016b: 155-156.

224

5.3 Fabri and Some Problems with Occupational Inscriptions of Manufacturers

Due to both the scope of this dissertation and the focus on occupational inscriptions, some sectors of Roman production, which were vital to the Roman economy and important employers of freedmen and slaves, have been omitted. In particular, I have passed over the figlinae , brick manufacture, and the ceramic industry generally, though they were obviously areas of manufacturing where integrated production and the complex use of hierarchies of labour were crucial. 605 This is, in part, because these jobs are not frequently cited in funerary inscriptions, but also because the complexity and uniqueness of organization of many of these enterprises would be difficult to trace without a devoted study of them. 606 Some issues in ceramic production highlight another general problem in attempting to trace the structure of production units through epigraphic materials. Even in cases where it is quite clear that freedmen and patrons were working together in the same location, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish any differences in their respective roles in production and so ascertain an accurate picture of management structures. As

Broekaert has observed, occupational inscriptions that mention patrons and freedmen jointly running a shop typically elide the productive contributions of each individually, generally only referring to both with a single shared occupational title. 607 This means that details beyond the implication of broad coordination and cooperation can be rather obscure.

Precision in occupational titles can sometimes also be difficult to ascertain. Fabri , if we can consider them as a cohesive occupational group, provide a good example of some of the other complexities of trying to discern economic relationships from inscriptions. There was considerable

605 Aubert 1994: 201-321; Bruun 2005. 606 On terra sigillata , cf. Prachner 1980, especially 188-213 and 218-222; Fülle 1997; on bricks, cf. Helen 1975. 607 Broekaert 2016: 234.

225 specialization among fabri , as evidenced from the assortment of job titles that appear in their epitaphs. This means that they are very difficult to characterize as a group, since a faber structor parietarum , like the freedman T. Statilius Nicephor, from the monumentum Statiliorum ,608 no doubt had distinctly different skills and duties than the furniture-maker L. Hostilius Amphio, who plied his trade near the Cloaca Maxima. 609 With Amphio, we have a situation that is obviously much more representative of craftsmen who had their own workshops, rather than builders generally. As such, fabri in Italy unsurprisingly demonstrate the largest variety among skilled workers in terms of legal status. Of 66 fabri , not including fabri argentarii or magistri in collegia , twelve (~18%) were certainly ingenui , one probably an ingenuus , fifteen (~23%) were free incerti , seventeen (~26%) freedmen, two (~3%) probably freed, and seventeen (~26%) probably slaves, though only two (~3%) were definitely slaves. The variety in legal statuses speaks to the role of free labour in the construction market, but also to the significance of subcontracting work in this particular sector. There may have been less of a concern, certainly among those ultimately sponsoring building projects, about the legal status of individuals employed in the actual construction. 610 A high number of likely slaves also come from columbaria like the monumentum

Statiliorum 611 and other collegia or large household groups that have yet to be identified, 612 and so many of this particular group almost certainly were slaves, with roles probably more

608 CIL VI 6354: T. Statilius Nicep(h)or, / faber, struct(or) parietar(um) ; “Titus Statilius Nicephor, craftsman, builder of walls.” 609 CIL VI 7882: V(ivus) L. Hostilius L. l. Amphio, / faber lectarius / ab clo(a)ca maxima, sibi et / |(obiit) L. Hostilio Pamphilo patrono et / Hostiliae Bassae conlibertae, / vix(it) a(nnos) XXXV, et suis ; “Lucius Hostilius Amphio, furniture-maker near the Cloaca Maxima, made this for himself and for Lucius Hostilius Pamphilus, his deceased patron, and for his deceased fellow freedwoman, Hostilia Bassa, who lived 35 years, and for his family.” 610 Bernard 2016: 84-85. 611 CIL VI 6283-6285; CIL VI 6354; CIL VI 6364; CIL VI 6365. 612 CIL VI 9102 mentions four fabri : Arta, Anteros, Phileros, and Mahes. Though there has been some suggestion that these may have been Imperial slaves, it is not clear; cf. Carlsen 1995: 169-170; Solin 2001: 279-285.

226 internalized within the domestic familia . Ulpian does mention skilled slave builders being leased out by their masters 613 and some work groups within larger familiae may have done this as well.

Assuredly, though, many fabri would have been primarily employed in renovation and upkeep, rather than new construction, particularly in urban Italy, 614 and this would have been achieved effectively with slave gangs.

Still, it is possible that some of these households were a source of trained freedmen who went on to ostensibly more independent roles in construction. There were freedmen Statilii, for example, both within their monumentum and outside of it, seemingly less connected to the familia directly. T. Statilius Antiochus had his own monument on the via Latina ,615 and by all appearances was an economically independent faber tignuarius , a term which strongly suggests that he was working entirely outside of his patron’s household. Three other Titii Statilii were also granted niches in the tomb of a member of the tenth decuria of the collegium fabrum tignuariorum in the

1st century CE.616 There may be a distant connection to some Statilii who appear at Ostia among the fabri tignuarii in the later 2 nd century, 617 though there is notably a large gap of time between the two groups. In any event, Antiochus and the three Statilii members of the collegium appear to

613 Ulp. Dig . XIII, 6, 5, 7: … Nam et si servum tibi tectorem commodavero et de machina ceciderit, periculum meum esse Namusa ait: sed ego ita hoc verum puto, si tibi commodavi, ut et in machina operaretur …; “For Namusa says that if I lend you a slave as a roofer and he falls from the scaffolding, the risk is mine; but I think that this is true only if I lend him to you for the purpose of working on the scaffolding…” 614 Bernard 2016: 65-66. 615 CIL VI 9412-9414: T. Statili / Tauri l. / Antiochi, / fab(ri) tig(nuarii). / In f(ronte) p(edes) XII, in ag(ro) p(edes) XII ; “Of Titus Statilius Antiochus, freedman of Taurus, faber tignuarius . 12 feet across, 12 feet deep.”; cf. Caldelli and Ricci 1999: 138, §22b. 616 CIL VI 9405: L. Cincius L. f. Suc. Martialis, Vvir, / possessor huius monumenti ex testamento L. Mamili / Felicis decuriae X collegium fabrum tignuariorum parietem dextrum / introitus ollas XXXII donavit eis qui infra scripti sunt singulis singulas: / P. Sulpicio Felici decur(ioni), / L. Cincio L. f. Pal. Martiali f(abro), / M. Amatio Crescenti, / Ti. Pomplino Draconi, / Sex. Iulio Aprili, / T. Statilio Isochryso, / T. Statilio Hieroni f(abro), / C. Procilio Saturnino, / C. Petronio Celado, / C. Vibio Faustillo, / T. Statilio Onesimo, / Ti. Iulio Taurisco, / Ti. Iulio Sperato f(abro), / P. Baebio Epaphrodito, / Ti. Iulio Hymno, / C. Vibio Primigenio, C. Iulio Celeri, / C. Herennio Crescenti, / P. Licinio Agathopo, / M. Vergilio Eucarpo, / L. Baebio / Apollinari, / M. Antonio / Philosterg(o)… 617 CIL XIV 4569; cf. De Laine 2018: 479.

227 have been fabri outside of the household. The provenance of these names, coming mainly from lists of members of collegia , underscores another problem with epigraphy related to building trades in Italy. How these individual fabri actually operated in an economic unit – whether they were fully independent labourers or managers of smaller construction firms or something else entirely

– is unspecified. It has been speculated that members of the collegia operated midsize “firms” that undertook contracts and sub-contracts as redemptores , at least at Rome. 618 If this is the case, then an elite patronus might only rely on the operae of his semi-independent freedman for training of new builders or for completing specific projects that required a very high skill level. Alternatively, a patron could effectively dictate specific individual contracts his freedman faber took on and so have complete control of the business. In reality, the economic self-determination and discretion of these freedmen probably fell within the range of these two scenarios.

The example of the freedman architectus and redemptor L. Cocceius Auctus during the late 1 st century BCE may also demonstrate a libertus attaining a semi-independent position in the building industry, in charge of his own “firm”, even though he seems to have continued working with one of his patrons. He appears in two inscriptions from Campania, 619 where he seems also to have been involved in the large-scale construction of tunnels from Lake Avernus to Cumae and

Puteoli to Neapolis. 620 He was almost certainly originally the freedman of the suffect consul of 39

618 De Laine 1997: 204; De Laine 2003: 727. 619 CIL X 1614: L. Cocceius L. / C. Postumi l. / Auctus, arc(h)itect(us) ; “Lucius Cocceius Auctus, freedman of Lucius and of Caius Postumius, architectus ”; CIL X 3707: L. Cocc[eius ---], / redem[ptor] . 620 Strabo Geogr . V, 4, 5: τοιαῦτα μὲν οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐμυθολόγουν, νυνὶ δὲ τῆς μὲν ὕλης τῆς περὶ τὸν Ἄορνον κοπείσης ὑπὸ Ἀγρίππα, τῶν δὲ χωρίων κατοικοδομηθέντων, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Ἀόρνου διώρυγος ὑπονόμου τμηθείσης μέχρι Κύμης, ἅπαντ᾽ ἐκεῖνα ἐφάνη μῦθος, τοῦ Κοκκηίου τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὴν διώρυγα ἐκείνην τε καὶ ἐπὶ νέαν πόλιν ἐκ Δικαιαρχείας ἐπὶ ταῖς Βαίαις, ἐπακολουθήσαντός πως τῷ περὶ τῶν Κιμμερίων ἀρτίως λεχθέντι λόγῳ, τυχὸν ἴσως καὶ πάτριον νομίσαντος τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ δι᾽ ὀρυγμάτων εἶναι τὰς ὁδούς; “These are the things that those who came before us used tell, but now with the woods around Avernus having been cut down by Agrippa and the countryside built up with houses, and a tunnel cut from Avernus to Cumae, all these things seem like myths, though the Cocceius who made this canal and the one from Puteoli near Baiae to Neapolis understood in some way the story concerning the Cimmerians I just told, and maybe also considered it a local custom in this place that roads go through tunnels.”

228

BCE,621 and through the latter probably gained connections to large public works contracts related to the intensification of construction at Cape Misenum. He does, however, identify a second patron, Caius Postumius, whom he may have sought out as a free-born partner after the death of his initial patron. This association would have made good use of his expertise and allowed him some flexibility, while still being able to take on large-scale contracts. 622

More specialized types of construction workers evince similar broad patterns of legal status. Of sixteen structores , six (~38%) were certainly freedmen, five (~31%) were probably slaves, three (~19%) were free incerti , one (~6%) a slave, and one (~6%) probably a freedman. 623

Seven (~30%) of those who were identified as architecti 624 were freedmen, eight (~35%) ingenui

(one of whom was an eques ), one (~4%) probably slave, one (~4%) definitely a slave, and 6

(~26%) free incerti . Interestingly, tectores in the epigraphic record were almost universally freedmen. 625 Of nine, only one was a slave, while the other eight were all liberti . Three of these freedmen come from larger family monuments at Rome, however, and it is unclear how independently they actually operated. 626 It may be the case that specialization within the industry is the salient detail here, with more specialist jobs being dominated by freedmen, both because of the freedman occupational epigraphic habit generally, but also because managers might have been

621 Pearse 1974: 36; Gros 1983: 437; Donderer 1996: 208-209. 622 Gros 1983: 438: “Les deux hommes formèrent dès lors une sorte de société, où l'affranchi bénéficiait d'une grande autonomie, puisque ses liquidités l'autorisèrent à agir seul, au titre de redemptor , pour la construction de l’édifice de Cumes.”; There may be a link to Coccei involved in building in the early 2 nd Century according to Martin 1989: 57. 623 cf. Dessales 2011: 47-49. 624 Though architectus is a difficult title to define precisely in a Roman context and it can be disputed whether it constitutes a specialist term universally; Eck 1997: 403-404: “Dabei kann kein klares Bild entstehen, da ja die Personengruppe, die erfasst wird, nicht klar definiert, sondern nur durch die Präzision entbehrende Funktionsbezeichnung architectus usw. zusammengehalten wird.”; cf. Donderer 1996. 625 cf. Blanc 1983: 859-907. 626 CIL VI 34013 from the monumentum Appuleiorum ; CIL VI 13402 from the monumentum Aurunceiorum ; and AE 1926, 54, probably from the monumentum Asinorum .

229 reluctant to rely on the vicissitudes of the general labour market for highly specialist skills. 627 It is difficult to test this hypothesis with other occupational groups, however. Marmorarii , for example, are nearly impossible to track because only a few appear outside of the Imperial household and because the title can apply to a variety of different types of marble workers, not just masons. 628

The only Italian lapidarius who was definitively not an Imperial slave or freedman was an ingenuus .629

Because of the widespread use of subcontracting structures in the building industry, though, it can be particularly difficult to tell how the status and economic relations of individual freedmen was influenced by their patron. Even if roughly 30% of those engaged in building trades in the occupational inscriptions just mentioned were freedmen, there is little clarification about how they functioned within a discrete economic unit. Some, like the libertus C. Caesonius

Demetrius from Puteoli, 630 give the distinct impression that they were heads of their own small construction units, with their own freedmen and slaves as workers. Yet, there is no sign of

Caesonius’ own origin or of his patron’s involvement. It’s noteworthy that he appears to have

627 Also important here is the need for different modes of organizing workforces for different building tasks, as Bernard 2016 demonstrates. 628 Frézouls 1995: 39; CIL XI 961, from the 1 st century CE, provides a good example of at least two freedmen marble- workers, though of course their activity as masons and not salespeople or quarriers is only revealed by the appearance of mason’s tools on the tombstone and not the inscription, itself: Sibi Pettia Ge et / C. Pettio C. l. Pyladi patro(no), / C. Clodio C. l. Antiocho marm(orario) // et Pettiae ((mulieris)) l. Speratae / et Peiae ((mulieris)) l. Sice. / In fro(nte) p(edes) XII, / in agr(o) p(edes) XV ; “Pettia Ge made this for herself and her patron Caius Pettius Pylas, freedman of Caius, and for Caius Clodius Antiochus, marble-mason and freedman of Caius, and for Pettia Sperata, freedwoman of a woman, and Peia Sice, freedwoman of a woman. 12 feet across, 15 feet deep.” 629 CIL XI 6838: Viv(i) / C. Volusius / C. l. Iucundus, / tabularius, / Heidia T. l. Auge, / Q. Baebius Q. f., / faber / lapidarius, / L. Tettius L. l. Philarg(yrus), / caligarius ; “While alive, Caius Volusius Iucundus, freedman of Caius, record-keeper, Heidia Auge, freedwoman of Titus, Quintus Baebius, son of Quintus, builder and stone-cutter, Lucius Tettius Philargyrus, freedman of Lucius, shoe-maker (made this).” 630 CIL X 1932: C. Caesonius Demetrius / faber tignarius sibi et Nymphe/ni conlibertae suae et C. Caesonio / Metrophani l. et Secundae l. et / Primogeni(o) l., Caesoniae Ampliatae / Metrophanis l. vixit annos XIIII et / menses III [---] uxori [---]; “Caius Caesonius Demetrius, faber tignuarius , made this for himself and for his colliberta Nymphes and for Caius Caesonius Metrophanes, his freedman, and for his freedwoman Secunda, and for his freedman Primigenius and for Caesonia Ampliata, freedwoman of Metrophanes, who lived 18 years, 3 months… for a wife…”

230 married his colliberta , indicating the possibility of some social freedom while he was a slave.

Similarly, two Gavii liberti seem to have had a small business together. Their tombstone features the portraits of a joint freedwoman and possibly a son of one of them. 631 Here, then, it seems very plausible that two brothers, who were also colliberti , had their own collaborative firm, but there are no signs of their patron’s engagement in the same field, despite the fact that he evidently trained two of his slaves as carpenters. This epigraphic silence in no way precludes that their patron was involved in what contracts they took on, though, or that he exerted economic influence on them in other ways.

5.4 Metalworkers, Location, and Colliberti Groups

The relationships within individual production units are far clearer when we turn to the sort of manufacturing that was primarily conducted by small groups of skilled workers in workshops.

Unlike occupational titles in building trades, many small-scale manufacturing funerary inscriptions recorded not just social groups, but often, by extension, entire production units themselves. Over 60% of fabri , for example, do not cite another person in their epitaphs. 632 On the other hand, ~59% of aurifices and ~63% of vestiarii appear with family members, slaves, liberti, or patrons. 633 As with tectores , the epitaphs of Roman metalworkers – aurifices , aerarii , ferarii , caelatores , and others – are nearly entirely dominated by freedmen. Overall, ~51% of

631 CIL VI 9411: Vivit / C. Gavius C. l. Dardanus. // Vivit / C. avius Spu(ri) f. Rufus. // Vivit / Gavia CC. l. Asia. // Duo fratres fabr{e}i tign(uarii), / C. Gavius C. l. Salvius ; “Caius Gavius Dardanus, freedman of Caius, while alive. Caius Gavius Rufus, illegitimate son, while alive. Gavia Asia, freedwoman of both Caii, while alive. Two brothers who were fabri tignuarii , Caius Gavius Salvius, freedman of Caius.” 632 40 of 66 inscriptions make no mention of any family members, fellow slaves or freedmen, patrons, or others. 633 For aurifices the ratio was 13:22 and for vestiarii , 43:68.

231 metalworkers were confirmed freedmen, a higher proportion than most occupational groups. 634

Nonetheless, it can be quite difficult here, too, to tell which occupational inscriptions involve merely salesmen and retailers and which are craftsmen. The two freedmen Papuleii from Bononia, for example, described as negotiatores ferrarii , were probably primarily sellers of metal goods, but whether they oversaw production or repairs of goods as well is less certain. 635 The three men, probably two colliberti and their own libertus , constituted a small firm and were all very active

Augustales . Similarly, P. Caulius Coeranus of Puteoli was identified as a negotiator ferrariarum et vinariariae ,636 an odd combination that nonetheless hints strongly at a strictly retail context rather than a productive one. M. Nerius Quadratus worked in a shop with the ornatrix Nostia

Daphne, mentioned briefly in a previous chapter, who was probably also his wife. 637 He may have sold jewelry to Daphne’s upscale clientèle or even added fancy accoutrements to hairstyles, rather than being a goldsmith in a purely traditional sense. Despite this, his work no doubt required some level of skill.

In addition to having worked in the same shop with his wife, Nerius has another characteristic of other fine metalworkers: we know the site of his business. In Italy, ~31% (7 of

22) of epitaphs of aurifices give a shop location, a particularly high ratio compared to other types of craftsmen. At Rome, specifically, Joshel has noted that artisans – especially jewelers,

634 10 of 12 aerarii ; 9 of 22 aurifices ; 2 of 4 bratiarii ; 2 of 5 caelatores ; 1 of 4 corinthiarii ; 6 of 12 ferrarii ; these numbers only include freedmen whose status could be confirmed and not probable freedmen or incerti . 635 AE 1922, 82: M. Papuleio / M. l. Pudenti, IIIIII/vir(o), et Claudiali / M. Papuleio M. l. / Primo, IIIIIIvir(o), / negotiatoribus / ferrariis. / Faustus l. IIIIIIvir / in f(ronte) p(edes) XVI in a(gro) p(edes) XVI ; “To Marcus Papuleius Pudens, freedman of Marcus, sexvir and Claudialis, and to Marcus Papuleius Primus, freedman of Marcus, sexvir, negotiatores ferarii . (Their) freedman Faustus, also a sexvir, (made this). 16 feet wide, 16 feet deep.” 636 CIL X 1931: D(is) M(anibus) / P. Caulio Coerano / negotiatori / ferrariarum et / vinariariae. Acibas lib. / patrono merenti . 637 CIL VI 9736: Nostia | (mulieris) l. / Daphne / ornatrix de / vico Longo. // M. Nerius M. l. / Quadratus / aurifex de / vico Longo. // Nostia / Daphnidis l. / Cleopatra / ornatrix de vico / Longo ; “Nostia Daphne, freedwoman of a woman, hairstylist of the Vicus Longus, Marcus Nerius Quadratus, freedman of Marcus, goldsmith of the Vicus Longus , Nostia Cleopatra, freedwoman of Daphne, hairstylist of the Vicus Longus.”

232 metalworkers, and clothes-makers – frequently mentioned shop location in epitaphs. 638 She also emphasizes that many of these addresses were in relatively central or upmarket neighbourhoods.

It may be that the upscale addresses served as a public marker of success, especially in the context of high-end production, as well as advertising businesses that continued to exist under the management of those who had been close to them after their deaths. The Sacra Via was particularly well-known as a neighbourhood of metal workers, particularly precious metals, though a number of gemmarii were engaged in business there as well. 639 Two different flaturarii are also identified as de Sacra Via .640 The use of that occupational title here almost certainly signifies general metalwork, as opposed to the more specific sense of money-coiner seen elsewhere among members of the Imperial household. Fine engravers, too, had businesses there. 641 A group of

Saufeii were active as aurifices on the Sacra Via at some point in the late Republic or early

Empire. 642 It is clear that at least three of them worked at the same location and that the tomb effectively represents a freedman-run production unit. Another inscription, from the late Republic,

638 Joshel 1992: 107: “Shop location occurs most commonly among artisans (28.4%, N=81), bankers (50%, N=21), and salesmen (26.4%, N=28). Jewelers, ivorists, and craftsmen in related materials (50%, N=18), metalworkers (23%, N=20), and those who produced clothing (37.5%, N=30) show the highest concentration of artisans in this setting…” 639 CIL VI 9434 and CIL VI 9435; Di Giuseppe 2017: 471-477 points to a new inscription indicating that the magistri of a collegium of gemmarii were active in the neighbourhood at least as early as the late 2 nd and early 1 st centuries BCE and set up some sort of monument, perhaps a statue base or altar; their early activity there is further supported by archaeology; cf. Harri 2012. 640 CIL VI 9418: D(is) M(anibus) / Selliae Nices, / vix(it) ann(is) XXXV / mens(ibus) VI dieb(us) XXI. / C. Sellius Onesimus, / flaturar(ius) de Via Sac(ra), / coniugi b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) ; “To the Divine Shades of Sellia Nice, who lived 35 years, 6 months, 21 days. Caius Sellius Onesimus, metal-caster of the Sacred Way, made this for a well- deserving wife.”; CIL VI 9419: L. Vilonius / L. et |(mulieris) l. / Tityrus, / flaturarius / de Sacra Via, / v(ixit) a(nnos) L. // Vilonia / L. et |(mulieris) l. / Quinta, / v(ixit) a(nnos) LXXV. / L. Vilonius Spendo, / v(ixit) a(nnos) VII V d(ies) ; “Lucius Vilonius Tityrus, freedman of Lucius and a woman, metal-caster of the Sacred Way, lived 50 years. Vilonia Quinta, freedwoman of Lucius and a woman, lived 75 years. Lucius Vilonius Spendo, lived 7 years, 5 days.” 641 CIL VI 9221: L. Furius / L. l. Diomedes, / caelator de / Sacra Via. / Corneliae L. f. / Tertullae, uxori. // Pusillu(s) Nimphic(us). 642 AE 1971, 0043: L. Saụ[feiu]s Eros, / L. Saufeius L. l. Al[exan]der, L. Saufei[us ---], / aurifi[ces de] Sacṛa Vi[a], / Saufei[a] Ḷ. l. Baṣ[---] Saufei[---].

233 documents a similarly-structured corporation of freedman goldsmiths. 643 The likelihood that they were colliberti employed in the same business is reinforced by a later inscription suggesting that subsequent Caedicii continued to be aurifices de Sacra Via .644 It is possible that a third Caedicius appearing as a negotiator in the same neighbourhood 645 acted as a salesperson for their products, as Broekaert has proposed. 646 In both instances of the Caedicii goldsmiths, there is evidence that the work groups were composed of colliberti and their family employed at the same location.

There is no doubt that the phenomenon was far more common at Rome, but there is also a late Republican inscription from Praeneste that shows that its Sacra Via may also have been something of a locale for this sort of goods production. 647 In addition to the inscription from

Praeneste, a Manius Obellius also appears as a goldworker at Rome. 648 He is identified as “ de

Aurelianis ”, assuredly also a toponym, though the precise location is otherwise unknown. 649

Perhaps the Obellii who dedicated an altar at Praeneste were simply visiting from Rome, but the connection between the three is very likely and it’s not farfetched to conclude that Acastus represented an expansion of his patron’s interests into the capital. 650 It is possible that other Italian

643 CIL I 3005: M. Caedicius / M. l. Eros, // aurifex / de Sacra V(ia), // et / Attia Q. l. Philumina, / concubina, et M. / Caedicius M. l. Timo//t(heus) / et M. Caedic(ius) M. l. Hector. 644 CIL VI 9207: M. Caedicius Iucundus, / aurifex de / Sacra Via, vix(it) a(nnos) XXX. // Clodia Cypare, / dulcissima soror / Caediciaes(!) Priscaes(!) . 645 CIL VI 9962: M. Caedici / Fausti, / negotiator / de Sacra Via. // Caedicia / Syntyche, / conliberta. 646 Broekaert 2016: 241-242. 647 CIL I 3058: M’. Obelli(us) M’ . f. Vol(tinia?), / aurific(es) de Sacra V[ia], / Apella l. F(ortunae) P(rimigeniae) d(onum) [d(ant)] ; “Manius Obellius, son of Manius, of the Voltinia tribe, and Apella, his freedman, goldsmiths of the Sacra Via, give this gift to Fortuna Primigenia.”; this may refer to a Praenestine Sacra Via and not the one at Rome, although the latter is also certainly possible. 648 CIL VI 37780: Ma. Obellius / Acastus, / auruf(ex) [sic] de Aurelian(is) ; an Obellia Threpte also appears to be married to a negotiator aerarius et ferrarius from Rome in CIL VI 9664. 649 LTUR V 230. 650 González 2017: 53-54.

234 towns had similar districts. 651 This speculation aside, the temple at Praeneste was a regionally significant sanctuary and it is certainly plausible that a group of well-off goldsmiths from Rome would set up a dedication there without immigrating to Praeneste or even having any direct commercial interests in the town. The inscription may simply show the geographic range of these sorts of benefactions and nothing more.

The fact that so many freed small manufacturers and proprietors of manufactured goods mention the geographic location of their stores and workshops in epitaphs may suggest a pride of personal ownership. If the majority of production and retail facilities were indeed owned by freedmen and not patrons, this would render the necessity of a procuratorial relationship less acute for a variety of reasons. First, infusions of capital could be made by patrons on a more ad hoc basis and thus would have functioned more as periodic investments. Freedman ownership would further insulate their patron from risks and liability, not just in terms of rent, but all other overhead costs and transactions as well. This would be especially useful in industries where raw materials themselves were expensive, but reliance on unskilled workers potentially more costly, if they damaged or mishandled the goods, for example. 652 But the nature of the goods produced also means that a patron in such a relationship would probably have desired freedmen products and services of this sort for themselves far less frequently than a freedman trained as, say, a banker or an agricultural manager. Provision of services ensuring that crop yields or that returns on investments were consistent year to year was obviously expected to be regularized in a way that

651 The aurifices at Pompeii were numerous enough to provide their own election notice. Though it’s uncertain whether they had their own quarter as they did elsewhere, “universi ” suggest that they constituted a quasi-unified group; CIL IV 710: C. Cuspium Pansam aed(ilem) / aurifices universi / rog(ant) ; However, besides the fresco in the House of the Vettii suggesting that they were involved in goldsmithing, there is little archaeological evidence for the profession at Pompeii; cf. Laurence 2007: 67. 652 cf. Martin 2001: 110-111.

235 goods production, particularly artisanal goods, would not or could not be. Even in a very wealthy household, the need for new pieces of finely-made gold jewelry each year would have been finite.

At least nine aurifices were commemorated in the monumentum Liviae , but really only the Imperial and most elite households would have need for such a large specialized workforce. 653 Only five caelatores unaffiliated with the Imperial household are attested in Roman Italy and none of them were obviously engaged in domestic service. 654 Conversely, having a small group of skilled freedmen concentrated in a single trade and semi-independent location outside of the household meant that the patron could focus the range of knowledge needed to make economic decisions, while also facilitating the training of new specialist workers if they wished to seed a new business elsewhere.

In truth, we should perhaps be somewhat cautious in equating reference to a location to actual ownership 655 or to full economic independence, even in cases where a patron is absent in the inscription. This point is particularly worth making for freedmen, although they were more likely to cite places of business. 656 Indeed, another reason for the phenomenon might be to emphasize economic and social cohesion of freedman groups. The use of address in the case of the Caedicii on the Sacra Via also highlights continuity of a business in a specific location. The implication was that not just the place of business continued to be used, but that there were links between the skilled groups who occupied it.

653 CIL VI 3927; 3943-47; 3949-51. 654 AE 1969/70, 36; CIL IV 8505 (cf. AE 1912, 258); CIL VI 9221; CIL VI 9432; AE 1947, 61; the only other elsewhere in the Empire, from Caesarea, is CIL VIII 21106: Vitulus argentarius / caelator ann(orum) XXIIII / hic situs est. / Cura conlegi(i) fabri argentar(ii) / et conlegi(i) Caesarensium crescent(es). / Terra tibi levis sit ; the multiplicity of different areas of specialty in this last epitaph speak to the fact that this was probably not a dedicated occupation, except in larger urban markets. 655 Frier 1980: 26. 656 Among aurifices , for instance, every single inscription mentioning a place of business had at least one freedman employed there.

236

Certainly one of the benefits of having such a workforce of freedmen was that they could provide training when a patron lacked the professional skills themselves. There are, though, instances of businesses where freedmen metalworkers seem to have employed their own freedmen.

The Saufeii mentioned above may be such an example, with Eros as both patron and effective manager. 657 Cn. Pompeius Iucundus, likely a freedman himself, trained and worked with his freedman Fructus as a goldsmith. 658 Though neither a business location nor their patron’s occupation was explicitly mentioned, a group of three bronzesmiths from Rome demonstrates that craftsmen might even be the principal heirs of their former masters. 659 Beyond the stipulations for burial, we do not know what their bequest entailed, but it is hard to believe that there was not a commercial element to it and that perhaps the inheritance was even a measure of professional loyalty. 660 In addition, the fact that Helenus had trained three freedmen in such a specialized craft indicates his own interest in the business, whether or not he shared their occupation.

657 CIL VI 9208 may provide another example: A. Minucius / AA. l. Felix / sibi suisque / posterisq(ue) eorum, / Furiae Q. l. Auctae, / A. Minucio A. l. / Philarguro patron(o). // L. Sempronius / L. l. Cephalio, / aurifex extra / port(a) Flumentan(a) / sibi et suis / posterisque / eorum et / L. Sempronio L. l. / Theophilo l. ; “Aulus Minucius Felix, freedman of the Auli, (made this) for himself and his family and his descendants and for Furia Aucta, freedwoman of Quintus, and for his patron Aulus Minucius Philargurus, freedman of Aulus. Lucius Sempronius Cephalio, freedman of Lucius, goldsmith outside of the Porta Flumentana , for himself and his family and descendants and for Lucius Sempronius Theophilus, his freedman, freedman of Lucius.” 658 CIL VI 37781: Pompe[ia Mem]phis fecit sibi et / Cn. Pompeio Iucundo, coniugi / suo, aurifici, vixit annos XXXV et / Cn. Pompeio Fructo, liberto suo, / aurifici, vixit annos XXXX et libertis / libertabusque suis posterisque eoru[m] ; “Pompeia Memphis made this for her husband Cnaeus Pompeius Iucundus, a goldsmith, who lived 35 years and for his [or her?] freedman Cnaeus Pompeius Fructus, a goldsmith, who lived 40 years and for their freedmen and freedwomen and their descendants.”; on possible ties to the senatorial family, see Tassini 1994: 689. 659 CIL VI 9138: L. Naevius Eleuther / et Naevius Narcissus / et L. Naevius Thesmus, h(eredes), / L. Naevio Heleno patro(no) / suo ex testamento eius / fecerunt sibi et sui{i}s / et liberti{i}s libertabusqu{a}e et / posterisqu{a}e, (a)erari vascl(ari). / H(oc) m(onumentum) s(ive) s(epulcrum) e(st) h(eredes) nostrum <=non?> sequetur ; “Lucius Naevius Eleuther and Naevius Narcissus and Lucius Naevius Thesmus, heirs and makers of bronze vessels, made this for their patron Lucius Naevius Helenus from his will, for themselves and their family and for their freedmen and descendants. This monument does not follow the heirs (?).”; cf. Di Giacomo 2016: 147. 660 Hawkins 2016b: 154-155.

237

There are only few attested corinthiarii in the epigraphic record, 661 but one – L. Aufidius

Aprilis, who worked in the vicinity of the Theatrum Balbi – had a particularly well-documented circle of freedmen trained in the same trade as himself. 662 Collected within his tomb group from the Via Flaminia were five sets of early Flavian-era inscriptions. One commemorated an Imperial freedman whose connection to the family of Aprilis is unclear, 663 though the two may well have known each other in some sort of professional capacity. The Theatrum Balbi was not terribly far from the Temple of Serapis and a large part of Aprilis’ business probably originated from the numerous sacred sites around the Campus Martius. The inscription from the elaborate main altar reads:

L. Aufidius Aprilis, / c[or]inthiarius / [de thea]tro Balbi, / [sibi] et / […]ae

Secundae / [uxo]ri sanctissimae et / [Gar]giliae Sp. f. Venustae, / M. Antoni M. f.

Pap. / Flacci liberti Felicis / uxori piissimae, et / M. Antonio Felici .664

It has been pointed out by other scholars that the designation of the husband of Gargilia Venusta is somewhat unusual.665 Weaver’s explanation, that there was only one M. Antonius Felix, who was both her husband and also the freedman of Marcus Antonius Marci filius Papiria Flaccus, is

661 Following Chantraine 1967: 296-297, I have considered the “ Zoelus corin(thiarius) ” of CIL VI 4455 to be the same as the “ Zoili corint(hiari) Agripp(iani) ” of CIL VI 8756 and the “ Zoilo Agripp(iano) corinthiar(io) ” of CIL VI 33768, and so a member of the Imperial household. 662 AE 1977, 24-28; LTUR I 167-169, §106. 663 AE 1977, 28: Ti. Claudio Aug. l. / Callisto, / aedituo templi / Serapei. / Claudia Severa / coniugi bene / merenti fec(it) ; “To Tiberius Claudius Callistus, freedman of the emperor, temple-keeper of the Temple of Serapis. Claudia Severa made this for her well-deserving husband.” 664 AE 1977, 25: “Lucius Aufidius Aprilis, Corinthian bronzeworker of the Theatre of Balbus, for himself and for his most sacred wife, [---]a Secunda, and for Gargilia Venusta, daughter of an unknown man, most faithful wife of Marcus Antonius Felix, freedman of Marcus Antonius Flaccus, son of Marcus, of the tribe Papiria, and to Marcus Antonius Felix.” 665 cf. Weaver 1998b: 235-237; Gardner 1998: 186.

238 the most plausible, but the name is still a bit odd for its lengthy identification of his former master.

The other issue – what Gargilia’s relation to the main dedicand was – is resolved if we presume that Aprilis’ wife’s gentilicium was also Gargilia, and so was perhaps the mother of the illegitimate

Venusta. This would make sense, since the main altar would then name Aprilis, his wife, and her daughter and son-in-law. The status of Aprilis, himself, is unexpressed and we should perhaps not assume that he was a libertus based on his professional title alone. 666 However, it is possible that

Gargilia was his own daughter born before his manumission. At any rate, more specific details of

Aprilis’ commercial interests appear in a second epitaph, which, while not found with it, was clearly from the same tomb group:

Dis Manibus. / L. Aufidio Aprilis / lib. Hermae, corinthario, / Caecinia Euthymia /

coniugi carissimo / fecit et / L. Aufidius Achillas /v(ivus) colliberto f(ecit). 667

Clearly Aprilis trained Herma in the same occupation as himself and it is entirely credible that the latter’s collibertus , Achillas, was engaged as a corintharius as well. Unfortunately, we do not know whether these two men worked with Aprilis or represented an additional branch of his enterprise elsewhere at Rome. The level of specialization in this sort of engraving and the tightness of the market, even at Rome, would lead us to believe that they likely worked with him and perhaps even subsequently carried on management of his business. These occupational clusters, then, might occur around a skilled patron or around a group of freedmen.

666 AE 1977, 24 n does make this assumption. 667 AE 1977, 26: “To the divine shades. For Lucius Aufidius Herma, freedman of Aprilis, Corinthian bronzeworker. Caecinia Euthymia made this for her dearest husband and Lucius Aufidius Achillas made this while alive for his fellow freedman.”

239

5.5 Evidence of Organization and Familial Ties among Ivory-workers and Gemmarii

In general, ivory-workers demonstrate a far higher professional and social cohesion than other similarly technical occupations, though they do constitute a smaller sample size. As with goldsmithing, ivory work required a high degree of practiced skill and competency with extremely expensive luxury materials, as well as access to relatively expensive raw materials. There are only ten inscriptions from Italy featuring eborarii or ivory merchants. With the exception of one incertus “faber eburarius ” mentioned in a tabula from an unidentified columbarium ,668 however, all identifiable ivory-workers were either certain freedmen (six) or probable freedmen (three).

Beyond this relative homogeneity of legal status, the other striking thing about the cohort is the repetition of a handful of gentilicia . Both Clodii and Consii appear in multiple inscriptions and at least six (though likely seven) of the inscriptions allude to compound relationships between freedmen and patrons.

Eburarii of the gens Consia seem to be recorded in four separate epitaphs, though one is fairly fragmentary. 669 Another monument worth mentioning is an ossuary-altar from the via Appia for Marcus Consius Cerdo. 670 Because it has no occupational title, I have not included it in the overall tally of ivory-worker epitaphs, but it prominently features a large elephant relief on the side, making it very likely that Cerdo, like the other Marci Consii, was also involved in the ivory trade. 671 Far less ambiguous is Marcus Consius Dionysius, whose tombstone was found near the

668 CIL VI 9397: Q. Considius Eumolpus, / faber eburar(ius). 669 AE 1968, 37: Consiu[s ---] / Hermati[on], / eborarius [ab] / Hercle P[rimigenio],̣ / Cons[ius ---?] ; “Consius… Hermation, ivory-worker from Hercules Primigenius, Consius…” 670 CIL VI 16078: Ossa / M. Consi / Cerdonis ; “The bones of Marcus Consius Cerdo.” 671 Nonnis 2007: 396-397.

240

Porta Pinciana. 672 The fourth and last 673 documents a family cluster – a freedman, Marcus Consius

Eros Gallus, and his wife, Consia Prepusa, as well as their children and their patron. The latter,

Marcus Consius Antiochus, was probably also a freedman and is the only confirmed ivory-worker in the inscription, but there are two additional significant details revealed. First, he should almost certainly be connected to the other Consius, probably bearing the cognomen Hermation, mentioned in the fragmentary inscription, since both were active as eborarii ab Hercle Primigenio . “ Ab

Hercle Primigenio ” undoubtedly refers to a sanctuary, though the epithet is unusual and the specific location unknown. Two other inscriptions, one a cippus ,674 refer to it in a way that suggests it was a local compital shrine that gave name to an unidentified district somewhere at Rome.

Nonetheless, this neighbourhood appears to have been something of a hub for ivory-workers, since three of the five inscriptions mentioning it as a topographic location in the city include eborarii .675

That both Consii were active in the same place affirms some relationship, though Hermation’s epitaph is unfortunately insufficiently complete to determine the specific nature of it. At any rate, it seems likely that there were multiple generations of Consii active as ivory-workers at the same location.

672 CIL VI 37793: V(ivit), / M. Consi M. l. / Dionysi, / eburari. / In fr(onte) p(edes) XVI, / in ag(ro) p(edes) XII ; “While alive, Marcus Consius Dionysius, freedman of Marcus, ivory-worker. 16 feet deep, 12 feet wide.” 673 AE 1990, 76: M. Consio Antiocho, pa(trono), / ab Hercule Primogenio eborario. / M. Consius M. l. Eros Gallus / fecit sibi et Consiae MM. l. / Prepusae, uxori, / M. Consio M. f. Col. Gallo f., / M. Consio M. f. Col. Lepido f. v(ixit) a(nnos) II m(enses) IV, / posterisque eorum ; “To Marcus Consius Antiochus, patron and ivory-worker from Hercules Primigenius. Marcus Consius Eros Gallus made this for himself and for his wife, Consia Prepusa, freedwoman of the Marci, and for his son, Marcus Consius Gallus, son of Marcus, of the Collina tribe, and for his son, Marcus Consius Lepidus, son of Marcus, of the Collina tribe, who lived 2 years, 4 months, and for their descendants.” 674 CIL VI 30907: Herculi / Primigenio / sacrum / C. Petronius / C. f. Vel. / Paetus f(ecit) ; “Sacred to Hercules Primigenius. Caius Petronius Paetus, son of Caius of the Velina tribe, made (this).”; cf. Richardson 1992: 188; LTUR III 21. 675 For eborarii : CIL VI 7655; AE 1968, 37; AE 1990, 76. The other two inscriptions are CIL VI 30907 and CIL VI 9645: P. Saenius / P. |(mulieris) l. Arsaces / menestrator(!) ab(!) / Hercul(e) Primig(enio) , / Petronia |(mulieris) l. / Fausta, cunc(ubina), / Petronia P. C. |(mulieris) l. / Digna ; “Publius Saenius Arsaces, freedman of Publius and a woman, attendant at the shrine of Hercules Primigenius, Petronia Fausta, freedwoman of a woman, Petronia Digna, freedwoman of Publius, Caius, and a woman.”

241

The second significant detail, though, is that Consius Eros Gallus’ wife, Consia Prepusa, is identified as “ MM(arcorum) l(iberta) ”. We do not know for sure whether Gallus was, like his patron, himself an ivory-worker, but the fact that he and Antiochus seem to have jointly been the patrons of Prepusa implies that they all may have engaged in the same business. Co-ownership of enslaved artisans was by no means uncommon, particularly when the servus communis might have additional responsibilities over other slaves or property, such as acting as a manager in a workshop or store. 676 It is unclear in this instance whether all three were eborarii but it is difficult to imagine

Antiochus and his freedman having jointly owned Prepusa without also concluding that she worked for both men in a professional context. Joint ownership would have allowed both men to acquire through Prepusa and give her direct orders, though this arrangement would have also allowed for some commercial flexibility as well. The Roman legal concept of slave co-owenership relied on notional shares of the slave, what Gaius calls “ partes dominicae ”, and not complete ownership by each master. He makes clear that, while both masters acquired proportionally through their servus communis , one of them could acquire exclusively under certain conditions. 677

There was some legal controversy concerning just how limited this exclusive acquisition was in practice – whether a simple instruction by one owner was sufficient to allow them to acquire solely.

Ulpian summarizes both the general legal qualities of the servus communis and this specific question in the Digest :

676 In pottery production, for example, see Prachner 1980: 172 and 209. On joint ownership of a slave manager generally, see Di Porto 1984: 63. 677 Gaius Inst . III, 167: Communem servum pro dominica parte dominis adquirere certum est, excepto eo, quod uni nominatim stipulando aut mancipio accipiendo illi soli adquirit, velut cum ita stipuletur: “Titio domino meo dari spondes?” aut cum ita mancipio accipiat: “Hanc rem ex iure Quiritium Lucii Titii domini mei esse aio, eaque ei empta esto hoc aere aeneaque libra.” ; “A slave held in co-ownership certainly acquires for his owners in proportion to their shares. That does not apply where he acquires for one of the owners by taking a stipulation in his name alone or by receiving a mancipation in his name, as where, for instance, he takes a stipulation in these words: ‘Do you solemnly promise to give to my owner Titius?’ or when the mancipation takes the form: ‘I say that this thing belongs by Quiritary right to my master Lucius Titius and let it be bought for him with this bronze and by these bronze scales.’”

242

Servus communis sic omnium est non quasi singulorum totus, sed pro partibus

utique indivisis, ut intellectu magis partes habeant quam corpore: et ideo si quid

stipulatur vel quaqua alia ratione adquirit, omnibus adquirit pro parte, qua

dominium in eo habent. Licet autem ei et nominatim alicui ex dominis stipulari vel

traditam rem accipere, ut ei soli adquirat. Sed si non nominatim domino stipuletur,

sed iussu unius dominorum, hoc iure utimur, ut soli ei adquirat, cuius iussu

stipulatus est. 678

The potential flexibility of this sort of an arrangement would have been ideal for basic legal and economic transactions but would also have allowed for multiple masters to hold interests in both the merchandise and in the skilled slaves involved. Though seemingly long-established family groups generally predominate among freed craftsmen, the relatively high cost of replacing or acquiring new slaves already trained in specific crafts would have been fairly steep. The fragment of the Price Edict of Diocletian from Aezani establishes that the seller of a slave arte instructo could demand as much as double the maximum price of an unskilled slave, 679 so it would make sense that business owners might seek to share the cost, particularly if they also had to furnish themselves with more expensive raw materials like ivory, gold, or other precious metals. Placing

678 Ulp. Dig . XLV, 3, 5: “A slave owned in common is the property of all his masters, and does not, as it were, entirely belong to any of them, but belongs (to each) in accordance with their undivided shares; so that they hold their shares more by an understanding, rather than physically. And so if he stipulates for something, or makes an acquisition in some other way, he acquires for all his owners in proportion to their interest in him. He is, however, allowed to stipulate for any one of his masters specifically, or to receive the property delivered in order to acquire it for him alone. But if he does not stipulate specifically for one master, but, by the order of one of them, it is our practice to hold that he acquires the property for the one alone by whose order he made the stipulation.”; cf. Leesen 2009: 253- 263 on the legal controversy involved in this passage. 679 Salway 2010: 7-8. cf. Scheidel 1996b: 67-79.

243 a slave as manager of an entire shared workshop or store was probably fairly common, though

Prepusa probably merely worked with her husband and patron. Ulpian does discuss liability where the servus communis was actually the manager of the shop, also jointly owned. 680 Here, significantly, full liability could be applied to any owner of the shop, slave, and merchandise in a direct analogy to the actiones exercitoria and de peculio , the most salient legal responsibility being involvement in the economic unit as a whole. Nonetheless, it is easy to imagine a situation where multiple freed principles were working in a manufacturing cooperative, conducting the same sort of work with some slaves, property, and materials held jointly and some not. This arrangement of skilled, commonly-held slaves would have been an ideal way to manage their day to day business and would be particularly critical in a business where raw materials and finished products were especially expensive.

The Consii do not represent the only eborarii ab Hercle Primigenio from Rome, however.

Sextus Clodius Amoenus, who seems to have operated in the same neighbourhood, had a simple epitaph and no obvious professional or personal connection to the other ivory-workers in the area. 681 It may be that this was an ivory-workers’ quarter, as the Sacra Via appears to have been for aurifices . It is possible that Amoenus had some familial connection to another group of Clodii

680 Ulp. Dig . XIV, 3, 13, 2: Si duo pluresve tabernam exerceant et servum, quem ex disparibus partibus habebant, institorem praeposuerint, utrum pro dominicis partibus teneantur an pro aequalibus an pro portione mercis an vero in solidum, Iulianus quaerit. Et verius esse ait exemplo exercitorum et de peculio actionis in solidum unumquemque conveniri posse, et quidquid is praestiterit qui conventus est, societatis iudicio vel communi dividundo consequetur, quam sententiam et supra probavimus ; “Where two or more persons are conducting a shop, and they appoint as business-agent a slave whom they own in unequal shares, Julianus asks whether they are liable in proportion to their shares in the slave, or equally, or in proportion to their shares in the merchandise, or indeed, for the entire amount? He says that the better opinion would seem to be, as in the case of ship captains, as well as in the case of the actio de peculio, that any of them can be sued for the entire indebtedness, and that whatever he who is sued has paid, he can recover by the action on partnership, or by that for the partition of property held in common. This opinion we have also approved above.”; cf. Aubert 1994: 54. 681 CIL VI 7655: Sex. Clodius Sex. Amoenus, / eborarius ab Hercule / Primigenio.

244 who were also eborarii at Rome. 682 Their epitaph and funerary portraits give no geographical designation and no explicit link to Amoenus, so the connection is tenuous. Bromius had a different praenomen but was a freedman of a husband and wife pair, an Aulus and a Clodia, so it may well be that he obtained his name from her father. Nevertheless, the impression that the inscription of

Publius Clodius Bromius gives is of a coherent economic unit and is worth remarking on briefly, not least because of some similarities to that of Consius Antiochus and the evident importance of shared ownership here too. The tomb itself features the portraits of Bromius, his wife Curiata

Ammia, their co-owned delicia , Hilarius, and one of their togate freedmen. As with the Consii, a woman seems to play a key role in the business of her freedman husband, having co-owned multiple slaves with him. In Bromius and Curiata’s business, we again seem to have the prominent employment of servi communes , almost certainly as ivory-workers as well. The two freedmen,

Rufio and Anteros, were both liberti communes of Bromius and Curiata, while two others, Suavis and Heraclida, appear to have once been slaves of the wife and husband, respectively. Heraclida seems to have replaced an erased name on the monument, likely another freedman, so their workforce may have consisted of at least five slaves. Unfortunately, Curiata’s legal status is unstated, so it is unclear whether she was ingenua or freed or whether she came from an ivory- working background initially. She was evidently “a woman of means”,683 as Treggiari says, but the two jointly-owned slaves suggest strongly that Curiata, too, had an interest in her husband’s business.

682 CIL VI 9375: P. Clodius A. et Clodiae l. Bromius, eborarius, / Curiata Ammia, concubina mei amantissima, / Hilario P. et Curiatiae deliciae. // P. Clodius P. et Curiatiae l. / Rufio, / <>. // P. Clodius P. et Curiatiae l. / Anteros, / Suavis Curiatiae l.; “Publius Clodius Bromius, freedman of Aulus and Clodia, ivory- worker, and Curiata Ammia, my most loving wife, for Hilarius, the darling slave of Publius and Curiata. Publius Clodius Rufio, the freedman of Publius and Curiata, [also the remains of] Publius Clodius Heraclida, freedman of Publius. Publius Clodius Anteros, freedman of Publius and Curiata, and Suavis, freedman of Curiata.”; cf. Joshel 1992: 140-141. 683 Treggiari 1981: 66.

245

Among ten inscriptions of eborarii , we have two such instances of servi communes and in both instances the slaves were subsequently freed. This is obviously a very small sample but, for patrons generally, the benefits of co-ownership in the context of manufacturing could extend beyond manumission. Pomponius, citing Labeo, says that a share of the operae of a freedman was owed to each co-patron, who could demand them either directly or through a slave at any time. 684

It is also pretty clear from the juristic sources that the interests of one of the owners in the freedman was not impacted when the other did something like bequeathed their operae to an heir. 685 As mentioned earlier, services specifically pertaining to a trade were transferable and could be rendered to another by order of the patron. This means that the benefits of drawing specific services of goods production from freedmen could be split as well. Not only that, but if the patrons were husband and wife or brothers, as was often the case, the economic benefit of the services would remain in the same household. Finally, if they retained some share of the business itself, they could easily fold the operae back into the general running of the business. This would be particularly beneficial in a workshop where having three or four freedmen employed at the same time could

684 Pomp. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 8, pr.: Si quando duobus patronis iuraverit libertus operas se daturum, Labeoni placet et deberi et peti posse partem operae, cum semper praeterita opera, quae iam dari non possit, petatur. Quod contingit, si vel ipsis patronis iuretur vel promittatur vel communi eorum servo vel complures heredes uni patrono existant ; “Whenever a freedman has sworn to provide his services to two patrons, it is held by Labeo that a portion is owed (to each) and that this can be demanded of him, since past services, which could not be provided at the time, are constantly required. This occurs whether the freedman has sworn or promised to render his services the patrons, themselves, or to a slave owned by both of them or where several heirs of one patron exist.” 685 Pomp. Dig . XXXVIII, 1, 4: A duobus manumissus utrique operas promiserat: altero ex his mortuo nihil est, quare non filio eius, quamvis superstite altero, operarum detur petitio. Nec hoc quicquam commune habet cum hereditate aut bonorum possessione: perinde enim operae a libertis ac pecunia credita petitur. Haec ita Aristo scripsit, cuius sententiam puto veram: nam etiam praeteritarum operarum actionem dari heredi extraneo sine metu exceptionis placet. Dabitur igitur et vivo altero patrono ; “A slave manumitted by two masters had promised services to each: when one of these has died, there is no reason why a request for services should not be granted to his son, even if the other master is still alive. This has nothing in common with inheritance or the right of possession of an estate, for services are sought from freedmen just as if they were money lent to them. Aristo, whose opinion I think right, wrote this; for it is even held that an action is given to a foreign heir for neglected services, without the fear of an exception by the defendant. And so it should be given even if the other patron is alive.”

246 potentially amount to forty days or more of skilled wages that would otherwise be paid to them, especially if these were exploited during periods of high demand.

Other sorts of workers evince similar trends to eborarii . Both L. Vilonius Tityrus, a flaturarius de Sacra Via , and his wife, Vilonia Quinta, had been the servi communes of a Lucius and a woman. 686 T. Calidius Primus, a “ vestiarius tenuiarius de vico Tusco ” was the freedman of two Titii and a woman, 687 and the bronzesmith A. Balonius Hilarus 688 and helmet-maker M.

Viserius Liccaeus 689 , among others, were both once owned by what were probably husband and wife couples. Ivory-workers, though their sample size is very small, display the highest proportion of joint-ownership. Among a group of gemmarii , jewelers and gem-setters, however, we also see a slightly different organization of freedmen: not co-ownership, but rather what was probably the combination of two different slave workforces in the same business and location.

Altogether there are eleven different gemmarii attested from seven different inscriptions from Italy. Of these, six (~55%) were certainly freed, one (~9%) was probably freed, and the other four (~36%) were incerti . All but one, who appears with her husband, were men. In both instances of gemmarii appearing with toponyms in their epitaphs, the jewelers in question were engaged in business on the Sacra Via ,690 just as the aurifices who also appear to have been concentrated in

686 CIL VI 9419. 687 CIL VI 33923: [T. C]alidius TT. (mulieris) / l. Primus, vestiarius / tenuiarius de vico / Tusco, Calidia TT. |(mulieris) l. / v(ivit) Hilara, Prisco liberto / et sibi et suis ; “Titus Calidius Primus, freedman of the Titii and a woman, seller of fine clothes from the vicus Tuscus and Calidia Hilara, freedwoman of the Titii and a woman, while alive, made this for their freedman Priscus, for themselves, and for their own.”; it is also noteworthy that his wife was a colliberta . 688 CIL VI 9134: A. Baloni / |(mulieris) et Cn. l. / Hilari, aerari(i). 689 CIL VI 1952: T. Lessius T. l. Clarus, / M. Antonius M. l. Dionysius, / Q. Pinarius Quartio, / C. Manneius C. l. Chius, / C. Pulmonius C. l. Hilarus, / T. Fadius T. l. Philodamus, / M. Viseri(us) Q. et |(mulieris) l. Liccaei cas(s)ida(rius), // P. Trebonius P. l. Eros, / L. Modius Proculus, praeco, / L. Vibius L. l. Anteros, / T. Publilius T. l. Agathemerus, / L. Novius L. l. Philemo, / T. Trebonius |(mulieris) l. Priamus, / M. Caedicius |(mulieris) l. Felix, gladiarius. 690 CIL VI 9434: L. Albius L. l. / Thaemella / gemmarius d[e] Sacra Via. // Albia L. l. / Primigenia, / vix(it) ann(os) XXIII ; “Lucius Albius Thaemella, freedman of Lucius, jeweler of the Sacred Way. Albia Primigenia, freedwoman of Lucius, lived 32 years.”; CIL VI 9435 (below).

247 the same area. One of the two, CIL VI 9434, names the jeweler L. Albius Thaemella and Albia

Primigenia, perhaps his colliberta and wife. His age is not given, but she, twenty-three when she died, was manumitted before the age of thirty. Though the inscription does not say so explicitly, it seems quite likely that they worked together. It is significant that they were probably colliberti as well as running a business together. The cluster of gemmarii on the Sacra Via among the gold- and bronzesmiths also suggests that these artisans may have cooperated with each other, each subcontracting the distinct, complementary skills of their neighbours when necessary. These retail clusters, once established, probably also self-replicated somewhat naturally, since there was also a stable local demand. 691

The other toponymic inscription is a little more revealing and involves two family groups who appear to have shared the same shop there. 692 The first consisted of Babbia Asia and Babbius

Regillus, who were at the very least colliberti and perhaps husband and wife, while the second was a group of three Plotii, probably also colliberti .693 There is no direct mention of patron involvement and no discernable connection between the two different groups, though it may be the case here as well that the Babbii and the Plotii constituted the workforce of a jointly-owned shop, even if they were evidently not jointly-owned themselves. It is possible that the Babbia who manumitted Asia and Regillus and the patron of the Plotii were also husband and wife and that that explains their shared workplace as freedmen. There is nothing to suggest that they weren’t simply two groups of

691 Goodman 2016 describes this hypothetical phenomenon in detail, particularly in the context of high-value goods; of course, it is possible that we are simply dealing with the combined manumitted staff of husband and wife pairs, but it would be difficult to explain the clustering based on this alone. 692 CIL VI 9435: V(iva) Babbia |(mulieris) l. Asia / v(ivus) C. Babbius |(mulieris) l. Regillus / |(obiit) Q. Plotius Q. l. Nicep(h)or / v(ivus) Q. Plotius Q. l. Anteros / v(ivus) Q. Plotius Q. l. Felix / gem(m)ari(i) de Sacra Viam(!) ; “Babbia Asia, freedwoman of a woman, (while) alive, Caius Babbius Regillus, freedman of a woman, (while) alive, Quintus Plotius Nicephor, deceased, Quintus Plotius Anteros, (while) alive, Quintus Plotius Felix, (while) alive, jewelers of the Sacred Way.” 693 Joshel 1992: 134-135.

248 liberti , unified by the same technical skill, who chose to share a workplace after manumission.

Nonetheless, the concentration of labourers from both families skilled in such a technical craft obviously indicates that both patrons had made a concerted effort to train multiple specialist slaves.

Hawkins has speculated that the patrona Babbia may have been motivated to combine her slaves with Plotius’ “because she herself lacked the technical skills necessary to keep an inherited business afloat and needed the support of a new partner or husband to do so”. 694 This is possible, of course, but we should not presume that her gender alone corresponds to a lack of practical knowledge nor should we necessarily view it as an impediment, especially if she had an existing workforce of experienced freedmen she could draw on to act as her agents in legal transactions. 695

Another explanation could simply be that, as with some eborarii , the high supply cost of gemmarii was easier to bear when split among more than one owner or patron. Added to these considerations are the costs of specialist training and rent in a fashionable district, both also alleviated when shared. If these freedmen had occupied the same store while still slaves – in a heavily-trafficked area known for high-end producers of jewelry and other luxury goods – the cost of rent would probably have been quite high, though we cannot know this for certain. Whether or not the two patrons continued to be involved directly in this collective of “ gemmarii de Sacra Via ” after manumission, it seems clear that the collaboration likely originated from an arrangement similar to those seen among some ivory-workers. Though the slaves would have continued to legally belong to their individual masters initially, it would have been relatively uncomplicated to shift labour between them within the workplace to smooth its operation if that became necessary.

Similarly, while neither of the patrons had any legal claim over the other’s freedmen or their

694 Hawkins 2016b: 254. 695 Cf. Holleran 2013.

249 operae , there was nothing to prevent them from transferring these to each other later. The patrons

Babbia and Plotius consequently maintained the benefit of having five freedmen between them – along with the complete functional equipage of an entire active shop – to employ in this way.

5.6 Pistores and the Apparent Absence of Intra-Freedman Cooperation

Bakers represent a professional group for which it can be difficult to tell whether their title refers to domestic or non-domestic work. For some it is much clearer that they worked exclusively outside of household based on occupational terminology alone. M. Iunius Pudens, for example, described himself as a “ pistor magnarius pepsianus ”, maybe best translated as something like a

“large-scale baker of digestive bread”, 696 and so evidently ran an industrial bakery of some sort.

The proximity of someone like T. Statilius Eros to his patron’s household, though, is much more difficult to ascertain. 697 The range of statuses was pretty narrow for named pistores . Of Italian bakers, ~45% (21 of 47) were definitely freedmen, ~13% (6) were probably slaves, ~11% (5) were definitely slaves, and ~26% (12) were free incerti , but only one can be confirmed definitively as an ingenuus . If we think of the description of a bakery by Apuleius, 698 the role of slave labour in bakeries may seem unremarkable. But those commemorated in inscriptions as bakers were obviously not the menial workers at the mills. 699 As with bigger workshops and fulleries, large

696 CIL VI 9810: Dis Manibus / M. Iuni Pudentis, / pistori magnario pepsiano. / Claudia Earine / coniugi karissimo et sibi fecit, / cum quo vixit a virginitate annis XXXV / sine ullo dolore, nisi diem mortis eius et / libertis liberta{r}bus posterisque eorum ; “To the Divine Shades of Marcus Iunius Pudens, large-scale baker of digestive bread. Claudia Earine made this for herself and for her dearest husband, with whom she lived for 35 years without any sorrow, except for the day of his death, and for her freedmen and women and their descendants.”; cf. Joshel 1992: 96. 697 CIL VI 9808: T. Statilius / Eros, pistor, / Caninianus. // Statilia / Zotiche ; Caldelli and Ricci 1999: 138, n.23. 698 Apul. Met . IX, 12. 699 Flohr 2016: 159: “…if you only knead the loaves or mill the grain, you probably are less inclined to call yourself a baker.”

250 bakeries probably demonstrated a significant division of labour when it came to different steps of the production process, 700 and so those memorialized with occupational titles were doubtless mostly proprietors. A 1 st century CE inscription from Ulubrae, likely documenting membership of a local collegium of bakers, perhaps gives a better general picture of those managing the bakeries. 701 Only ten of the names are complete enough to give a status designation, but nine of these are freedmen. Presumably, these were all semi-independent managers of their own enterprises.

Monteix has also recently discussed how different bakeries at Pompeii had a diversity of operational functions within them and that no one had every single aspect of a complete operational sequence within it, with only eleven of thirty-nine having milling facilities; some bakeries, then,

“had flour outputs beyond their baking capacities, allowing the development of bakeries without mills”. 702 Pompeii was probably not unusual in this respect in urban Roman Italy, where finding space for milling operations, on top of the already large footprint of ovens, would have been costly.

This suggests an area of Roman production where building up a network of multiple, complementary, and more vertically integrated freedman-run bakeries and mills would be especially beneficial to a patron, since it would allow for a more efficient control and allocation of stages of production. We would expect, then, to see clear examples of colliberti , either working together or in loose collaboration, as we have seen among eborarii , for example.

700 Flohr 2016: 158. 701 CIL X 6494: C. Ruelius C. f. Tro. Bassus, M(arcus) V[---], / M. Papius M. l. Epaphra, L. Tuc[---], / A. Pomponius A. l. Hilarus, Q. Pacc[---], / C. Caecilius C. l. Iucundus, M. Plot[---], / M. Arrius ((mulieris)) l. Auctus, C. Vocc[---], / L. Appuleius ((mulieris)) l. Ambactus, [L.] App[---], / C. Terentius ((mulieris)) l. Art[e]midor[us ---], / Cn. Tanonius Cn. l. Plut[---], / M. Marcius M. l. Felix [---], / D. Antistius D. l. Philar[g]u[rus ---], / pisto[res]. 702 Monteix 2016: 171.

251

There are a few hints of such practices, but little conclusive evidence. The fragmentary epitaph of Ogulnius, a pistor similaginarius , appearing near the famous tomb of the baker

Eurysaces near the Porta Maggiore could be a case of two freedmen bakers working together. 703

Their individual statuses are unknown and his epitaph may represent an adjacent, unrelated tomb, but the “ amicus ” does not make it far-fetched that he was a specialist colleague of Eurysaces. 704

This is the only attestation of the title “ pistor similaginarius ”, so it is unclear if we should consider it a designation within a larger baking organization or not. Ogulnius may have run a specialty branch of Eurysaces’ broader enterprise. Of course, even if they were both freedmen, they were certainly not colliberti .

The inscriptions of the monumentum Arunceiorum from the early 1 st century CE, on the other hand, are worth noting. 705 In them, we have a wide range of different freedmen occupations represented, but also some possible evidence of cooperation between different links in a production chain. A sepulchral inscription on a bust indicates the main dedicatees in the tomb were all colliberti of C. Aurunceius Princeps. 706 A catalogue of the members of the tomb lists them incompletely. 707 In addition to the pistor Faustus recorded in the main list, another baker, C.

Aurunceius Appa, also appears with him in an individualized inscription. 708 It is possible that these

703 CIL VI 9812: [-] Ogulnius [---], / pistor simi[laginarius], / amicus [---]; “[-] Ogulnius [---], baker of white wheat bread, friend…” 704 Hackworth Petersen 2003: 237; contra , see Ciancio Rossetto 1973: 71-73. 705 CIL VI 13402-13415, 34652; LTUR I 196-198, §127. 706 CIL VI 13411: C. Aurunceio C. [et] M. l. Principì, / conliberti et conlibertae, / honoris caus{s}a merenti. 707 CIL VI 13402: Hesiodos lect(icarius) l. / Ambactus tect(or) l. / Syntropus hor(rearius) l. / Prima ornat(rix) l. / Alcim(us) polit(or) l. / Faustus pist(or) l. / Secundus l. / Protomachus l. / Primigenius min(or) l. / Primigenius mar(morarius) l. / Veneria l. / Chresimus faber l. // Faustus Rust(icianus) l. / Chares l. / Her(a)clida l. / Anteros l. / Dromo l. / Fausta l. / Eros Mahe(tianus) l. / Primigenia Mah(etiana) l. / Fortunata Ant(erotiana) l. / Saturnina / Medusa Anterot(iana) l. / Mystes horr(earius) [l.] / Lychi Terti(ani) [l.] // Ano[---] / Hilar[---] / Her[---] / Dio[---] / Gi[---] / E[---]. 708 CIL VI 13406: C. Aurunceius C. l. Appa, / pistor. / C. Aurunceius Faustus, pistor.

252 were domestic bakers, but the other occupations listed in the monument do not look like a conventional domestic roster. Interestingly, the monumentum includes two horrearii , Syntropus and Mystes, as well. It would make sense that a patron would have interests in both baking and grain supply, since it would allow for greater vertical integration in an area of production where that might be especially advantageous. While this could be a sign of collaboration between the groups of Aurunceii, it is far from conclusive. We may simply have a patron who chose to invest in a diverse group of skilled slaves without any intention of creating a vertically integrated firm of any sort. There are other vague hints of cooperation between pistores and grain merchants elsewhere, 709 but no definite signs of such arrangements within familiae or between freedmen of the same patron.

In fact, the two Aurunceii colliberti pistores are exceptional. Very few bakers mention either their patrons or colliberti in funerary inscriptions. Only the Aurunceii and perhaps two others mention colliberti .710 Sex. Bittius Eleuther seems to have run a small bakery at Corfinium, perhaps with his wife and colliberta .711 This gives the epigraphic appearance of other production organizations and they may have been established in their business by their patron before manumission, but no additional slaves or freedmen are mentioned in the epitaph. The baker A.

709 Though not himself a baker, M. Caerellius Iazemis, a mercator frumentarius from Tibur, held important posts in a collegium pistorum there: CIL XIV 4234: M. Caerellius / Iazemis, q(uin)q(uennalis) / pistorum III / et perpet(uus), / codicarius item / mercator frumentarius, / Invicto / Herculi / ex v(oto) d(onum) d(edit) ; “Marcus Caerellius Iazemis, quinquennal of the association of bakers three times and for life, shipper and seller of grain, gave this gift fulfilling a vow to Hercules Invictus.”; cf. Friggeri et al. 2012: 490-491, viii, 2; however, this is may simply be an instance of bakers honouring an important supplier, rather than an indication that Iazemis also had personal financial interests in baking. 710 CIL X 5346: D(is) M(anibus). / M. Orbius M. l. Principis, / pistor, sevir August(alis), / M. Coelio Hilaro Ocei(?) et / Orbiae M. l. Nymphae et / M. Orbio Agrypno. / In fr(onte) p(edes) XV, / in ag(ro) p(edes) XII ; and CIL VI 9808. 711 CIL IX 3190: Sex. Bittius / Sex. l. Eleuther, pistor, / viv(u)s sivi et Fortu/natae, filiae piissim(ae), / vix(it) an(nos) VIIII, dies XVII / et Cerviae Sex. l. H[y]mnidi / contbernali vivae / p(osuit) .

253

Mulvius Alexa was memorialized by his own freedmen,712 and while the latter may have been bakers themselves, there are no other references to patrons in any inscriptions. The rather lengthy list of liberti from Aquileia may represent a largely freedman-run bakery organization, but it is unclear how many of them were involved in their patron’s business. We do not know whether the former domini of Orbius or the Aurunceii had been bakers themselves. It is difficult to trace direct connections between pistores patroni and pistores liberti , though surely these must have existed.

Nonetheless, even if only a few of the liberti Mulvii were also bakers, the large number of them suggests a wide-ranging enterprise, probably with multiple bakery locations in the city.

More often than not, though, individual bakers appear without their freedmen or a slave workforce and it is rather surprising that there is virtually no evidence for cooperation among colliberti groups, especially since sharing milling operations and other overhead costs between different bakeries would have been economical. Of course, this does not mean that this never took place, but as a comparison to other sectors of production, this may demonstrate two things. First, the lack of social and work groups represented in bakers’ epitaphs may simply be a reflection of a less intimate work environment than for other craftsmen and shop workers. Additionally, the need to train a large number of supplementary skilled slaves in bakeries may have been more limited, either because production units could remain fairly small and localized or because they could rely on non-specialist labour for more generic, low-skill stages of manufacture. Where workforces were larger and had fewer specific production steps, individual workers would be less likely to be identified by professional title in inscriptions. As the inscription of multiple pistores from Ulubrae

712 CIL V 1036: A. Mulvio A. l. Alexae, / pistori. / A. Mulvius A. l. Iucundus / v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et patrono / et suis libert(is) et libertab(us). / A. Mulvius A. l. Bassus, / A. Mulvius A. l. Iu(v)enes, / A. Mulvius A. l. Priamus, / A. Mulvius A. l. Pudens, / A. Mulvius A. l. Firmus, / A. Mulvius A. l. Modestus, / A. Mulvius A. l. Faustus, / A. Mulvius A. l. Chrisello ; cf. Hope 2001: 115, 3.

254 shows, though, this certainly does not mean that liberti weren’t well-represented among the managerial tier of bakers – quite the opposite. Yet they do not seem to have worked in colliberti groups to the same extent as other manufacturers.

5.7 Commercial Textile Production, Social Groups, and Operae

While this is surprisingly less apparent among bakers, most artisanal groups do show a high degree of nucleation around family units and groups of fellow freedmen. This is certainly true for textile workers, where there are a remarkably high number of social relations represented, especially husband and wife and colliberti groups. In many of these instances of manumission of husband and wife pairs, the motivation is evidently distinctly different from that of the partners of dispensatores , for example, seen in chapter 2.713 Manumissions of both individuals were, by all appearances, more or less contemporaneous. At the very least, we see no evidence anywhere in the epigraphic record that a quasi-independent slave craftsman or a slave institor continued to be enslaved while their partner was manumitted for the purposes of incentivizing the remaining servus , as with dispensatores .714 The frequent appearance of couples and family groups cannot simply be ascribed to freedmen with no previous experience in the enterprise deciding to set out into the new, uncharted waters of skilled craftsmanship with each other after their manumission.

Rather, the appearance of multiple colliberti together and, more significantly, multiple colliberti with family ties to each other, should be considered in the context of both earlier managerial

713 See Chapter 2. 714 Q. Cornelius Philomusus of CIL VI 9868 was probably freed while one of his sisters and his mother were not, but this is an ambiguous case.

255 arrangements and the apparent preference for relying on slave labour for artisanal production. An added – and perhaps not insignificant – consideration for patron manufacturers also seems to have been the productive operae of freedmen. This, too, would explain the high number of inter-related freedman groups we see among artisanal firms, since, as I will argue, patroni were more likely to manumit and group together similarly-skilled liberti .

This does not necessarily explain why masters might have been more comfortable, in general, manumitting skilled slaves, on whose training they had no doubt spent a large amount of time and expense. There is one instance of a manufacturer who may have purchased the freedom of his family from the Late Republican period, an unguentarius from Venusius named

Philargyrus. 715 The inscription is fragmentary, though, and it is not certain whether “isque ” refers to the perfumer or to someone else. No doubt slaves in such semi-independent positions had a greater capacity to purchase their own manumission, since often they would have had access to larger peculia than others for the administration of their businesses. Purchasing freedom, though, should be weighed against the master’s loss of direct control over the skilled slave’s productivity. 716 Using skilled liberti to train new slaves would have provided some offset to counter manumission and a natural decline in productivity, 717 but this would necessarily require a continued connection to the production unit and authority over the expertise of the freedman. M.

Canuleius Zosimus, mentioned earlier and manumitted before he died at age twenty-eight, evidently continued to have a very close relationship with his patron. His expertise may have helped in training other slaves, but his probable status as a Junian Latin would also have kept him

715 CIL I 1703: [---] / C. l. Philar/gyro, un/g(u)entario, / isque fami/liam suam / manumisit / pecuniamq(ue) / [---]; “…to Philargyrus, freedman of Caius, perfumer, and he manumitted his familia and money…”; cf. Fabre 1981: 27. 716 On slaves purchasing the freedom of themselves or others, generally, see Weiler 2003: 243-250. 717 cf. Hawkins 2012: 48, on this sort of training to counter the fact that the value and productivity of highly-skilled slaves would necessarily depreciate over time due to age, even without manumission.

256 more securely reliant on his patron than other freedmen. Operae , too, provided the patron with a crucial mechanism of control over an artisan’s expertise and productivity. These could be more effectively exploited, though, if the patron maintained a close economic relationship with their liberti , by sharing production and transaction costs and allowing them to share in the business through limited partnerships, for example. 718 We have already seen examples of these management practices in the working of precious metals and other luxury goods, but they are equally pronounced in high-value textile production.

There are three main occupational groups in textile and garment production that I have focused on: sarcinatores , vestiarii , and sagarii . Vestiarii and sagarii are the occupational titles most represented in the corpus, though obviously they do not designate the full range of different textile-related jobs. 719 As Liu has noted in her study of the collegia centonariorum , very few collegiati in the broader Roman world seem to have been freedmen. 720 The situation is different at Rome, where somewhere between 50 and 70% were freedmen. 721 It should be stressed, however, that Liu’s conclusions were limited just to one collegium and, as Tran has shown, do not apply universally; other collegia certainly had higher proportions of freedmen members. 722

Nonetheless, Liu’s findings underscore some of the complications in relying on specific occupational inscriptions, often characterized by regional variation, in attempting to discern management structures. Those identified as textile workers on epitaphs, though, would constitute a broader group than the collegiati alone. As with bakers, textile workers provide an additional

718 Hawkins 2016b: 165. 719 cf. Vicari 2001: 74-75. 720 Liu 2009: 174-175; of 226 names of collegiati , 11 “were incontrovertibly of freedman status”, 5 were very likely freedmen, and 40 were perhaps freed, “constituting a relatively small percentage of the 226 names we possess.” 721 Liu 2009: 184. 722 Tran 2006.

257 difficulty when it comes to their occupational titles, since it is sometimes very difficult to tell whether they operated within households or in private shops. That many sarcinatores , whose main purpose was mending used clothes, were probably domestic workers is reflected in the status of those commemorated. 723 Of the nineteen attested sarcinatores in Italy, only five were certainly not slaves and three of those were certain freedwomen. 724 Three can be confirmed as slaves when they died, 725 but the remaining majority – especially those from Rome – likely were as well. At least four were buried in the monumentum Statiliorum 726 and so were probably domestic workers.

As is true of textile work generally, this sort of needlework was completely dominated by female workers. Just one male sarcinator , one of the four Statilii, 727 is attested in an epitaph, with all of the others being sarcinatrices .

One of the few sarcinatrices for whom we have an age at death was Matia Prima, who was freed and forty-six when she died. 728 This is also one of the few instances where is clear that she had an independent shop at an unknown location at Rome. 729 Her husband’s occupation is not mentioned, however, and Matia was unusual in having a stand-alone shop outside a household. A probable serva sarcinatrix from Rome appears with her contubernalis , a shoemaker. 730 An incerta ,

723 Joshel 1992: 95. 724 Fausta Marcia of AE 1977, 62 is incerta ; Statilia Calliste of CIL VI 9883 is probably freed; the others are CIL VI 9884; CIL XI 5437 (from Asisium); and CIL V 2542 (from Ateste). 725 CIL VI 6351; CIL VI 9877; CIL VI 9881. 726 CIL VI 6348-6351; the tabula of Statilia Calliste, CIL VI 9883, may also have originally been in the columbarium . 727 CIL VI 6348: Attalus / sarcinator . 728 CIL VI 9884: T. Thoranius / T. l. Salvius / sibi et // Matiae |(mulieris) l. Prime / coniugi suae / sarcinatr(ici) ab Sex / Ar(e)is vix(it) an(nos) XLVI ; “Titus Thoranius Salvius, freedman of Titus, for himself and for Matia Prima, freedwoman of a woman, his wife, mender of clothes at the six altars, who lived 46 years.” 729 “Ab Sex Areis ” is also mentioned as a business location of freedmen bankers in CIL VI 9178: L. Suestilius / L. l. Clarus / argentarius ab / sex areis sibi et / L. Suestilio Laeto / nummulario ab / sex areis, / vixit ann(os) XIIX. / In f(ronte) p(edes) XIX, in ag(ro) p(edes) XIIX ; “Lucius Suestilius Clarus, freedman of Lucius, banker at the Six Altars, made this for himself and for Lucius Suestilius Laetus, money-changer at the Six Altars, who lived 18 years. 19 feet wide, 18 feet deep.” 730 AE 1950, 86: Fausto c[ont(ubernali)] / sutor[i]. / Lais sarci[natrix].

258 perhaps a freedwoman, was memorialized with her husband and his subsequent wife as well. 731 It is notable that she shared a gentilicium with her free-born husband, though her legal status is not provided. In the majority of cases, however, inscriptions of sarcinatrices did not mention another individual (~79%) and typically appeared only on modest grave markers.

The situation is markedly different for other textile occupational groups. Vestiarius was the most common term for tailors outside of a domestic context and, unsurprisingly, they represent the largest single occupational group of textile workers. There are sixty-seven individual vestiarii attested epigraphically in Italy. Unlike sarcinatrices , vestiarii produced garments from raw fabric they themselves bought and so would have been involved in more complex business transactions than simple menders. In a similar vein, they far more often evince an independent place of business outside of the domestic sphere. While it was not usually a term applied to workers within households, a few, like the Eros mentioned in the Testamentum Dasumii,732 probably did work directly and exclusively for their masters. Most, however, ran independent shops. Overall, ~36%

(24 of 67) of vestiarii list a location in their occupational title, a slightly higher proportion than aurifices . Of these twenty-four, only six appear without additional family or coworkers mentioned in their epitaphs. 733 In general, epitaphs which mention shop locations also indicate that these were centered around freedmen or family groups.

731 AE 1977, 62: L. Marci Sp. f. Suc. / Clementis / et Faustae Marciae sarcin(atrici) / coniugi suae / et Obsequenti l. co(n)iugi suae / et posterisq(ue) suis ; “Of Lucius Marcius Clemens, son of Spurius, of the tribe Sucusana, and Fausta Marcia, needle-worker and his wife, and for Obsequens, freedwoman and his wife, and for their descendants.” 732 CIL VI 10229, ln. 50: [---]i Eros vestiarius ratione u[t ---]; another is mentioned in ln. 62, though it is only a partial name: [---]ni vestiari.. . 733 CIL V 324; CIL VI 9962; CIL VI 39478; CIL VI 9974; CIL VI 9976; and Solin 1975: 28-30.

259

Three inscriptions identify vestiarii a compito Aliario and it is possible that a fourth inscription involving a vestiarius also refers to the same neighbourhood. 734 These individual clothes-producing firms may not have been related to each other in any specific way, but by all appearances the area around this particular compitum constituted a quarter where the trade was very active. Of these, the case of Helvius Gratus and his freedmen represents the clearest example of a freedman-run business. 735 Helvius Nysus and Helvia Nysa are not identified individually by occupational titles, but they likely were vestiarii , in addition to being colliberti and probably heirs to their two patrons, both his young son and Gratus. That they were manumitted while the latter was alive is made more likely by the fact that they seem to have had a free-born son, themselves.

This suggests, then, a situation where a freed vestiarius continued to work with his own skilled freed slaves, perhaps even partnering with them. That they were ostensibly heirs to their patron makes it reasonable to assume that they took over at least some of his business interests. Hawkins has suggested that this sort of manumission of artisans could be a good way of balancing the incentivization of freedom and economic partnership with the exploitation of skilled operae .736 If

Gratus had trained Nysus and Nysa in tailoring as his slaves within his shop, he could ensure an

734 CIL VI 39478: T. Pinnius T. l. Suntrophus / vestiarius / ab Compito Aliario ; “Titus Pinnius Suntrophus, freedman of Titus, tailor at the Aliarian crossroads.”; CIL VI 4476: L. Naevius Amphio vestiar(ius) / a Compito Aliario, / Curiatia |(mulieris) l. Prima, / L. Naevius Felix vestiarius; “Lucius Naevius Amphio, tailor at the Aliarian crossroads, Curiatia Prima, freedwoman of a woman, Lucius Naevius Felix, tailor.”; CIL VI 9971 (see next page); cf. González 2016: 179- 180, though he seems to misconstrue the relationship between the Helvii of 9971; the fourth is CIL VI 9970: Paenia Primigenia / Paeni Iucundi lib. / vixit annis XX; / vestiarius a compito / L. Sempronius Menander / haec viva testamentum fecit / et heredem ex asse fecit et efferri se / iussit arbitratu suo bene mer(enti) coniug(i) suae fec(it) ; “Paenia Primigenia, freedwoman of Paenius Iucundus, lived 20 years. Lucius Sempronius Menander, tailor at the crossroads, made a will while this woman was alive and made her sole heir, ordered that she be buried by his judgment, and made this for his well-deserving wife.”; cf. LTUR I 315 on the identification with the Compitum Aliarium . 735 CIL VI 9971: L. Helvio L. l. Grato, / vestiario / a Compito Aliario, / L. Helvio L. f. Col. Grato, / filio, vix(it) ann(os) V mens(es) V. / L. Helvius Nysus et / Helvia Nysa / patronis et sibi, / L. Helvio L. f. Col. Festo, / vixit ann(is) II dieb(us) XI ; “For Lucius Helvius Gratus, freedman of Lucius, tailor at the Aliarian crossroads, and for Lucius Helvius Gratus, son of Lucius, of the Collina tribe, who lived 5 years, 5 months. Lucius Helvius Nysus and Helvia Nysa made this for their patrons and for themselves and for Lucius Helvius Festus, son of Lucius, who lived 2 years, 11 days.”; cf. Joshel 1992: 71. 736 Hawkins 2016b: 165-166.

260 experienced workforce, insulated from the tightness and variability of the free labour market. In manumitting them, he could continue to enjoy access to their labour through periodic requirements of services. Operae could be employed to support his own production at times of seasonal high- priority, particularly if he was able to draw on these selectively from multiple liberti . Since they were no longer his slaves, they had greater latitude in their own transactions and could help to expand the business and share in the overhead costs, but their production remained tethered to their patron in critical ways.

It is also worth noting the mention of the younger Gratus, who, despite being only five when he died, was still honoured with his voting-tribe affiliation by the two former slaves, an insistence on his free-born status. Significantly, they identify both Grati as their patrons, disregarding the young child’s obvious incapacity. It may be that this was an acknowledgement of the elder Gratus’ intention to have his son take over his father’s position of authority. While it is not absolutely certain that Nysus and Nysa assumed control of Gratus’ clothing business, it seems likely from context. Based on their names and the fact that they seem to have had a free-born child together, both probably had been slaves and freedmen together for a long period of time. The elder

Gratus was himself manumitted, though we have no attestation of his own patron. Liberti , many of whom would have spent much of their prime child-bearing years in captivity, had less opportunity to reproduce free-born children. Elevated child mortality rates, starkly demonstrated in this epitaph by the deaths of both Festus and the younger Gratus, meant that passing on business interests to their offspring was even more difficult. While Roman men delaying marriage and childbirth could potentially increase their opportunity to gain resources, 737 this potential benefit

737 Hin 2011: 111-114; cf. Pudsey 2011 on the relationship between marriage and birth rates in Roman Egypt. The frequency of mixed, non-conjugal families and cohabitation with married dependants found among Egyptian census

261 was structurally mitigated for freedmen, especially if their business interests were combined with those of their patrons, but even if they were not.

A similar managerial strategy is even more apparent in the epitaph of Cameria Iarine.

Herself the freedwoman of a freedman, she represented the third freed slave in a line of vestiarii liberti .738 There is little sign of a free-born patron that originated the freedman line, but nonetheless there is a clear continuity between members of the professional group active on the vicus Tuscus , which ran southwest from the Roman Forum along the western base of the Palatine. Here we have effectively four “generations” of freedmen, if we include Iarine’s own freedman and husband,

Onesimus, who were all vestarii in the same location. Cameria Iarine was not unique among vestiarii in marrying her freed slave, though she was the only woman to do so. Manlius Auctus’ coniunx was his freedwoman Trophime, who probably worked with him in his business on the

Quirinal. 739 Onesimus’ manumission, unlike Trophime’s, may have come with the added benefit of legal representation for Iarine. Nonetheless, Onesimus clearly was trained as a tailor himself and we clearly have a firm of vestiarii passing from one freedman, to another, to a final group.

Joshel has inferred that this sort of continuity presented in an epitaph emphasized “the possibility of acceding to the patron’s place” and the success implicit in that, in addition to reinforcing familial

records probably provides a good analogy to the demography of mixed freedmen groups in the Italian urban economy, though we should still keep in mind the effect of the unique structural handicaps of liberti . 738 CIL VI 37826: [Camer]ia L. l. Iarine fecit / [L.] [Cam]erio L. l. Thrasoni patrono / [et] L. Camerio L. l. Alexandro / patrono eius et / [L. C]amerio Onesimo lib. et / [vi]ro suo posterisque omnibus, / [vest]iariis tenuariis de vico Tusc(o) ; “Cameria Iarine, freedwoman of Lucius, made this for her patron, Lucius Camerius Thraso, freedman of Lucius, and for his patron, Lucius Camerius Alexander, and for her freedman and husband, Lucius Camerius Onesimus and for all of their descendants, makers of light clothing in the Tuscan quarter.”; cf. Joshel 1992: 138-139; Hawkins 2016b: 159. 739 CIL VI 9975: Cn. Manlio Aucto, / vest[i]ario a Quirinis. / Manlia Trophime / fecit patrono idem con/iugi et sibi et suis li/bertis libertabus poste/risq(ue) eorum. / In fr(onte) p(edes) VI, in ag(ro) p(edes) VI ; “For Cnaeus Manlius Auctus, tailor on the Quirinal. Manlia Trophime made this for her patron and husband and for herself and for their freedmen and women and for their descendants. 6 feet wide and 6 feet deep.”

262 bonds. 740 Beyond this, though, it also demonstrates the cyclical pattern of slave training, manumission, and exploitation of freedmen obligations apparent in many artisanal firms.

Overall, seventeen (25%) vestiarii appear with probable colliberti in their inscriptions, 741 while seven (~15%) mention their own liberti .742 In other cases, patrons are mentioned by groups of freedmen. P. Avillius Menander was commemorated by four of his freed slaves working as tailors in the Cermalus Minisculus. 743 It is very likely that he was himself a tailor there too, but most importantly, he would have had patronal rights over the four other Avillii liberti who had been manumitted while he was still alive. This means that he could profit from the operae of four skilled freedmen employed together at the same lucrative location. 744 If Menander had a large order to fill or if general demand for his goods increased at a specific time, he had recourse to the productive services of four different liberti to manipulate to best serve his own ends. Manumission provided the added benefit of not necessarily having to pay directly for upkeep and expenses of slaves year-round. 745 Yet in retaining freedmen in his own business, this workforce was readily available and could also serve to diffuse overhead costs by working more independently within the enterprise during seasonally slower periods. Having freed junior partners – as opposed to retaining a strictly servile workforce – further allowed them a legal independence of action that

740 Joshel 1992: 145. 741 CIL XI 868 (two vestiarii ); CIL X 5718; CIL VI 4476 (two); CIL VI 9969; CIL VI 9977; CIL VI 10107; CIL VI 33920 (four); CIL VI 33921; CIL VI 33922 (two); CIL VI 33923; AE 1991, 100. 742 CIL IX 1712; CIL X 3959 and CIL X 3960; CIL V 7379; CIL VI 9971; CIL VI 9975; CIL VI 37826; CIL V 3460. 743 CIL VI 33920: P. Avillio P. l. Menandro patrono / post mortem liberti fecerunt et / sibi qui infra scripti sunt: / Avillia P. l. Philusa, / P. Avillius P. l. Hilarus, / P. Avillius P. l. Anteros, / P. Avillius P. l. Felix, / vest[a]ri(i) de Cermalo Minusculo a [---] / sobe[… ; “For Publius Avillius Menander, freedman of Publius, his freedmen made this for their patron after his death and for themselves and for all who are written below: Avillia Philusa, freedwoman of Publius, Publius Avillius Hilarus, freedman of Publius, Publius Avillius Anteros, freedman of Publius, Publius Avillius Felix, freedman of Publius, tailors of the Cermalus Minisculus at …”. 744 Hawkins 2016b: 161. 745 Hawkins 2016b: 151-152.

263 they might not otherwise have. This does not just include the general legal capacities of freedmen, with which they could help to expand the business through a broader scope of action, but also specifically the ability to own and train their own slaves, a right that Iarine appears to have used to her advantage. Interestingly, there are virtually no instances of vicarii , of slaves owned by other slaves, among independent Italian craftsmen. 746 Whether Onesimus had been given to his wife by her patron as part of her peculium at manumission or whether she bought and trained him herself is uncertain. Typically, though, the epigraphic evidence suggests that patron-artisans sought to multiply the number of liberti directly linked to them, as Avillius Menander did, often resulting in numerous colliberti working in the same workshop together. This reinforces the idea that authority over operae , rather than promotion through a narrow vertical management structure, was a major consideration in the exploitation of skilled freedman labour.

Sagarii , as garment-makers who also had to acquire material, manage shops, and were skilled producers, display a number of similarities to vestiarii . Among the former, though, certain characteristics were magnified, perhaps because of a different level of specialization. Of twenty- nine sagarii , four (~14%) were incerti , two (~7%) probably freed, one (~3%) probably an ingenuus , one (~3%) probably a slave, and a remarkable twenty-one (~72%) confirmed freedmen.

While it is not clear that they were producers of good and may simply have been retailers, a group composed entirely of freedmen Aruleni from Rome were involved in the garment trade. 747 Helenus

746 A young vicaria fullo , Regilla, appears in a Late Republican inscription from Urbino, but the structure of management in fulleries was distinctly different from other workshops: CIL XI 6078: Regilla, a(nnis) XIIX, / Quartionis fu/lloni(!) vicaria; / quae, ut vicsi, nulli / dedi dolore(m), non / leba(m) esse acerbis(!) at in/feros, / quae at superos dulcis fui, fecit. “Regilla, aged 18 years, vicaria and fuller of Quartio, made (this); when I lived, I did not cause anyone grief, nor did I wish to be harsh to the gods below, but as sweet as I was to the gods above.”; cf. Trevisiol 1999: 29, §30; and especially Flohr 2013: 265-273. 747 CIL VI 9675: Hic siti sunt / L. Ar(u)lenus L. l. / Demetrius, / nat(ione) Cilix, / negotiat(or) sagar(ius), // Ar(u)lena L. l. / Rufa, / coniunx, // L. Arlenus L. l. / Artemidorus, / nat(ione) Paphlago, / mercator sagarius. // Helenus et Nice liberti d(ederunt) ; “Here lie Lucius Arulenus Demertrius, freedman of Lucius, Cilician by birth, trader of cloaks,

264 and Nice, the liberti who were responsible for setting up the epitaph, were the freed slaves of both

Lucii and may have continued the business. Another inscription from the same monument confirms the dual patronage and tells an even fuller picture. 748 It is not clear whether Philogenes, the patron of Demetrius and Artemidorus, was himself engaged in the trade, but that seems rather likely. 749 Longer-term links between freedmen groups of sagarii are apparent elsewhere, as well.

A republican-age inscription 750 may well be related to another inscription of a slightly later date involving other cloak-makers. 751 The Republican Salluvii sagarii seem to be colliberti , while this is less certain with Theuda, and Ascla and Gatta, who may be his freedmen. Nonetheless, in both cases we have successive groups of freedmen employed in the same skilled occupation.

A series of inscriptions from Rome suggest a complex group of freedmen Caecilii sagarii .

The epitaph of Q. Caecilius Spendo includes a remarkable eighteen freedmen, a mix of sixteen men and two women. 752 It is not clear if they all also worked as sagarii , but a large number of

Arulena Rufa, freedwoman of Lucius, wife, Lucius Arulenus Artemidorus, Paphlagonian by birth, cloak merchant. Helenus and Nice, their freed-slaves gave this.” 748 CIL VI 12331: L. Arleno L. l. Philogeni patrono; // L. Arlenus L. l. / Demetrius, / L. Arlenus L. l. / Artemidorus, / Arlena Rufa / coniunx, / L. Arlenus LL. Helenus, // L. Arlenus L. l. / Heraclida, / L. Arlenus L. l. / Pamphilus, / Arlena Iucunda / coniunx, / Arlena Saturnina, // sibi et suis fecerunt ; “To Lucius Arlenus Philogenes, freedman of Lucius and patron. Lucius Arlenus Demetrius, freedman of Lucius, Lucius Arlenus Artemidorus, freedman of Lucius, Arlena Rufa, his wife, Lucius Arlenus Helenus, freedman of the Lucii, Lucius Arlenus Heraclida, freedman of Lucius, Lucius Arlenus Pamphilus, freedman of Lucius, Arlena Iucunda, his wife, and Arlena Saturnina, made this for themselves and theirs.” 749 Broekaert 2016: 237. 750 AE 1995, 228: Sagari(i), / L. Salluvius L. l. / Anteros, / L. Salluvius L. l. Phileros, / L. Salluvius L. l. / Antioch[us]. // I(n) f(ronte) XIV, i(n) agr(o) XX ; “Cloak-makers: Lucius Salluvius Anteros, freedman of Lucius, Lucius Salluvius Phileros, freedman of Lucius, Lucius Salluvius Antiochus, freedman of Lucius. 14 feet wide, 20 feet deep.” 751 CIL VI 9870: L. Salluius / L. l. Theuda, / sagari(us), / L. Salluius / L. l. Ascla, / L. Salluius L. l. / Catta./ In fr(onte) p(edes) XII, / in agr(o) p(edes) XX ; “Lucius Salluius Theuda, freedman of Lucius, cloak-maker, Lucius Salluius Ascla, freedman of Lucius, Lucius Salluius Gatta, freedman of Lucius. 12 feet wide, 20 feet deep.” 752 CIL VI 9865: Q. Caecilius / Spendo, sagarius / fecit sibi et / Caeciliae Cosmiae / l. Cognatae, coniugi / de se bene merita, / Symphoro l., Primo l., / Pisoni l., Diadumeno l., / Niceni l., Syntropho l., / Nicarcho l., Epaphrodito l., / Philopatro l., Fortunato l., / Erasto l., / Alexandro l., Agathoni l., / Nino l., Iucundo l., / Romanae l., Urbico l., / Methen(i) l., / libert(is) libertab(usque) posterisq(ue) eorum ; “Quintus Caecilius Spendo, cloak-maker, made this for himself and for Caecilia Cognata, freedwoman of Cosmia, his well-deserving wife, for his freedmen Symphorus, Primus, Piso, and Diadumenus, his freedwoman Nice, his freedmen Syntrophus, Nicarchus, Epaphroditus, Philopater,

265 them probably did. His wife, Caecilia Cognata, was manumitted by a Caecilia Cosmia and, though

Spendo has no explicit legal status, he may have been her collibertus . A different inscription records the sagarius D. Caecilius Diadumenus 753 and his family. There is a possibility that the

Diadumenus of CIL VI 9865 was a freedman of Cognata, who would then not be Spendo’s colliberta . This would mean that he was not Spendo’s freedman. Alternatively, their professional association might be otherwise linked through the women. 754 Nonetheless, Spendo’s familia was unusually large for a freedman artisan and a number of them must have worked as skilled artisans in his business. It is also remarkable that he manumitted so many of them before his tomb was built, presumably while he was still alive, and that no slaves are mentioned at all. 755 This suggests that he not only had a relatively large skilled workforce under his control, but also that this was composed of a significant number of freed slaves and would seem to provide an extreme example of the exploitation of this sort of freed professional labour. In addition to massively diffusing his potential exploitation of skilled operae , it would have been very easy for Spendo to establish new branches of his business under the management of one or more of his liberti . It may well be the case that some of the previous inscriptions, such as those of the Salluvii, for instance, actually

Fortunatus, Erastus, Alexander, Agatho, Ninus, Iucundus, and Urbicus, and his freedwomen Romana and Methe, and their freed slaves and descendants.” 753 CIL VI 9864: D. Caecilius D. l. / Diadumenus sagarius / vivus fecit sibi et / Caeciliae Lucidae uxori cariss(imae) et / DD. Caecilis Severo et Paterno fil(iis) dulcissim(is) / et libertis libertabusq(ue) suis posterisq(ue) eorum ; “Decimus Caecilius Diadumenus, freedman of Decimus, cloak-maker, made this while alive for himself and for his dearest wife Caecilia Lucida and for Decimi Caecilii Severus and Paternus, his sweetest sons, and for his freedmen and freedwomen and for their descendants.”; cf. Vicari 2001: 22. 754 Joshel 1992: 212, n. 27; having the same occupation is probably not just coincidental; Remesal Rodriguez 2004: 130-134, also suggests that Diadumenus was perhaps related to a group of Decimi Caecilii from Beatica active in the oil trade, but this seems quite a stretch for such a common cognomen. 755 Spendo’s circumstances also resemble those of the sagarius C. Firmius Flaccus of Mediolanum in CIL V 5926, where he predeceased all but one of his five liberti , suggesting that this management strategy wasn’t simply limited to Rome: C. Firmius C. / l. / Flaccus / sagarius / sibi et / Lychoridi l., / Faustae l. v(ivae), / Fido l. v(ivo), / Nymphe l. v(ivae), / Auctae l. v(ivae). / H(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur) ; “Caius Firmius Flaccus, freedman of Caius, cloak-maker, made this for himself and for his freedwoman Lychoris, his freedwoman Fausta, alive, his freedman Fidus, alive, his freedwoman Nymphe, alive, and his freedwoman Aucta, alive. This monument does not follow the heir.”

266 represent this sort of expansion and not a simple linear continuation of a business in the same location.

The most significant family presence at Rome among sagarii was that of the Quinti

Cornelii. They appear in four separate epitaphs from the Early Principate. 756 While there is no unequivocal line of succession between any of them, all contain only liberti who list their occupational title as sagarius . Another inscription from the late 1 st century CE involving Cornelii may indicate the later activity of freedmen descendants of this group. 757 Although Aulus Cornelius

Priscus and his wife Cornelia Erotis had different patrons, the patrons themselves may have been either colliberti or relatives, 758 and not improbably related to other groups of sagarii of the same gens . Equally possible is that Erotis was the freedwoman of a collibertus and partner of Priscus not mentioned in the epitaph. On top of this, Priscus is named with his collibertus , Romanus, and his own freedman Corinthus, manumitted while he was alive.

Of the Cornelii, though, Q. Cornelius Philomusus presents maybe the most complex and intriguing case.759 He was a cloak-maker near the Theatre of Marcellus, who was predeceased by

756 CIL VI 9866: Q. Cornelius Q. l. Antiph[o], / sagari(us), / Cornelia Q. f. Sabina, / Cornelia Q. l. Theodora ; “Quintus Cornelius Antipho, freedman of Quintus, cloak-maker, Cornelia Sabina, daughter of Quintus, Cornelia Theodora, freedwoman of Quintus.”; CIL VI 9867 : Q. Co(r)nelius / Q. et |(mulieris) l. Nicephor / sagarius ; “Quintus Cornelius Nicephor, freedman of Quintus and a woman, cloak-maker.”; CIL VI 9868 (see next page); CIL VI 9869: Q. Cornelius Q. l. / Menippus sacrarius(!) / fecit sibi et [libert]is / libertabusq(ue) suis / posterisq(ue) eorum ; “Quintus Cornelius Menippus, freedman of Quintus, cloak-maker, made this for himself and for his freed slaves and for their descendants.” 757 CIL VI 33906: A. Cornelius A. l. / Priscus, sagarius / de horreis Galbianis, / v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et / Corneliae Dextri liber(tae) / Erotidi, coniugi suae, et / A. Cornelio A. l. Romano, / conliberto suo, et / A. Cornelio A. l. Corintho, / liberto suo, et / ceteris libertis / libertabusque omnibus / suis posterisque eorum ; “Aulus Cornelius Priscus, freedman of Aulus, cloak-maker of the warehouses of Galba, made this while alive for Cornelia Erotis, freedwoman of Dexter, his wife, and for Aulus Cornelius Romanus, freedman of Aulus, his fellow-freedman, and for Aulus Cornelius Corinthus, freedman of Aulus, his own freedman, and for all his other freed-slaves and for their descendants.” 758 cf. Joshel 1992: 211, n. 14. 759 CIL VI 9868: Q. Cornelius Q. l. / Philomusus, sagarius a theatro / Marcelli, fecit sibi et suis, / Corneliae Daphne conlibertae suae / et Corneliae Nymphe sorori eius l. / Se vivo intulit / Corneliam Proculam filiam ann(orum) VII, / Corneliam Helpidem conlibertam et / Callitychen matrem eorum et / C. Pinarium Gemellum ; “Quintus Cornelius Philomusus, freedman of Quintus, cloak-maker near the Theatre of Marcellus, made this for himself and his fellow freed slave Cornelia Daphne and for his (?) sister and freedwoman, Cornelia Nymphe. While alive, he buried his

267 his mother Callityche and sister and colliberta Helpis. The former appears to have been a slave when she died. Cornelia Daphne, another colliberta , may have been his wife, but most interestingly another sister, Nymphe, was identified as “ sorori eius l(iberta) ”. It is unclear whether soror refers to him or Daphne, but it is significant that the latter was identified as colliberta , while Nymphe is not, since this suggests that all three were not manumitted by the same patron. This would suggest that either he or Daphne was the manumittor of Nymphe, meaning that she had been transferred to one or the other as a slave, perhaps as property associated with the shop they ran. In this case, the core of the workforce was both a biological family and a group of colliberti , which was in and of itself fairly unremarkable, but for the fact that he also owned and manumitted his sister. This is a somewhat unusual situation, though. Most often, it seems, patrons preferred to manumit experienced artisanal slaves themselves, rather than allow their operae to be surrendered to someone else – even when that someone else was their own freedman still engaged in the trade.

Of the twenty-one sagarii liberti , precisely two-thirds appear with either confirmed or probable colliberti . This demonstrates the outsized role of manipulating and maintaining control of skilled operae for many patrons of craftsmen, relative to considerations like streamlining and verticalizing management structures of production units. While the latter may have had the effect of reducing transaction costs and asymmetries of information through more rigid structures of agency for individual freedman managers – as the Romans preferred in agricultural and financial management

– this could have meant passing the benefits of productive services to another. That patrons did not attempt to apply the strategies of management exhibited elsewhere, by having, for example, a skilled freedman procurator oversee a goldsmith workshop owned by the patron and staffed with

daughter Cornelia Procula, 7 years old, Cornelia Helpis, his fellow freed slave, and Callityche, their mother, and Caius Pinarius Gemellus.”

268 the latter’s trained slaves, conforms to the idea that their own direct control of an individual’s operae fabriles was an important factor.

While some of these freedmen-craftsmen groups undoubtedly were composed of family groups, much of the clustering we see among freedman manufacturers, especially groups of colliberti , may actually be born more of an artificial effect of control of operae , instead of the autonomous and unfettered economic choices of the freedmen themselves. Not only was it easier for a patronus to control a freedman’s productive services if they retained a loose partnership, but it was also better if he grouped skilled freedmen together. Other mechanisms, like joint ownership or grouping freedmen with those of another patron, could further reduce costs and multiply opportunities to supplement any gaps in production. This is not to say that liberti were wholly coerced or that their patrons had exclusionary authority over their expertise. Partnerships with patrons provided economic opportunities and assurances for specialized freedmen. Moreover, though they had the benefit of specialist technical training, continuing to work with or for a patron- craftsman meant that they were unburdened of a new business’ high initial costs and the difficulties of recruiting their own separate skilled personnel. Nonetheless, all of these cases suggest strongly that the considerations of manumission and exploitation of operae comprised an important part of the management of artisanal firms in urban Italy. While this is especially clear among textile workers, this sort of exploitation is identifiable in other crafts and trades requiring a high degree of skill as well. The Plotii and Babbii, freedmen who were gemmarii together on the Sacred Way, and even the shared freedmen of the ivory-worker P. Clodius Bromius and his wife allowed their patrons to use the expertise of their liberti to supplement their own production incidentally and dilate their businesses, while reducing their personal costs and allowing their freedmen a greater range of legal and economic action.

269

5.8 Conclusion

In production and smaller-scale retail settings, it would appear that the procuratorial arrangements of the banking, wholesale, and agricultural sectors generally gave way to a more direct use of the simple legal and social ties that would exist naturally as a function of the normal freedman-patron relationship. While patronal relationships in other economic sectors might be governed by a comprehensive authorized agency, those with individual freedmen in manufacturing and localized trades were more often underpinned by a desire to control discrete and specific transactions and the production of specific goods. A skilled aurifex , for example, would not necessarily require the extensive sanction of a procuratorship to conduct a broader range of transactions. Their actions, even if acting directly on behalf of or for their patron, would have been mainly limited in legal scope and complexity to producing and selling jewelry or to buying new raw materials.

Juristic writing demonstrates some analogy in Roman legal thought between an agricultural slave’s ties to a specific economic unit and the localization of an artisan-slave’s expertise within the shop. Management of personnel in the two economic spheres was obviously linked by the desired outcome of production of specific goods. These similarities, however, only serve to underscore the qualitative legal distinction between craftsmen operae and those of other freedmen and the unique economic impact these services had on liberti involved in skilled manufacturing.

Operae fabriles could be used as a stop-gap to shore up potential problems of seasonality in the artisanal labour market, particularly in urban centres. 760 Joint patronage and the fungibility of this

760 Hawkins 2016b: 147-148: “By manumitting slaves in exchange for labor obligations, however, they could both hoard labor and economize on the costs of doing so, chiefly by making freed slaves responsible for their own upkeep. Manumission thus appealed to artisans even when they did not have sufficiently large businesses to employ freed

270 freed labour also facilitated the continued employment of their specialist expertise. The epigraphic evidence supports the idea that exploitation of these services had wide-ranging effects on manumission and management of specialist freedmen. Beyond the retention of their skilled labour as regularized operae , liberating craftsmen-slaves provided economic benefits in the form of lower or shared overhead costs, looser and less costly economic dependence, and the potential for expansion through partnerships. The change in the freedman’s legal status meant that they gained a greater scope of legal action, but their operae assured that their patron had ongoing access to their labour. This capacity, however, would have been somewhat hampered for freedmen- craftsmen generally, and especially for those who were wholly alienated from their patrons. Not only would they be faced with the high initial costs of establishing a business, but additional problems like recruiting proficient help and securing the supply of often expensive raw materials.

Working with similarly-skilled colliberti at the direction of their patron, sharing these long-term costs even if it meant forfeiting hundreds of days of free labour, would have seemed a small price to avoid this uncertainty for many liberti artifices . The freedman artisan groups who appear so frequently in the inscriptions aren’t simply signs of fraternization or work-ethic among liberti ; they also demonstrate the impact that the economic calculations of their patrons had on freedmen in their day-to-day occupations.

slaves as managers or as partners, since they could nevertheless use it as a powerful tool for responding to seasonal and uncertain product markets.”

271

Chapter 6

Conclusion

There are a number of questions raised at the end of the previous chapter that apply to the exploitation of freedman labour generally and should be explored further. What happened to freedmen-staffed businesses when the patron died? Who inherited the business and under what arrangements were they then managed? How do we account for a relative absence of children taking on the business interests of their parents in the epigraphic record? While we have an abundance of evidence for liberti continuing to act under the authority of their patrons, it is worth thinking about what the ultimate economic aims of the parties involved were and in what way cooperation and the protraction of control over the freedman could, from the perspective of those involved, achieve them.

The answers to many of these questions are beyond the scope of this dissertation but invite further examination. Roman manumission did not sever the bonds between enslaved person and master, especially when we trace those links in occupationally-specific ways. It was not really the intention of this dissertation to debate whether the high frequency of manumission was intended by the Romans to ameliorate the condition of slavery generally or the lives of those enslaved people who “earned” it specifically. The ideologies underpinning manumission were complex, diverse, and probably subjective in practice. Yet it is clear that Roman masters made use of various ways to mitigate the loss of the productivity that freedom for those they enslaved entailed. How these ties were maintained may help to point us to individual motivations and hint at broader trends.

Mechanisms of patronal control functioned in different ways in different economic and social contexts. The Romans distinguished between the exploitation of operae in manufacturing and

272 other economic sectors. While masters seem to have encouraged cohabitation but limited manumission among dispensatores , they chose to free whole groups of often inter-related servi in workshops. The dispensation of freedom could itself serve as an economic tool, allowing patrons to make use of the freedman’s broader scope of legal action while binding the latter to them as economic agents. The Romans, in both navigating and exploiting complex systems of juridical, economic, and social hierarchies, sought ways to manage and alleviate the potential productive rupture caused by the transition from slavery to freedom.

The social connections, dependencies, and legal innovations that the Romans deployed were not universally damaging to their freedmen, however, and we should perhaps be cautious in applying a rigid dichotomy of control and independence to the patron-freedman relationship. They served to mitigate economic loss but not necessarily to the full impediment of the freedmen involved. Patrons could implement cost-sharing arrangements with newly freed workers, providing the latter with opportunities for entrepreneurial expansion. Freedmen could rely on established financial networks and markets accessible to them through their former masters. These markets, though, were invariably shaped by the patrons’ own economic and social profiles and while the freedmen could further expand their networks themselves, these remained fundamentally influenced by their former masters. Even if we consider these relationships as not directly coercive, formerly enslaved persons would have had few options available not to engage in them. How frequently patrons legally pursued liberti ingrati in practice is unclear, but juridical sources suggest that at least the perceived need to punish them was widespread. 761 This also obscures potential

761 Ulp. Dig . I, 12, 1, 10: Cum patronus contemni se a liberto dixerit vel contumeliosum sibi libertum queratur vel convicium se ab eo passum liberosque suos vel uxorem vel quid huic simile obicit: praefectus urbi adiri solet et pro modo querellae corrigere eum. Aut comminari aut fustibus castigare aut ulterius procedere in poena eius solet: nam et puniendi plerumque sunt liberti… ; “When a patron claims that he has been disrespected or insulted by his freedman, or his children or wife have suffered some abuse from him, or brings forward a similar accusation, it is customary for the Prefect of the City to be appealed to so he can punish him in accordance with the severity of the complaint.

273 extralegal economic repercussions that a patron could visit on freedmen by cutting off their access to social and financial resources. While changes in legal relationships after manumission represented a realignment of authority and the creation of a whole new forensic personality for the libertus , they critically did not fully upend their position in the Roman juridical regime or the power dynamics of their core relationship. The patron maintained a superior position of legal authority over their freed slaves and could exploit this position to preserve and advance their own economic interests.

Procurationes in an agricultural context often emphasized this continuity. We have evidence of the economic relationships in procurationes involving liberti continuing after the deaths of their original principals. Lepida, the daughter of the consul of 6 CE, employed her father’s freedman as her own procurator .762 The two freed Roscii procuratores from Brixia had similar trans-generational relationships to their patrons’ family. 763 Cornelius Atimetus served as procurator of both Lentulus Gaetulicus and his son after being manumitted and predeceased by the former. 764 These instances suggest a desire for stability of patrimonial control and consistency in decision-making and representation. This long-term security would be difficult to achieve outside of the structures of a patron-freedman relationship. My new analysis of the Veleian inscriptions indicates that the inclination to choose freedmen for this type of representation was not limited to

Customarily he either gives the freedman a formal warning, has him beaten with rods, or inflicts a more severe punishment, since freedmen frequently need to be punished.”; cf. Mouritsen 2011: 53-60. 762 CIL VI 9449: Pudens M. Lepidi l. grammaticus / procurator eram, Lepidae moresq(ue) regebam. / dum vixi mansit Caesaris illa nurus. / philologus discipulus ; “Pudens, freedman of Marcus Lepidus, I was the grammaticus [and] procurator of Lepida and I guided her morals. While I was alive that woman remained the daughter-in-law of Caesar. [I was] a man of letters and a scholar.”; see page 80. 763 CIL V 4241; see page 125. 764 CIL VI 9834: Cn. Cornelius , / Cn. Lentuli Gaetulici / l. et procurator / eiusdem fidelissimus / hic sepultus est. / Cossus Cornelius / Cn. [f.] Lentulus / procuratori suo / fidelissimo et / nutricio piisimo / de suo fecit et / monumentum in Sabinis suis / in villa / Bruttiana “Cn. Cornelius Atimetus, freedman of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and faithful procurator of the same is buried here. Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, son of Cn., built this for his faithful procurator and most dutiful guardian and the monument in the villa Bruttiana on his Sabine properties.”; see page 122.

274 the senatorial class. An unchanging and unchangeable underlying legal relationship between agent and principal was uniquely beneficial, in addition to the technical knowledge and specific understanding of their own economic aims that patrons could personally ensure their freedmen possessed.

Elsewhere, when we have situations where freed procuratores were acting as agents for their patrons, these arrangements seem on first glance to be less permanent or at least more incidental. This is true of the Sulpicii in Puteoli, where both Cinnamus 765 and Eutychus 766 act as representatives of absent principals, seemingly not on a permanent basis, but in specific, limited contexts. The appointment of Eutychus in particular, who only appears once in the Sulpician archive representing Cinnamus in a single legal proceeding, would seem to be at variance with the apparent permanence of other private procuratorships. 767 This is not to say, though, that their authority as representatives was delimited in a similarly ad hoc way. The fact that those with whom

Cinnamus transacted were willing to accept his agency as a legitimate suggests that he had a long- standing representative authority to act on behalf of his former master in discrete transactions, at least insofar as others perceived him. This suggests that, even where such relationships had the appearance of being temporary and limited in scope, they were underpinned by prolonged economic links, though these were somewhat less formalized than procuratorships involving landed property.

This provided for a certain flexibility within the overarching strictures of the patron- freedmen relationship and demonstrates some of the benefits freedmen could themselves receive

765 TPSulp 72; TPSulp 74. 766 TPSulp 87. 767 cf. Verboven 2000: 161: “…nous rencontrons en outre un C. Sulpicius Eutychus qui représente Cinnamus comme procurator occasionnel. Eutychus était sûrement un affranchi ou un co-affranchi de Cinnamus, mais rien ne permet de conclure qu’il coopérait de façon régulière avec lui.”; cf. page 164.

275 through such close links. Ties to their patrons were not always onerous on freedmen in practice because they could still allow for entrepreneurial expansion and new economic and social freedoms. Answers to the questions posed at the beginning of this conclusion begin to point us in the direction of why such arrangements seem to have been broadly tolerated by freed persons as well. Besides access to important markets and social networks, freedmen could take advantage of other forms of existing infrastructure and assets. There are some indications that freedmen workers, particularly skilled ones, could gain a share of and even take over businesses in which they were engaged. Cinnamus and Faustus appear to have had overlapping enterprises at Puteoli, acting on behalf of each other and perhaps even sharing enslaved staff. Though it is not clear if he completely took over his former master’s firm, Cinnamus continued his own business after Faustus disappeared from the archive. Similarily, the Naevii, bronze-workers at Rome, were identified as the heirs of their patron, probably in virtue of the fact that they were intended to assume collective control of the enterprise in which they were employed. 768 The cases of the Helvii and Cameria

Iarine 769 also suggest continuity of ownership and management. Conceding to patronal control and cooperation could eventually result in long-term economic independence and access to their own patrimony. In effect, strategies of positive incentivization continued to be applied to freedmen in broadly similar ways as they had been before their manumission, even if they were now somewhat immune from the harsh and regularized corporeal accountability of slavery.

These considerations must have had weight on the economic choices of individual freedmen. It is difficult to ascertain what typically happened to businesses managed either in legal or informal partnership between former masters and their freedmen following the death of one or

768 CIL VI 9138; see page 236. 769 CIL VI 9971 for the Helvii; see page 259; CIL VI 37826 for the Camerii; see page 261.

276 both of them. Further investigation of this would require a very different methodological approach than what I have undertaken in this dissertation. Critically, questions of inheritance generally favoured the position of patrons. According to Gaius, the Twelve Tables had originally only allowed a patron to make claims on a freedman’s bequest when the latter died intestate and without natural heirs. This situation, which he tellingly calls “ haec iuris iniquitas ”, was modified by a praetorian edict in the 1 st century BCE, giving a patron claim to half of the estate, and later by the lex Papia Poppaea , where only fathering three children allowed a libertus to fully eliminate a patron’s entitlement to their bequest. 770 The fact that patrons had a claim over freedman estates may have also further suppressed birthrates among liberti , since it would have limited the division of the patrimony between multiple people, though the effect of this is rather more speculative. 771

Importantly, though, these factors meant that it was easier for a patron or a patron’s family to reabsorb his freedman’s business interests than it was for a freedman’s child to take them over without any of the practical impediments of the former’s previous dependence. 772 This does not necessarily mean that patrons would regularly withhold a share of control of businesses from the descendants of freedmen, but merely that this would rarely exclude the patron and his family completely. This provided another mechanism of patronal control that could be deployed to both maintain a productive interest in their freed slaves and to incentivize further hard work and commercial expansion, since it would allow liberti to pass a larger share on to their own children.

In any event, even if they did produce offspring, in many instances age at manumission probably often meant that a freedman’s free-born offspring may have been too young to fully and

770 Gaius Inst . III, 40-42. 771 López Barja de Quiroga 1995: 329; cf. Mouritsen 2011: 41-42. 772 cf. López Barja de Quiroga 1995: 329-330: “It seems therefore clear that a sizeable patrimony was less likely to be handed down to the freedman’s descendants… the patronal rights over freedmen’s inheritance should have greatly affected the transmission of property within the latter’s family.”

277 capably take over their parent’s business interests. Their own former slaves would be far better positioned to assume some direct control over businesses, particularly when those liberti already had years of experience as skilled labour or as commercial representatives of their patroni , as

Nysus and Nysa may well have been. This does not necessarily entail a complete renunciation of economic control by the patron’s family, since they could maintain some connection through inherited patronal rights. Even if the children of patrons were not directly involved in the direction of freedmen-run enterprises, they could continue support them financially and potentially benefit from services and commercial connections arising from them. In practice, rather than distinct commercial moieties of an exclusively freedmen and freedmen-descendant workforce and exclusively free and free-born descendant management, these groups were probably more professionally commixed, since their status distinctions could actually function to the benefit of both parties.

All this alone, of course, would not account for an apparent lack of children of patrons cooperating with their parents’ freedmen. The epigraphic evidence provided by freedman occupational inscriptions is much less likely to leave traces of continued engagement with the children or heirs of those who manumitted them, even if they continued to have an economic relationship with new patrons. Status indications in inscriptions would not necessarily give any sign that patronal authority had been passed on to a new generation of patrons, despite the fact that this probably happened regularly, but would simply represent who had initially freed the former slave. It is really only in the context of inscriptions where epitaphs are more comprehensive in their biographical details where we can trace this sort of patrimony of authority over freedmen with any certainty.

A detailed investigation of these questions would be difficult based on epigraphy alone and would need to take into account additional legal and material culture evidence but could be

278 productive in shedding further light on the economic constraints of freedmen. Similarly, it was beyond the scope of the present study to examine the extent to which children of freed slaves assumed the same profession as their parents or, indeed, whether they tended to reject the use of occupational titles in inscriptions entirely in a break from the epigraphic habits of the preceding generation. Occupational inscriptions are more likely to refer to freedmen, but whether children of freedmen are more likely to suppress occupational titles or embrace them is not clear. These, too, may be questions worth exploring further in the future.

More broadly, though, we should perhaps interrogate why the Romans seem to have favoured employing freedmen in certain areas of the economy when they could have relied on slaves or free wage-labour instead. This is particularly true of the Roman urban economy, where the ubiquity of freedmen in non-funerary epigraphy indicates that their involvement was more than a simple imbalance in the sample of evidence from tomb inscriptions. 773 As my research on dispensatores in the first chapter has shown, Roman masters were not averse in principle to maintaining certain servi bonded in their slave status for specific occupational and ideological reasons. Manumission, even for slaves in positions of high importance and economic responsibility within a familia , was not invariably viewed as essential in incentivizing hard work or ensuring loyalty. This seems to be equally true of vilici ,774 though we should perhaps be more cautious in coming to a similar conclusion, since obviously the rural Italian epigraphic habit differed substantially from that in urban centres. With vilici and dispensatores – the latter in particular – a continuation of slave status ensured the maintenance of a specific type of direct accountability.

773 cf. Mouritsen 2001: 4: “In all the sources relating to the world of production and trade the overwhelming majority seem to be freedmen, and here it is difficult to see how their share could have been distorted by the epigraphic medium, which includes the tablets of Jucundus, amphora inscriptions, and seal stamps, all sources that in some way can be linked to the urban economy and the production and exchange of goods.” 774 cf. Carlsen 1995: 97-101.

279

Moreover, keeping a dispensator enslaved, irrespective of their personal ability or merit, meant that he could acquire property directly for his master in an occupational position in which such a quality was an important benefit.

Manumission undeniably served to benefit the economic interests of the patron in some cases. To act as an agent for your master was explicitly recognized by Gaius as a iusta causa manumissionis in the lex Aelia Sentia .775 Its inclusion emphasizes the economic function and importance of freedmen in this regard. By manumitting him, the patron granted his former slave a greater flexibility to engage in more complex commercial transactions than he had previously. A slave engaged as an institor on behalf of his master in a bank, for instance, could certainly disburse and collect on loans for his dominus , but in the event that the borrower defaulted, there was little that a slave could do himself to recover that money. Since the slave did not possess a legal persona , it fell to the master to initiate any legal effort to remedy the situation, as in the case of Sulpicius

Cinnamus attempting to recoup money loaned to Iulius Prudens through their respective slaves. 776

Conversely, actions arising from a slave dealings with someone meant that recourse by creditors was sought against the master directly. 777 In cases where such transactions were laundered through a freedman, either as a procurator or as an informal representative, the patron could be sheltered from some of the potential legal and economic consequences, in what was effectively a

775 Gaius Inst . I, 19: Iusta autem causa manumissionis est, veluti si quis filium filiamve aut fratrem sororemve naturalem, aut alumnum, aut paedagogum, aut servum procuratoris habendi gratia, aut ancillam matrimonii causa, apud consilium manumittat ; “A just cause for manumission [under the lex Aelia Sentia ] exists for example when someone manumits before the Council a biological brother or sister, or a foster-child, or a teacher, or a slave for the purpose of having them as a procurator , or a female slave for the purposes of marriage”; cf. Ulp. Dig . XL, 2, 13; Buckland 1908: 540. 776 See page 155. 777 Gaius Inst . IV, 70-74, generally, but 70, specifically: In primis itaque si iussu patris dominiue negotium gestum erit, in solidum praetor actionem in patrem dominumue comparauit, et recte, quia qui ita negotium gerit, magis patris dominiue quam filii seruiue fidem sequitur ; “Firstly, if business was conducted by order of the father or patron, the praetor grants an action for the entire amount against the father or master, and correctly so, since anyone who enters into such a transaction is relying on the credit of the father or the master rather than that of the son or slave.”

280 rudimentary, ancient Roman species of limited-liability sub-contracting. Evidently, in order for this to work, slaves had to be highly trained and trusted in their respective professional fields and representative capacities before manumission and patrons had to rely on assurances provided by this previous training and performance. Reliability combined with a broadening of the freedman’s scope of action helps to explain why former domini might prefer such arrangements even when they might seem financially counter-intuitive.

In addition to the legal advantages provided by manumission, the patron also benefitted from sharing resources, costs, and social capital with their freedmen. Grouping dependent skilled freedmen meant that they could draw on a variety of technical skills and expand the productive capacity of services while managing to keep costs low and share responsibility for the maintenance of shops and production facilities. Similarly, in banking, investment, or trade, a patron could make use of pooled capital while also exploiting the representative capacity of multiple knowledgeable freedmen. The obligations of operae sustained some of the crucial elements of subordination and productive value of specialist freedmen and the further precision of categories of freedmen services under the early Empire corroborates their economic significance. Ultimately, social, legal, and economic institutions like the procuratio and operae and obsequium further evolved in the Late

Republic and Early Empire to reflect the reliance on freed labour and the desire to maintain particular aspects of economic control over liberti . Importantly, though, these developments almost always favoured the position of the patron.

All of this taken together also suggests that we perhaps should reappraise the extent to which Roman masters themselves viewed manumission as terminal and how much finality they actually saw in the grant of freedom to their slaves. Manumission could represent a remarkable

281 transition from enslaved person to full Roman citizen, 778 a momentous change of status that ancient writers recognized as such. Ulpian referred to it as “ tam grande beneficium quod in libertos confertur, cum ex servitute ad civitatem Romanam perducuntur ”. 779 This comes in the context of his discussion of Praetorian regulations on the relationship between patrons and freedmen. Ulpian did not dispute the fundamental idea that this beneficium libertatis should be repaid to the patron, but merely that exactions placed on freedmen should not be immoderately burdensome and should be regulated by the Roman state. This passage signals an underlying tension in the attitude of patrons toward manumission. It also suggests how Roman masters rationalized and expressed their own economic considerations that factored into manumission. In framing it as a gift that should be repaid, Roman masters could justify eliding certain occupational relationships and specific productive and economic qualities. Though the various ways in which patrons continued to exploit the productive capacity of their freedmen were the result of pragmatic concerns, we should also consider how these affected the ideology and motivation of Roman manumission in general.

778 Manumissio inter amicos did not immediately result in full citizenship; Buckland 1908: 444-445; Fabre 1980: 56; Mouritsen 2011: 85-86. 779 Ulp. Dig . XXXVIII, 2, 1, pr.: Hoc edictum a praetore propositum est honoris, quem liberti patronis habere debent, moderandi gratia. Namque ut Servius scribit, antea soliti fuerunt a libertis durissimas res exigere, scilicet ad remunerandum tam grande beneficium, quod in libertos confertur, cum ex servitute ad civitatem Romanam perducuntur ; “This edict was pronounced by the Praetor for the sake of regulating that respect which freedmen ought to have for their patrons. For as Servius wrote, before this they used to be accustomed to exact the most onerous terms from their freedmen, naturally as remuneration for the extraordinarily great privilege which was conferred on freedmen when they were brought forth from servitude into the Roman citizen body.”

282

Bibliography

Abramenko, A. (1992) “Liberti als Dekurionen. Einige Überlegungen zur lex Malacitana” in Laverna , 3, 94-103.

Abramenko, A. (1993a) “Die innere Organisation der Augustalität. Jahresamt und Gesamtorganisation” in Athenaeum , 81, 13-37.

Abramenko, A. (1993b) Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität . Frankfurt.

Adams, J. (2007) The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 BC – AD 600 . Cambridge.

Agnati, U. (2000) Ingenuitas. Orazio, Petronio, Marziale, e Gaio . Chieti.

Alföldy, G. (1986) “Die Freilassung von Sklaven und die Struktur der Sklaverei in der römischen Kaiserzeit” in Die römische Gesellschaft. Ausgewählte Beiträge . Stuttgart. 286-331.

Alföldy, G. (1999) Städte, Eliten und Gesellschaft in der Gallia Cisalpina . Stuttgart.

Allé, F. (2010) “Travail et identité professionelle: Analyse lexicographique des métiers du parfum dans l’Occident romain” in L’Antiquité Classique , 79, 199-212.

Andermahr, A. (1998) Totus in praediis: Senatorischer Grundbesitz in Italien in der Frühen und Hohen Kaiserzeit . Bonn.

Anderson, J. (1997) Roman Architecture and Society . Baltimore, MD.

Andreau, J. (1974) Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus . Rome.

Andreau, J. (1987) La vie financière dans le monde romain. Les métiers de manieurs d’argent (IVe siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) . Rome.

Andreau, J. (1992) “Mobilité sociale et activités commerciales et financières” in Frézouls, E. (ed.) La mobilité sociale dans le monde romain . Strasbourg. 21-32.

Andreau, J. (1997) Patrimoines, échanges, et prêts d’argent: L’économie romaine . Rome.

Andreau, J. (1999) Banking and Business in the Roman World . Cambridge.

Andreau, J. (2004) “Les esclaves ‘hommes d’affaires’ et la gestion des ateliers et commerces” in Andreau, J., et al. (eds.) Mentalités et choix économique des Romains . Bordeaux. 111-126.

Andreau, J. (2006) “Roman Law in Relation to Banking and Business: A Few Cases” in Bang, P., et al. (eds.) Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies: Archaeology, Comparative History, Models and Institutions . Bari. 201-214.

283

Andreau. J. (2009) “Freedmen in the Satyrica ” in Prag, J. and Repath, I. (eds.) Petronius: A Handbook . Oxford. 114-124.

Arrigoni Bertini, M. G. (2004) Parma romana. Contributo alla storia della città . Parma.

Aubert, J.-J. (1994) Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C. – A.D. 250 . Leiden.

Aubert, J.-J. (2004) “De l’usage de l’écriture dans la gestion d’entreprise à l’époque romaine” in Andreau, J., et al. (eds.) Mentalités et choix économique des Romains . Bordeaux. 127-147.

Aubert, J.-J. (2005) “L’estampillage des briques et des tuilles: une explication juridique” in Bruun, C. (ed.) Interpretare i bolli laterizi di Roma della Valle del Tevere: produzione, storia economica e topografia . Rome. 53-59.

Aubert, J.-J. (2009) “Productive Investments in Agriculture: Instrumentum fundi and peculium in the Later Roman Republic” in Carlsen, J. and Lo Cascio, E. (eds.) Agricoltura e scambi nell’Italia tardo-repubblicana . Bari. 167-185.

Bagnall, R. S., and Frier, B. W. (1994) The Demography of Roman Egypt . Cambridge.

Baldacci, P. (1967) “ Negotiatores e mercatores frumentarii nel periodo imperiale” in RIL , 101, 273-291.

Baldwin, B. (1978) “Trimalchio’s Domestic Staff” in Acta Classica , 21, 87-97.

Balestri Fumagalli, M. (1985) Lex Iunia de manumissionibus . Milano.

Basta, H. (2017) “Slaves, coloni , and Status Confusion in the Late Roman Empire” in JNCHC , 18, 1, 47-75.

Beare, R. (1978) “Were Bailiffs ever Free Born?” in CQ , 28, 398-401.

Behrends, O. (1971) “Die Prokurator des klassischen römischen Zivilrechts” in ZRG , 88, 215-299.

Beigel, T. (2015) Die Alimentarinschift von Veleia (PhD Diss.). Heidelberg.

Bémont, C. (2004) “L’écriture à la Graufesenque: Les vaisselles sigillées inscrites comme sources d’information sur les structures professionelles” in Gallia , 61, 103-131.

Benke, N. (1988) “Zu Papinians actio ad exemplum institoriae actionis ” in ZSR , 105, 592-633.

Bergamasco, M. (1995) “Le διδασκαλικαι nella ricerca attuale” in Aegyptus , 75, 95-167.

Bernard, S. (2016) “Workers in the Roman Imperial Building Industry” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 62-86.

284

Bianchi, B. and Munzi, M. (1999) “La ‘gens’ pompeiana dei Caucilii” in BCAR , 100, 129-136.

Biezunska-Malowist, I. (1977) L’esclavage dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine: Seconde partie: période romain . Wroclaw.

Blake, S. (2013) “Now You See Them: Slaves and Other Objects as Elements of the Roman Master” in Helios , 39, 193-211.

Blanc, N. (1983) “Les stucateurs romains: témoignages littéraires, épigraphiques, et juridiques” in MEFRA , 95, 2, 859-907.

Bodel, J. (1984) Freedmen in the “Satyricon” of Petronius (PhD Diss.). University of Michigan.

Bodel, J. (1999) “Death on Display: Looking at Roman Funerals” in Bergmann, B., and Kondoleon, C. (eds.) The Art of Ancient Spectacle . New Haven, CT. 259-281.

Bodel, J. (2005) “ Caveat Emptor : Towards a Study of Roman Slave-traders” in JRA , 18, 181-195.

Borg, B. (2012) “The Face of the Social Climber: Roman Freedmen and Elite Ideology” in Bell, S. and Ramsby, T. (eds.), Free at Last: The Impact of Freed Slaves on the Roman Empire . London. 25-49.

Boulvert, G. (1970) Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Empire romain: Rôle politique et administratif . Naples.

Boulvert, G. (1974) Domestique et fonctionnaire sous le Haut-Empire romain. La condition de l’affranchi et de l’esclave du prince . Paris.

Bove, L. (1984) “Prêts d’argent et sûretés dans les «Tabulae Pompeianae» de Murécine” in Revue historique de droit français et étranger , 62, 4, 537-552.

Boyce, B. (1991) The Language of the Freedmen in Petronius’ “Cena Trimalchionis” . Leiden.

Bradley, K. (1984) Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control . Brussels.

Bradley, K. (1985a) “Child Care at Rome: The Role of Men” in Historical Reflections , 12, 3, 485- 523.

Bradley, K. (1985b) “Child Labour in the Roman World” in Historical Reflections , 12, 2, 311- 330.

Bradley, K. (1986) “Seneca and Slavery” in Classica et Mediavalia , 37, 162-172.

Bradley, K. (1988) “Roman Slavery and Roman Law” in Historical Reflections , 15, 3, 477-495.

Bradley, K. (1989) Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World: 140 BC – 70 BC . London.

285

Bradley, K. (1990) “ Servus Onerosus : Roman Law and the Troublesome Slave” in Slavery and Abolition , 11, 2, 135-157.

Bradley, K. (1991) Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History . Oxford.

Bradley, K. (1994) Slavery and Society at Rome . Cambridge.

Briguglio, F. (2007) Studi sul procurator . Milano.

Broekaert, W. (2011) “Partners in Business: Roman Merchants and the Potential Advantage of being a collegiatus ” in Ancient Studies , 41, 221-256.

Broekaert, W. (2013) Navicularii et Negotiantes: A Prosopographical Study of Roman Merchants and Shippers . Rahden.

Broekaert, W. (2016) “Freedmen and Agency in Roman Business” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 222-253.

Brunt, P. A. (1971) Italian Manpower (225 BC – AD 14) . Oxford.

Bruun, C. (1990) “Some Comments on the Status of Imperial Freedmen (The Case of Ti. Claudius Aug. lib. Classicus)” in ZPE , 82, 271-285.

Bruun, C. (1999) “Imperial procuratores and dispensatores : New Discoveries” in Chiron , 29, 29- 42.

Bruun, C., ed. (2005) Interpretare i bolli laterizi di Roma e della valle di Tevere: produzione, storia economica e topografica . ActaIRF, 32. Roma.

Bruun, C. (2013) “Greek or Latin? The Owner’s Choice of Names for vernae in Rome” in George, M. (ed.) Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture . Toronto. 19-42.

Buckland, W. W. (1908) The Roman Law of Slavery: The condition of the slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian . Cambridge.

Buonocore, M. (1984) Schiavi e liberti dei Volusii Saturnini. Le inscrizioni del colombario sulla via Appia antica . Roma.

Buonocore, M. (1995) “Per uno studio sulla diffusione degli Augustales nel mondo romano: l’esempio della Regio IV Augustea ” in ZPE , 108, 123-139.

Caldelli, M., and Ricci, C. (1999) Monumentum familiae Statiliorum . Rome.

Camodeca, G. (1994) “Puteoli porto annonario e il commercio del grano in età imperiale” in Le ravitaillement en blé de Rome et de centres urbains des débuts de la République jusqu’au Haut-Empire . Collection de l’École française de Rome, 196. Rome. 103-128

286

Camodeca, G. (1996) “La ricostruzione dell’élite municipale ercolanese degli anni 50-70: problemi di metodo e risultati preliminari” in Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz , 7, 167- 178.

Camodeca, G. (1999) Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (TPSulp.): Edizione critica dell’Archivio Puteolano dei Sulpicii . Roma.

Camodeca, G. (2000) “Per un primo aggiornamento all’edizione dell’archivio dei Sulpici (TPSulp)” in Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz , 11, 173-191.

Camodeca, G. (2003) “Il credito negli archivi campani. Il caso di Puteoli e di Herculaneum” in Lo Cascio, E. (ed.) Credito e moneta nel mondo romano . Bari. 69-98.

Camodeca, G. (2006) “Per una riedizione dell’archivio ercolanese di L. Venidius Ennychus” in Cron. Ercol. , 36, 189-211.

Cao, I. (2010) Alimenta: il racconto delle fonti . Padova.

Carlsen, J. (1995) Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284 . Rome.

Carlsen, J. (2010) “Recruitment and Training of Roman Estate Managers in a Comparative Perspective” in Roth, U. (ed.), By the Sweat of Your Brow: Roman Slavery in its Socio- Economic Setting . London. 75-90.

Carlsen, J. (2013) Land and Labour: Studies in Roman Social and Economic History . Rome.

Carrington, R. C. (1931) “Studies in the Campanian ‘Villae Rusticae’” in JRS , 21, 110-130.

Carroll, M. (2006) Spirits of the Dead: Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe . Cambridge.

Castrén, P. (1975) Ordo Populusque Pompeianus: Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii . Rome.

Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M. (2000) “Les enseignements fournis par les archives des Sulpicii pour une meilleure connaissance de certaines couches de la société de Puteoli” in Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz , 11, 107-111.

Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M., et al. (2010) Epigrafia Latina. Ostia: cento inscrizioni in contest o. Roma.

Cels-Saint-Hilare, J. (1985) “Citoyens romains, esclaves, et affranchis: problèmes de la démographie” in REA , 103, 443-479.

Champlin, E. (1981) “Owners and Neighbours at Ligures Baebiani” in Chiron , 11, 239-264.

Champlin, E. (1991) Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills . Berkeley, CA.

287

Chantraine, H. (1967) Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der römischen Kaiser. Studien zu ihrer Nomenklatur . Wiesbaden.

Chioffi, L. (1999) Caro. il mercato della carne nell’occidente romano . Roma.

Chioffi, L. (2007) “Regio XIV: Hercules Campanus e dintorni. Per un aggiornamento del Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae” in Leone, A., et al. (eds.) Res Bene Gestae. Ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby . Roma. 15-40.

Chioffi, L. (2011) Museo Archeologico dell’antica Capua . Rome.

Chioffi, L. (2012) “ Portus : Magazzini daziari e magazzini generali nei grandi porti commerciali” in SEBarc , X. Barcelona. 319-333.

Christes, J. (1979) Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom . Wiesbaden.

Ciancio Rossetto, P. (1973) Il sepolcro del fornaio Marco Virgilio Eurisace a Porta Maggiore . Roma.

Coello, J. M. (1989) “ Officium dispensatoris ” in Gerion , 7, 107-119.

Cogrossi, C. (1979) “Preoccupazioni etniche nelle leggi di Augusto sulla ‘manumissio servorum’?” in Sordi, M. (ed.) Conoscenze etniche e rapport di convivenza nell’antichità . Milano. 158-177.

Compostella, C. (1989) “Iconografia, ideologia, e status a Brixia nel I secolo d.C.: la lastra sepocrale del seviro Anteros Asiaticus” in RdA , 13, 59-75.

Compostella, C. (1995) Ornata Sepulcra: Le “borghesie” municipali e la memoria di sé nell’arte funeraria del Veneto romano . Firenze.

Criniti, N. (1991) La tabula alimentaria di Veleia . Parma.

Cristofori, A. (2004) Non Arma Virumque: Le occupazioni nell’epigrafia del Piceno . Bologna.

Crook, J. A. (1967) Law and Life of Rome . Ithaca, NY.

Crook, J. A. (1978) “Working Notes on Some of the New Pompeii Tablets” in ZPE , 29, 229-239.

Curtis, R. (1988) “A. Umbricius Scaurus of Pompeii” in Curtis, R. (ed.) Studia Pompeiana et Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski . New Rochelle, NY. 19-49.

Dari-Mattiacci, G. (2013) “Slavery and Information” in JEH , 73, 1, 79-116.

D’Arms, J. H. (1974) “Puteoli in the Second Century of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study” in JRS , 64, 104-124.

288

D’Arms, J. H. (1981) Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome . Cambridge, MA.

D’Arms, J. H. (2000) “Memory, Money, and Status at Misenum: Three New Inscriptions from the Collegium of the Augustales” in JRS , 90, 126-144.

DeLaine, J. (1997) The Baths of Caracalla: A Study in the Design, Construction, and Economics of Large-Scale Building Projects in Imperial Rome . JRA Supplement Series, 25. Portsmouth, RI.

DeLaine, J. (2000) “Building the Eternal City: The Construction Industry of Imperial Rome” in Coulston, J. and Dodge, H. (eds.) Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City . Oxford. 119-141.

DeLaine, J. (2003) “The Builders of Roman Ostia: Organisation, Status, and Society” in Huerta, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History (Madrid, 2003) . Madrid. 723-732.

DeLaine, J. (2005) “The Commercial Landscape of Ostia” in MacMahon, A. and Price, J. (eds.) Roman Working Lives and Urban Living . Oxford. 29-47.

DeLaine, J. (2018) “The Construction Industry” in Holleran, C., and Claridge, A. (eds.) A Companion to the City of Rome . Oxford. 473-490.

De Ligt, L. (2007) “Roman Law and the Roman Economy: Three Case Studies” in Latomus , 66, 10-25.

Demma, F. (2007) Monumenti pubblici di Puteoli: per un’archeologia dell’architettura . Roma.

De Neeve, P. W. (1984) Colonus: Private Farm-Tenancy in Roman Italy during the Republic and the Early Principate . Amsterdam.

Deniaux, E. (1993) Clientèles et pouvoir à l’époque de Cicéron . Rome.

De Pachtère, F. G. (1920) La Table hypothécaire de Veleia . Paris.

De Spagnolis Conticello, M. (1993) Monumentum funerario della gens Decia . Scafati.

Dessales, H. (2011) “Les savoir-faire des maçons romains, entre connaissance technique et disponibilité des matériaux: le cas pompéien” in Monteiux, N., and Tran, N. (eds.) Les savoirs professionnels des gens de métier . Naples. 41-63.

Di Giacomo, G. (2016) Oro, pietre preziose e perle: Produzione e commercio a Roma . Roma.

Di Giuseppe, H. (2017) “ Lanii e gemmari nei pressi della Sacra via a Roma” in Carandini, A. et al. (eds.) Santuario di Vesta, pendice del Palatino e Via Sacra. Scavi 1985-2016 . Roma. 468-480.

289

Di Porto, A. (1984) Impresa collettiva e schiavo “manager” in Roma antica (II sec. a. C. – II sec. d. C.) . Milano.

Donahue, J. (1999) “Euergetic Self-Representation in the Inscription at Satyricon 71.10” in CPh , 94, 69-74.

Donderer, M. (1996) Die Architekten der späten römischen Republik und der Kaiserzeit . Epigraphische Zeugnisse . Erlangen.

Dondin-Payre, M. and Tran, N., eds. (2017) Esclaves et maîtres dans le monde romain . École Française de Rome. Rome.

Droß-Krüpe, K. (2016) “Spatial Concentration and Dispersal of Roman Crafts” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 334-351.

Duff, A. M. (1928) Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire . Oxford.

Dumont, J. C. (1987) Servus: Rome et l’esclavage sous la république . Rome

Dumont, J. C. (1990) “L’ imperium du pater familias ” in Andreau, J., and Bruhns, H. (eds.) Parenté et stratégies familiales dans l’antiquité romaine . Rome. 475-494.

Duncan-Jones, R. (1964) “The Purpose and Organisation of the Alimenta” in PBSR , 32, 123-146.

Duncan-Jones, R. (1982) The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies . Cambridge.

Duncan-Jones, R. (1990) Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy . Cambridge.

Durliat, J. (1993) “Fundus en Italie pendant le premier millénaire” in Magnou-Nortier, E. (ed.) Aux sources de la gestion publique: enquête lexicographique sur fundus, villa, domus, mansus: tome 1 . Lille.

Duthoy, R. (1988) “Trimalchiopolis: cité campanienne?” in Euphrosyne , 16, 139-154.

Eck, W. (1978) “Zum neuen Fragment des sogenannten testamentum Dasumii ”, in ZPE , 30, 277- 295.

Eck, W. (1997) “Auf der Suche nach Architekten in der römischen Welt” in JRA , 10, 399-404.

Eck, W. (1999) “ Ordo equitum Romanorum , ordo libertorum : Freigelassene und ihre Nachkommen im römischen Ritterstand” in Demougin, S., et al. (eds.) L’ordre équestre: Histoire d’une aristocratie . Rome. 5-29.

Eck, W. (2000) “The Growth of Administrative Posts” in CAH, XI . Cambridge. 238-265.

290

Eck, W. and Heinrichs, J. (1993) Sklaven und Freigelassene in der Gesellschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit . Darmstadt.

Eckert, M. (1988) Capuanische Grabsteine: Untersuchungen zu den Grabsteinen römischer Freigelassener aus Capua . BAR International Series, 417. Oxford.

Fabre, G. (1981) Libertus. Recherches sur les rapports patron-affranchi à la fin de la République Romaine . Rome.

Faro, S. (1996) La libertas ex divi Claudii edicto: schiavitù e valori morali nel I secolo d.C. Catania.

Fenoaltea, S. (1984) “Slavery and Supervision in Comparative Perspective: A Model” in JEH , 44, 635-668.

Findlay, R. (1975) “Slavery, Incentives, and Manumission: A Theoretical Model” in JPE , 83, 923- 934.

Finley, M. (1980) Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology . Princeton, NJ.

Flobert, P. (1995) “Le latin des tablettes de Murécine” in REL , 73. 138-150.

Flohr, M. (2011) “Exploring the Limits of Skilled Craftmanship: The fullonicae of Roman Italy” in Monteix, N., and Tran, N. (eds.) Les savoirs professionels des gens de métier . Naples. 87-100.

Flohr, M. (2013) The World of the Fullo: Work, Economy, and Society in Roman Italy . Oxford.

Flohr, M. (2016) “Constructing Occupational Identities in the Roman World” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 147-172.

Freu, C. (2016) “ Disciplina , patrocinium , nomen : The Benefits of Apprenticeship in the Roman World” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 183-199.

Frézouls, E. (1995) “L’apport de l’épigraphie à la connaissance des métiers de la construction” in Giuliana, M. and Roffia, E. (eds.) Splendida civitas nostra. Studi archeologici in onore di Antonio Frova . Rome. 35-44.

Frier, B. (1980) Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome . Princeton, NJ.

Frier, B., and Kehoe, D. (2007) “Law and Economic Institutions” in Scheidel, W., et al. (eds.) Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge. 113-143.

Friggeri, R, et al. (2012) Terme di Diocleziano: La collezione epigrafica . Milano.

291

Fülle, G. (1997) “The Internal Organization of the Arretine terra sigillata Industry: Problems of Evidence and Interpretation” in JRS , 87, 111-155.

Galvao-Sobrinho, C. (2012) “Feasting the Dead Together: Household Burials and the Social Strategies of Slaves and Freed Persons in the Early Principate” in Bell, S. and Ramsby, T. (eds.) Free at Last: The Impact of Freed Slaves on the Roman Empire . London. 130-176.

Garcia Morcillo, M. (2005) Las ventas por subasta en el mundo romano: la esfera privada . Barcelona.

Garcia Morcillo, M. (2008) “Auctions, bankers, and public finances in the Roman world” in Verboven, K., et al. (eds.) Pistoi dia ten Technen: Bankers, Loans, and Archives in the Ancient World . Leuven. 257-275.

Garcia Moreno, L. (2001) “From coloni to servi : A History of the Peasantry in Visigothic Spain” in Klio , 83, 198-212.

Gardner, J. (1998) Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life . Oxford.

Garnsey, P. (1968) “Trajan’s Alimenta : Some Problems” in Historia , 17, 367-381.

Garnsey, P. (1981) “Independent Freedmen and the Economy of Roman Italy under the Principate” in Klio , 63, 359-371.

Garnsey, P. (1996) Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine . Cambridge.

Garnsey, P., and Saller, R. (2015) The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture . Berkeley, CA.

George, M. (2006) “Social Identity and the Dignity of Work on Freedmen’s Reliefs” in D’Ambra, E., and Métraux, G. (eds.) The Art of Citizens, Soldiers, and Freedmen in the Roman World . BAR International Series, 1526. Oxford. 19-29.

Geraci, G. (1975) La collezione di Bagno: le iscrizioni greche e latine . Faenza.

Giliberti, G. (1981) Servus quasi colonus: forme non tradizionali di organizzazione del lavoro nella societa romana . Napoli.

Gonzalès, A. (1997) “Les relations d’ obsequium et de societas a la fin de la république” in Dialogues d’histoire ancienne , 23, 1, 155-187.

González, J. P. (2016) “ Purpurarii et vestiarii . El comercio de purpuras y vestidos en Roma” in Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica , 22, 2, 149-194.

González, J. P. (2017) “Aurifices en la Roma Julio Claudia. La fiebre del oro romana” in Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica , 23, 1, 37-70.

292

Goodman, P. (2016) “Working Together: Clusters of Artisans in the Roman City” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 301-333.

Gordon, W. (2001) “Translation and Interpretation” in Cairns, J., and Robinson, O. (eds.) Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law, and Legal History . Oxford. 61-72.

Gregori, G. L. (2000) Brescia Romana: ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale . Roma.

Grey, C. (2011) “Slavery in the Late Roman World” in Bradley, K. and Cartledge, P. (eds.) The Cambridge World History of Slavery: The Ancient Mediterranean World . Cambridge. 482- 509.

Groen-Vallinga, M. (2013) “Desperate Housewives? The Adaptive Family Economy and Female Participation in the Roman Urban Labour Market” in Hemelrijk, E. (ed.) Women and the Roman City in the Latin West . Leiden. 295-312.

Gros, P. (1983) “Statut sociale et rôle culturel des architectes (période hellénistique et Augustéenne)” in Architecture et société . Publications de l’École Française de Rome, 66. Rome. 425-452.

Gröschler, P. (1996) Die tabellae-Urkunden aus den pompejanischen und herkulanensischen Urkundenfunden . Berlin.

Gummerus, H. (1915) “Die römische Industrie: Wirtschaftsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen” in Klio , 14, 129-189.

Hackworth Petersen, L. (2003) “The Baker, His Tomb, His Wife, and Her Breadbasket: The Monument of Eurysaces in Rome” in The Art Bulletin , 85, 2, 230-257.

Hackworth Petersen, L. (2006) The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History . Cambridge.

Haines-Eitzen, K. (1998) “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity” in JECS , 6, 4, 629-646.

Harper, J. (1972) “Slaves and Freedmen in Imperial Rome” in AJPh , 93, 341-342.

Harper, K. (2011) Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 . Cambridge.

Harper, K. and Scheidel, W. (2018) “Roman Slavery and the Idea of ‘Slave Society’” in Lenski, N. and Cameron, C. (eds.) What is a Slave Society? The Practice of Slavery in Global Perspective . Cambridge. 86-105.

Harri, L. (2012) “Gemme in pasta vitrea e pietra dura: altri materiali in pasta vitrea. Ipotesi di una bottega tardo repubblicana nell’area del Lacus Iuturnae”, in Steinby, E. M. (ed.) Lacus Iuturnae. II, Saggi degli anni 1982-1985 . Roma. 253-297.

293

Hasegawa, K. (2005) The Familia Urbana during the Early Empire: A Study of columbaria Inscriptions . BAR International Series, 1440. Oxford.

Hawkins, C. (2012) “Manufacturing” in Scheidel, W., et al. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy . Cambridge. 175-196.

Hawkins, C. (2016a) “Contracts, Coercion, and the Boundaries of the Roman Artisanal Firm” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 36-61.

Hawkins, C. (2016b) Roman Artisans and the Urban Economy . Cambridge.

Helen, T. (1975) Organization of Roman Brick Production: An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps . Helsinki.

Henderson, J. (2004) Morals and Villas in Seneca’s Letters . Cambridge.

Hermann-Otto, E. (1994) Ex ancilla natus. Untersuchungen zu den “hausgeborenen” Sklaven und Sklavinnen im Westen des Römischen Kaiserreiches . Stuttgart.

Herzig, H. (1983) “Frauen in Ostia: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte der Hafenstadt Roms” in Historia , 32, 1, 77-92.

Hin, S. (2011) “Family Matters: Fertility and its Constraints in Roman Italy” in Holleran, C. and Pudsey, A. (eds.) Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches . Cambridge.

Holleran, C. (2012) Shopping in Ancient Rome: The Retail Trade in the Late Republic and the Principate . Oxford.

Holleran, C. (2013) “Women and Retail in Roman Italy” in Hemelrijk, E. (ed.) Women and the Roman City in the Latin West . Leiden. 313-330.

Holleran, C. (2016) “Getting a Job: Finding Work in the City of Rome” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 87-103.

Hope, V. M. (2001) Constructing Identity: The Roman Funerary Monuments of Aquileia, Mainz and Nimes . BAR International Series, 960. Oxford.

Hopkins, K. (1978) Conquerors and Slaves . Cambridge.

Huttunen, P. (1974) The Social Strata in the Imperial City of Rome . Oulu.

Jakab, É. (2008) “Vertragspraxis und Bankgeschafte im antiken Puteoli: TPSulp . 48 neu interpretiert” in Verboven, K., et al. (eds.) Pistoi dia ten Technen: Bankers, Loans, and Archives in the Ancient World . Leuven. 321-344.

294

Jones, A. H. M. (1960) “The Cloth Industry under the Roman Empire” in EHR , 13, 2, 183-192.

Jones, D. (2006) The Bankers of Puteoli: Financing Trade and Industry in the Roman world . Stroud.

Jones, J. (1982) “My Mother was Much of a Woman”: Black Women, Work, and the Family under Slavery” in Feminist Studies , 8, 2, 235-269.

Jongman, W. (1991) The Economy and Society of Pompeii . Amsterdam.

Joshel, S. (1986) “Nuturing the Master’s Child: Slavery and the Roman Child-Nurse” in Signs , 12, 1, 3-22.

Joshel, S. (1992) Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions . Norman, OK.

Joshel, S. (2011) “Slavery and Roman Literary Culture” in Bradley, K. and Cartledge, P. (eds.) The Cambridge World History of Slavery: The Ancient Mediterranean World . Cambridge. 214-240.

Joshel, S. (2013) “Geographies of Slave Containment and Movement” in George, M . (ed.) Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture . Toronto. 99-128.

Kampen, N. (1981) Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia . Berlin.

Kay, P. (2018) “Financial Institutions and Structures in the Last Century of the Roman Republic” in Wilson, A. and Bowman, A. (eds) Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World . Cambridge. 133-174.

Keegan, P. (2017) “Traces of the Unfamiliar: Epigraphic Evidence for Extended Families on the Margins of Roman Italy” in Huebner, S. and Nathan, G. (eds.) Mediterranean Families in Antiquity: Households, Extended Families, and Domestic Space . Chichester. 93-120.

Kehoe, D. (1994) “Approaches to Profit and Management in Roman Agriculture: The Evidence of the Digest” in Carlsen, J., et al. (eds.) Landuse in the Roman Empire . Rome. 45-58.

Kehoe, D. (2007) “The early Roman Empire: Production” in Scheidel, W., et al. (eds.) Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World . Cambridge. 541-569.

Kehoe, D. (2012) “Roman Economic Policy and the Law of Contracts” in McGinn, T. (ed.) Obligations in Roman Law: Past, Present, and Future. Ann Arbor, MI. 189-214.

Kehoe, D. (2017) “Agency, Roman Law, and Roman Social Values” in Kehoe, D. and McGinn, T. (eds.) Ancient Law, Ancient Society . Ann Arbor, MI. 105-132.

Kirschenbaum, A. (1987) Sons, Slaves, and Freedmen in Roman Commerce . Jerusalem.

295

Klinck, F. (2007) “Zur Bedeutung des Wortes procurator in den Quellen des klassischen Rechts” in ZRG , 124, 25-52.

Kolb, A., and Campedelli, C. (2005) “I collegi delle donne. L’esempio delle mulieres” in Buonopane, A. and Cenerini, F. (eds.) Donna e vita cittadina nella documentazione epigrafica . Faenza. 135-142.

Laes, C. (2003) “Desperately Different? Delicia Children in the Roman Household” in Balch, D. and Osiek, C. (eds.) Early Christian Families in Context . Grand Rapids, MI. 298-324.

Laes, C. (2008) “Child Slaves at Work in Roman Antiquity” in Ancient Society , 38, 235-283.

Larsson Lovén, L. (2016) “Women, Trade, and Production in Urban Centres” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 200-221.

Laurence, R. (2007) Roman Pompeii: Space and Society . London.

Lazaro Guillamon, C. (2003) “Mujer, comercio y empresa en algunas fuentes jurídicas, literarias y epigráficas”, in Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquite , 50, 155-193.

Leesen T. (2009) Gaius meets Cicero: Law and Rhetoric in the School Controversies . Leiden.

Levick, B. (1990) Claudius . London.

Lintott, A. (2002) “Freedmen and Slaves in the Light of Legal Documents from First-Century AD Campania” in CQ , 52, 555-565.

Liou, B. and Tchernia, A. (1994) “L’interprétation des inscriptions sur les amphores Dressel 20” in Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VIIe Rencontre franco- italienne sur l'épigraphie du monde romain . École Française de Rome. Rome. 133-156.

Liu, J. (2009) Collegia Centonariorum: The Guilds of Textile Dealers in the Roman West . Leiden.

Liu, J. (2016) “Group Membership, Trust Networks, and Social Capital: A Critical Analysis” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 203-226.

Lo Cascio, E. (1978) “Gli alimenta, l’agricoltura italica e l’approvvigionamento di Roma” in Rendiconti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche , 33, 311-351.

Lo Cascio, E. (1991) “Le tecniche dell’amministrazione” in Schiavone, A. (ed.) Storia di Roma , II, 1, 119-191.

Lo Giudice, C. (1994) “Unguentarii” in Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VIIe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l'épigraphie du monde romain . École Française de Rome. Rome. 745-751.

296

López Barja de Quiroga, P. (1993) “El beneficium manumissionis , la obligacion de manumitir y la virtud estoica” in Dialogues d’histoire ancienne , 19, 2, 47-64.

López Barja de Quiroga, P. (1995) “Freedmen social mobility in Roman Italy” in Historia , 44, 326-348.

López Barja de Quiroga, P. (2007) Historia de la manumisión en Roma. De los orígenes a los Severos . Madrid.

López Barja de Quiroga, P. (2008) “Las leyes augusteas sobre manumisión” in Gonzales, A. (ed.) La fin du statut servile? Affranchissement, libération, abolition. Vol. 1. Besançon. 219- 227.

López Barja de Quiroga, P. (2010) “Empire Sociology: Italian Freedmen, from Success to Oblivion” in Historia , 59, 321-341.

Los, A. (1992) “Les intérêts des affranchis dans l’agriculture Italienne” in MEFRA , 104, 2, 709- 753.

Los, A. (1995) “La condition sociale des affranchis privés au 1er siècle après J.-C.” in Annales ESC , 50, 1011-1043.

Los, A. (2000) “Les affaires ‘industrielles’ des élites campaniennes sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens” in Antiquitas , 25, 77-102.

Los, A. (2001) “Les affaires commerciales des notables municipaux en Campanie sous les Julio- Claudiens et les Flaviens” in MEFRA , 112, 243-277.

MacLean, R. (2018) Freed Slaves and Roman Imperial Culture: Social Integration and the Transformation of Values . Cambridge.

MacMullen, R. (1987) “Late Roman Slavery” in Historia , 36, 3, 359-382.

Maiuri, A. (1933) La casa del Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria . Rome.

Major, A. (1994) “Claudius’ Edict on Sick Slaves” in Scholia , 3, 1, 84-90.

Manacorda, D. (2005) “Appunti sull’industria edilizia a Roma” in Bruun, C. (ed.) Interpretare i bolli laterizi di Roma e della valle del Tevere: Produzione, storia economica, e topografia . Roma. 25-52.

Mano, S. (2012) “La servante dans le monde romain: une figure oubliée” in Pallas , 90, 311-334.

Marcone, A. (1998) “Late Roman Social Relations” in CAH , XIII, 338-370.

297

Marcone, A., ed. (2016) Storia del lavoro in Italia. L’età romana: Liberi, semiliberi e schiavi in una società moderna . Roma.

Marichal, R. (1988) Les graffites de la Graufenesque . Paris.

Martin, S. (1989) The Roman Jurists and the Organization of Private Building in the Late Republic and Early Empire . Brussels.

Martin, S. (2001) “ Imperitia : The Responsibilty of Skilled Workers in Classical Roman Law” in AJP , 122, 1, 107-129.

Marzano, A. (2013) Harvesting the Sea: The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean . Oxford.

Maselli, G. (1986) Argentaria: banche e banchieri nella Roma repubblicana . Bari.

Masi Doria, C. (1993a) Civitas operae obsequium. Tre studi sulla condizione giuridica dei liberti . Napoli.

Masi Doria, C. (1993b) “ Inpudicitia , officium , e operae libertorum ” in ZSR , 110, 77-102.

Masi Doria, C. (1996) Bona libertorum. Regimi giuridici e realtà sociali . Napoli.

Mau, A. (1908) Pompeji in Leben und Kunst . Dresden.

McKay, A. (1975) Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World . Ithaca, NY.

Meiggs, R. (1973) Roman Ostia: Second Edition . Oxford.

Miceli, M. (2005) “ Institor e procurator nelle fonti romane dell’eta preclassica e classica ” in IURA , 53, 2002, 69-188.

Minaud, G. (2011) Les gens de commerce et le droit à Rome . Aix-en-Provence.

Monteix, N. (2016) “Contextualizing the Operational Sequence: Pompeian Bakeries as a Case Study” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 153-181.

Morabito, M. (1981) Les réalités de l’esclavage d’après le Digeste . Besançon.

Morel, J.-P. (2007) “Early Rome and Italy” in Scheidel, W., et al. (eds.) Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World . Cambridge. 485-510.

Mouritsen, H. (1988) Elections, Magistrates, and Municipal Elite: Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy . Rome.

298

Mouritsen, H. (1997) “Mobility and Social Change in Italian Towns during the Principate” in Parkins, H. M. (ed.) Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City . London. 59-82.

Mouritsen, H. (2001) “Roman Freedmen and the Urban Economy: Pompeii in the First Century AD” in Senatore, F. (ed.) Pompei tra Sorrento e Sarno: Atti del terzo e quarto ciclo di conferenze di geologia, storia e archeologia . Napoli. 1-27.

Mouritsen, H. (2004) “Freedmen and Freeborn in the Necropolis of Imperial Ostia” in ZPE , 150, 281-304.

Mouritsen, H. (2005) “Freedmen and Decurions: Epitaphs and Social History in Imperial Italy” in JRS , 95, 38-63.

Mouritsen, H. (2007a) “ CIL X 1403: the album from Herculaneum and the Nomenclature of the Latini Iuniani” in ZPE , 161, 288-290.

Mouritsen, H. (2007b) “The civitas sine suffragio : Ancient Concepts and Modern Ideology” in Historia , 56, 142-158.

Mouritsen, H. (2011) The Freedman in the Roman World . Cambridge.

Mouritsen, H. (2013) “Slavery and Manumission in the Roman Elite: A Study of the Columbaria of the Volusii and the Statilii” in George, M . (ed.) Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture . Toronto. 43-68.

Niedermann, M. (1933) “A propos d’une épitaphe romaine trouvée près de Brescello (Brixellum)” in AC , 2, 2, 363-370.

Nonnis, D. (2007) “Prospettive mediterranee dell’economia romana: L’apporto di una banca dati” in Archeologia e Calcolatori , 18, 383-403.

Pagé, M.-M. (2012) Empereurs et aristocrates bienfaiteurs: autour de l’inauguration des alimenta dans le monde municipal italien (fin Ier siècle – début IVe siècle) . Québec.

Palmer, R. (1980) “Customs on Market Goods Imported into the City of Rome” in D’Arms, J. H., et al. (eds.) Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Volume 36: The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome . Rome. 217-233.

Patterson, O. (1982) Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study . Cambridge, MA.

Patterson, J. (1987) “Crisis: What Crisis? Rural Change and Urban Development in Imperial Appennine Italy” in PBSR , 55, 115-146.

Pearse, J. (1974) The Organization of Roman Building during the Late Republic and Early Empire . Cambridge.

Perry, M. (2013) Gender, Manumission, and the Roman Freedwoman . Cambridge.

299

Pescani, P. (1967) Le operae libertorum: saggio storico-romanistico . Trieste.

Plescia, J. (1984) “The Development of Agency in Roman Law” in Labeo , 30, 171-190.

Prachner, G. (1980) Die Sklaven und Freigelassenen im arretinischen Sigillatagewerbe . Wiesbaden.

Pudsey, A. (2011) “Nuptiality and the Demographic Life Cycle of the Family in Roman Egypt” in Holleran, C. and Pudsey, A. (eds.) Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches . Cambridge. 60-98.

Purcell, N. (1983) “The apparitores : A Study in Social Mobility” in PBSR , 51, 125-173.

Purcell, N. (1985) “Wine and Wealth in Ancient Italy” in JRS , 75, 1-19.

Purcell, N. (1994) “The City of Rome and the plebs urbana in the Late Republic” in CAH , IX, 644-688.

Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. (1987) Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordre senatorial (Ier – IIe siècles) . Leuven.

Ramsby, T. (2012) “‘Reading’ the Freed Slave in the Cena Trimalchionis ” in Bell, S. and Ramsby, T. (eds.), Free at Last: The Impact of Freed Slaves on the Roman Empire . London. 66-87.

Rathbone, D. (2009) “Earnings and Costs: Living Standards and the Roman Economy” in Bowman, A. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems . Oxford. 298-326.

Rathbone, D., and Temin, P. (2008) “Financial Intermediation in First-Century AD Rome and Eighteenth-Century England” in Verboven, K., et al. (eds.) Pistoi dia ten Technen: Bankers, Loans, and Archives in the Ancient World . Leuven. 371-419.

Reekmans, T. (1981) “Les esclaves et leurs maîtres dans les oeuvres en prose de Sénèque le philosophe” in Index , 10, 237-259.

Remesal Rodriguez, J. (2004) “Promoción social en el mundo Romano a través del comercio” in Marco Simón, F., et al. (eds.) Vivir en tierra extraña: Emigración e integración cultural en el mundo antiguo . Barcelona. 125-136.

Richardson, L. (1992) A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome . Baltimore, MD.

Riggsby, A. (2010) Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans . Cambridge.

Rice, C. (2016) “Mercantile Specialization and Trading Communities: Economic Strategies in Roman Maritime Trade” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 97-114.

300

Ripat, P. (2012) “Locating the Grapevine in the Late Republic: Freedmen and Communication” in Bell, S. and Ramsby, T. (eds.), Free at Last: The Impact of Freed Slaves on the Roman Empire . London. 50-65.

Rosenthal, C. (2018) Accounting for Slavery: Masters and Management . Cambridge, MA.

Roth, U. (2004) “Inscribed Meaning: The Vilica and the Villa Economy” in PBSR , 72, 101-124.

Roth, U. (2005) “To Have and To Be: Food, Status, and the Peculium of Agricultural Slaves” in JRA , 18, 1, 278-292.

Roth, U. (2007) Thinking Tools: Agricultural Slavery between Evidence and Models . Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 92. London.

Roth, U. (2011) “Men Without Hope” in PBSR , 79, 71-94.

Roth, U. (2017) “Liberating the Cena ” in CQ , 66, 2, 614-634.

Rowe, G. (2001) “Trimalchio’s World” in Scripta Classica Israelica , 20, 225-245.

Ruffing, K. (2008) Die berufliche Spezialisierung in Handel und Handwerk . Leidorf.

Ruffing, K. (2016) “Driving Forces for Specialization: Market, Location Factors, Productivity Improvements” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 115-131.

Saller, R. (1994) Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge.

Saller, R. (2012) “Human Capital and Economic Growth” in Scheidel, W., et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy . Cambridge. 71-86.

Salway, B. (2010) “ Mancipium rusticum sive urbanum: The Slave Chapter of Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices” in Roth, U. (ed.) By the Sweat of Your Brow: Roman Slavery in its Socio-Economic Setting . London. 1-20.

Samson, R. “Rural Slavery, Inscriptions, Archaeology, and Marx: A Response to Ramsay MacMullen’s ‘Late Roman Slavery’” in Historia , 38, 1, 99-110.

Schäfer, C. (1998) Spitzenmanagement in Republik und Kaiserzeit: die Prokuratoren von Privatpersonen im Imperium Romanum vom 2. Jh. v.Chr. bis zum 3. Jh. n.Chr . St. Katharinen.

Schäfer, C. (2001) “Procuratores, actores und vilici: zur Leitung landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe im Imperium Romanum” in Herz, P. and Waldherr, G. (eds.), Landwirtschaft im Imperium Romanum . St. Katharinen. 273-284.

301

Scheidel, W. (1990) “Free-born and Manumitted Bailiffs in the Graeco-Roman World” in CQ, 40, 591-593.

Scheidel, W. (1992) “ Coloni und Pächter in den römischen literarischen Quellen vom 2. Jh v. Chr. bis zur Severerzeit: Eine kritische Betrachtung ( Colonus -Studien I)” in Athenaeum , 80, 331-370.

Scheidel, W. (1993) “Sklaven und Freigelassene als Pächter und ihre ökonomische Funktion in der römischen Landwirtschaft” in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, et al. (eds.) De Agricultura: In memoriam P. W. De Neeve . Amsterdam. 182-196.

Scheidel, W. (1996a) Measuring Sex, Age, and Death in the Roman Empire: Explorations in Ancient Demography . Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement Series, 21. Ann Arbor, MI.

Scheidel, W. (1996b) “Reflections on the Differential Valuation in Diocletian’s Price Edict and in the United States.” in Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgschichte , 15, 67-79.

Scheidel, W. (2005) “Human Mobility in Roman Italy II: The Slave Population” in JRS , 95, 64- 79.

Scheidel, W. (2008) “The Comparative Economics of Slavery in the Greco-Roman World” in Dal Lago, E. and Katsari, C. (eds.) Slave Systems: Ancient and Modern . Cambridge. 105-126.

Scheidel, W. (2011) “Roman Slave Supply” in Bradley, K. and Cartledge, P. (eds.) The Cambridge World History of Slavery: The Ancient Mediterranean World . Cambridge. 287-310.

Scheidel, W. (2012) “Slavery” in Scheidel, W., et al. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy . Cambridge. 89-113.

Schmeling, G. (2011) A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius . Oxford.

Segenni, S. (1990) I liberti ad Amiternum. Richerche di onomastica . Pisa.

Serrao, F. (1947) Il procurator . Milano.

Setaioli, A. (1998) “Seneca, lo schiavo Felicione e un’inscrizione di Velia” in Prometheus , 24, 149-151.

Schumacher, L. (2001) Sklaverei in der Antike: Alltag und Schicksal der Unfreien . München.

Schumacher, L. (2010) “On the Status of Private ‘ Actores’ , ‘ Dispensatores ’, and ‘ Vilici ’” in Roth, U. (ed.), By the Sweat of Your Brow: Roman Slavery in its Socio-Economic Setting . London. 31-47.

302

Shaw, B. (1991) “The Cultural Meaning of Death: Age and Gender in the Roman Family” in Kertzer, D. and Saller, R. (eds.) The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present . New Haven, CT. 66-90.

Shaw, B. (2019) “Grape Expectations” in Maiuro, M. (ed.) Uomini, instituzioni, mercati: studi di storia per Elio Lo Cascio . Bari. 533-551.

Shepherd, E. (2006) “L’impianto produttivo del Vingone e la costruzione di Florentia” in Rassegna di Archeologia , 22B, 15-50.

Sherwin-White, A. N. (1966) The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary . Oxford.

Silver, M. (2011) “Finding the Roman Empire’s Disappeared Deposit Bankers” in Historia , 60, 3, 301-327.

Silver, M. (2016) “At the Base of Rome’s peculium Economy” in Fundamina , 22, 1, 67-93.

Solin, H. (1990) Namenpaare: Eine Studie zur römischen Namengebung . Helsinki.

Solin, H. (1996) Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen; Ein Namenbuch . Stuttgart.

Solin, H. (2001) “Neue Namen und kein Ende. Zu CIL VI 9102” in ZPE , 136, 279-285.

Soricelli, G. (2001) “Le prime obligationes a Veleia ed il ruolo di T. Pomponio Basso” in ZPE 136, 289-297.

Southern, P. (2006) The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History . Santa Barbara, CA.

Stefani, G., et al. (2002) Uomo e ambiente nel territorio vesuviano. Guida all’antiquarium di Boscoreale . Napoli.

Syme, R. (1986) The Augustan Aristocracy . Oxford.

Tassaux, F. (2005) “Patrimoines sénatoriaux de la ‘Decima Regio’” in Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz , 16, 139-164.

Tassini, P. (1994) “Produzione e vendita di alcune merci di lusso a Roma” in Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VIIe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l'épigraphie du monde romain . École Française de Rome. Rome. 687-695.

Tate, J. (2005) “New Thoughts on the Will of Dasumius”, in ZSR , 122, 166-171.

Tchernia, A. (2016) The Romans and Trade . Oxford.

Teitler, H. C. (1985) Notarii and Exceptores . Amsterdam.

Temin, P. (2004) “The Labor Market of the Early Roman Empire” in JIH , 34, 4, 513-538.

303

Temin, P. (2013) The Roman Market Economy . Princeton, NJ.

Terpstra, T. (2008) “Roman law, Transaction costs, and the Roman economy: Evidence from the Sulpicii archive” in Verboven, K., et al. (eds.) Pistoi dia ten Technen: Bankers, Loans, and Archives in the Ancient World . Leuven. 345-370.

Terpstra, T. (2013) Trading Communities in the Roman World: A Micro-Economic and Institutional Perspective . Leiden.

Thomas, Y. (2002) “Le corps de l’esclave et son travail à Rome: analyse d’une dissociation juridique”, in Moreau, P. (ed.) Corps romains . Grenoble. 225-250.

Tomlin, R. (2016) Roman London’s First Voices: Writing Tablets from the Bloomberg excavations, 2010-2014 . London.

Toner, J. (2015) “Barbers, Barbershops, and Searching for Roman Popular Culture” in PBSR , 83, 91-109.

Torelli, M. R. (2002) Benevento romana . Roma.

Tran, N. (2006) Les membres des associations romaines: le rang social des collegiati en Italie et en Gaules sous le haut-empire . Collection de l’École française de Rome, 367. Rome.

Tran, N. (2013) Dominus Tabernae: le statut de travail des artisans et des commerçants de l’Occident romain (Ier siècle av. J.-C. - IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.). Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 360. École française de Rome. Rome.

Tran, N. (2013-2014) “Les statuts de travail des esclaves et des affranchis dans les grands ports du monde Romain (Ier siècle av. J.-C. – IIe siècle apr. J.-C.)” in Annales ESC , 68, 999-1025.

Tran, N. (2016a) “ Ars and Doctrina : The Socioeconomic Identity of Roman Skilled Workers (1 st Century BC – 3rd Century AD)” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 246-261.

Tran, N. (2016b) “The Social Organization of Commerce and Crafts in Ancient Arles: Heterogeneity, Hierarchy, and Patronage” in Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World . Oxford. 254-277.

Treggiari, S. (1969a) “The Freedmen of Cicero” in Greece and Rome , 16, 2, 194-204.

Treggiari, S. (1969b) “Pompeius’ Freedman Biographer Again” in CR , 19, 3, 264-266.

Treggiari, S. (1969c) Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic . Oxford.

Treggiari, S. (1973) “Domestic Staff at Rome in the Julio-Claudian Period” in Histoire Sociale , 6, 12, 241-255.

304

Treggiari, S. (1975a) “Family Life among the Staff of the Volusii” in TAPA , 105, 393-401.

Treggiari, S. (1975b) “Jobs in the Household of Livia” in PBSR , 43, 48-77.

Treggiari, S. (1976) “Jobs for Women” in AJAH , I, 76-104.

Treggiari, S. (1980) “Urban Labour in Rome: Mercenarii and Tabernarii ” in Garnsey, P. (ed.), Non-Slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World . Cambridge. 48-61.

Treggiari, S. (1981) “Concubinae” in PBSR , 49, 59-81.

Trevisiol, A. (1999) Fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche per la storia romana della provincia di Pesaro e Urbino . Roma.

Valencia Hernandez, M. (1989) “ Mercator y Negotiator : Ambigüedad y realidad económica en la obra de Cicerón” in Caesaraugusta , 66-67, 195-216.

Verboven, K. (2000) “L’organisation des affaires financières des C. Sulpicii de Pouzzoles” in Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz , 11, 161-171

Verboven, K. (2002) The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia in the Late Republic . Brussels.

Verboven, K. (2003) “The Sulpicii from Puteoli: argentarii or faeneratores ?” in Defosse, P. (ed.) Hommages à Carl Deroux: III – Histoire et épigraphie, Droit . Bruxelles. 429-445.

Verboven, K. (2004) “Mentalité et commerce: le cas des negotiatores et de ceux qui negotia habent : une enquête prélimaire” in Andreau, J., et al. (eds.) Mentalités et choix économique des Romains . Bordeaux. 179-197.

Verboven, K. (2007) “Ce que negotiari et ses dérivés veulent dire” in Andreau, J. and Chankowski, V. (eds.) Vocabulaire et expression de l’économie dans le monde antique . Bordeaux. 89- 118.

Verboven, K. (2008) “ Faeneratores , negotiatores , and Financial Intermediation in the Roman World” in Verboven, K., et al. (eds.) Pistoi dia ten Technen: Bankers, Loans, and Archives in the Ancient World . Leuven. 211-229.

Verboven, K. (2012) “The Freedman Economy of Roman Italy” in Bell, S. and Ramsby, T. (eds.), Free at Last: The Impact of Freed Slaves on the Roman Empire . London. 88-109.

Verboven, K. (2016) “Guilds and the Organisation of Urban Populations During the Principate” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 173-202.

305

Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (2016) “Work, Labour, Professions: What’s in a Name?” in Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.) Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World . Leiden. 36-61.

Veyne, P. (1961) “Vie de Trimalchion” in Annales ESC , 16, 2, 213-247.

Vicari, F. (2001) Produzione e commercio dei tessuti nell'Occidente romano . BAR International Series, 916. Oxford.

Virlouvet, C. (2000) “Les denrées alimentaires dans les archives des ‘Sulpicii’ de Pouzzoles”, in Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz , 11, 131-149.

Vivenza, G. “Roman Economic Thought” in Scheidel, W., et al. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy . Cambridge. 25-44.

Vogt, J. (1975) Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man . Cambridge, MA.

Wacke, A. (1993) “Freedom of Contract and Restraint of Trade Clauses in Roman and Modern Law” in Law and History Review , 11, 1, 1-19.

Waldstein, W. (1986) Operae libertorum. Untersuchungen zur Dienstpflicht freigelassener Sklaven. Stuttgart.

Watson, A. (1961a) “Acquisition of Possession per extraneam personam ” in Revue de l’Histoire du Droit , 29, 1, 22-42.

Watson, A. (1961b) The Contract of Mandate in Roman Law . Oxford.

Watson, P. and Watson, L. (2009) “Seneca and Felicio: Imagery and Purpose” in CQ , 59, 1, 212- 225.

Weaver, P. (1972) Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves . Cambridge.

Weaver, P. (1998a) “Imperial slaves and Freedmen in the Brick Industry” in ZPE , 122, 238-246.

Weaver, P. (1998b) “Indicating Status in the Dedication by L. Aufidius Aprilis” in ZPE , 122, 235- 237.

Weiler, I. (2001) “Eine Sklavin wird frei. Zur Rolle des Geschlechts bei der Freilassung” in Bellen, H., and Heinen, H. (eds.) Fünfzig Jahre Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei an der Mainzer Akademie 1950-2000. Miscellanea zum Jubiläum . Stuttgart. 113-132.

Weiler, I. (2003) Die Beendigung des Sklavenstatus im Altertum: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Sozialgeschichte . Stuttgart.

Weinrib, E. (1990) The Spaniards in Rome: from Marius to Domitian . New York, NY.

306

Whittaker, C. R. (1987) “Circe’s Pigs” in Finley, M. I. (ed.) Classical Slavery . London. 88-122.

Wiedemann, T. (1985) “The Regularity of Manumission at Rome” in CQ , 35, 1, 162-175.

Wiedemann, T. (2003a) Greek and Roman Slavery . London.

Wiedemann, T. (2003b) “The Patron as Banker” in Lomas, K., and Cornell, T. (eds.) Bread and Circuses: Euergetism and municipal patronage in Roman Italy . New York, NY. 12-27.

Wilinski, A. (1971) “Intorno all’ accusatio e revocatio in servitutem del liberto ingrato” in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra , II. Milano. 559-569.

Wood, K. (2010) “Gender and Slavery” in Smith, M. and Paquette, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Slavery in the Americas . Oxford. 514-527.

Woolf, G. (1996) “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire” in JRS , 86, 22-39.

Zelnick-Abramovitz, R. (2005) Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World . Mnemosyne Supplement, 266. Leiden.

Appendices

Appendix 1a: Inscriptions of Dispensatores throughout the Empire

Addition Comme Manu De Inscription Name Region al duty morator Family mitted Age Sua Peculium

Horimus (Quinti AE 1907, 83 nostri) Rome no prob. (?) no no no ? ?

AE 1913 Chius Rome no ? no no 35 ? ?

prob. (cosservi) Narcissus Latium/Camp "Laribus cellarius Zora et AE 1928, 109 Herma . magister" ? Carquama no no ? ?

Felix (L. no Lamiae (brother - (brother) Silvanus frater AE 1945, 107 disp.) Rome no not free?) colit no 19 no ?

AE 1942/43, 61 Victor Maur. Caes. actor ? no yes 70 ? ?

magister Laribus Diomede et AE 1980, 247 s Rome familiae yes no no no yes yes

Latium/Camp (mother) Anthusa filio AE 1988, 239 Serenus . no yes Sereno fec. no no yes yes

AE 1993, 911 Agroecus Lusitania no ? Vernaculus vicarius no no ? yes (vicar.)

T. Oli T. f. per AE 1999, 388 Secundus Rome no ? Secundum disp. no no ? ?

AE 2011, 177 Ionicus Rome no ? Iunoni Priscae matri no no ? ?

AE 1989, 109 Faustus Rome no ? Quinti Mari disp. no 35 ? ?

Numeniu AE 1989, 111 s Rome no ? Quinti Mari disp. no no ? ?

Acidi contubernali et Urbicae vicariae AE 1992, 196 Optalis Rome no yes (Ostoriae Varilliae disp.) no no yes yes (vicar.)

307 308

no Malia coniunx (Primitivi AE 1902, 14 Attaeus Maur. Caes. no (wife?) disp.) no 24 no ?

free son AE 1942/43, of 60 Julianus Maur. Caes. no vicarius Paramythius vicarius no no no yes (vicar.)

Onesimu filiae suae Onesimae AE 2001, 261 s Rome no yes carissimae no no prob. yes

AE 1990, 75 Bargates Rome no ? c(oniunx)? no no

CIL 2, 1198 ? Baetica no slaves (?) Felix vicarius ? no no yes (vicar.)

CIL 2, 3525 Albanus Hisp. Cit. no yes no no no yes yes

societas montis CIL 2, 3526 Albanus Hisp. Cit. no yes Ficariensis no no yes yes

CIL 2, 3527 Albanus Hisp. Cit. no yes no no no yes yes

CIL 2, 5164 Speratus Lusitania no yes Bals(?) no no yes yes

CIL 2, 6112 Firmus Hisp. Cit. no ? M. Aemili Placidi no no ? ?

CIL 2, 351 ? Baetica no ? disp. of Vilponius no no ? ?

(poss. Son of master) - L(ucio) Acilio L. f. CIL 2, 2234 Felix Baetica no yes Modesto] no no yes yes

free brother - same P. Aufidius Eros et sua master?? coniugi (Att. P. Aufi[idi] CIL 3, 2935 Atticus Dalmatia no ? Longi ser. dispensatori no no no no

Onesimu CIL 3, 8832 s Dalmatia no no M. Iuli Macrini no no no no

(pub. Slave - Pollentiae Valerianu Pola (Venetia Processae - for CIL 5, 83 s et Histria) no yes colliberatae) yes no yes ?

Pola (Venetia coniugi b. m. Magniae CIL 5, 91 Maximus et Histria) no yes Felicissimae no no yes yes

309

Hermoph Venetia et CIL 05, 1034 ilus Histria no ? ? (verna) no no ? ?

Petroni Aeli disp. Quem Venetia et Livia T. f. Quarta CIL 5, 2883 Prutius Histria no ? testamento... no no ? ?

? Iunoni Corniliae CIL 5, 6407 Albanus Transpadana no yes nostrae ? no no yes yes

CIL 5, 7638 Urbanus Liguria no ? of Aponius no no ? ?

Aureliae Laudice coniugi CIL 5, 7752 Lupercus Liguria no yes optimae no no yes yes

qui ante CIL 6, 278 Dorus Rome vilicus yes Larc(iorum?) no no yes yes

CIL 6, 561 Hermes Rome no yes ? no no yes yes

CIL 6, 649 Daphnus Rome no yes ? no no yes yes

L. Iunius calator CIL 6, 2187 Paris Rome augurum yes lib. L. Iunii Silani yes 32 yes yes

L. Aemilius negotiato CIL 6, 3687 Favianus Rome r yes ? yes no yes n/a

Nicephor M. Liv[i Terti lib.] CIL 6, 3931 us Rome no ? Nicephori yes no ? ?

M. Livius co- to a slave w co lib. M. (maybe CIL 6, 3966 Ceryllus Rome no comm. Livius Pyrsus yes no yes vicar.)

CIL 6, 5562 Enipheus Rome no ? C. La.? no no no no

T. Statilius CIL 6, 6266 Auctus Rome no yes colliberti yes no prob. prob.

T. Statilius (slave mother?) Aphia CIL 6, 6267 Auctus Rome no yes mater yes no prob. prob.

T. Statilius T. Statilius Epicrates CIL 6, 6268 Auctus Rome no yes frater yes no prob. prob.

310

T. Statilius T. Statilius T. l. Mena CIL 6, 6269 Auctus Rome no yes frater yes no prob. prob.

T. Statilius CIL 6, 6270 Auctus Rome no ? (wife?) Statilia Fausta yes no prob. prob.

CIL 6, 6271 Cebes Rome no ? ? no 35 no no

CIL 6, 6272 Falernus Rome no ? Statiliae no no no no

CIL 6, 6274 Eros Rome no ? T. Statilii Posidippi no no ? no

CIL 6, 6275 Eros Rome no ? Faustus vicarius no no ? yes (vicar.)

Suavis verna, annorum CIL 6, 6276 Eros Rome no ? 12 no no ? yes

CIL 6, 6277 Gratus Rome no ? Posidippi disp. no no ? ?

CIL 6, 6278 Philermo Rome no ? Posidippi disp. no 20 ? ?

CIL 6, 6279 Stabilius Rome no ? Posidippi l. disp. yes no ? ?

CIL 6, 9319 Philetus Rome no ? Liviae Amarillidis no no no no

CIL 6, 9319 Eutachus Rome no ? Teidiae Auges no no no no

CIL 6, 9319 Autolytus Rome no ? M. Fabi no no no no

CIL 6, 9319 Hilarus Rome no ? Tetti Tontiani no no no no

Familiae L. Coccei et CIL 6, 9320 Dasius Rome no yes libertis et eorum no no yes yes

CIL 6, 6, Familiae et libertis 9321 Eumaeus Rome no yes Vitelliorum no no yes yes

libertorum et familiae M. CIL 6, 9322 Timon Rome no ? Corneli Maturi curatore no no ? ?

CIL 6, 9323 Hilarus Rome no ? liberti et familiae no no ? ?

CIL 6, 9324 Albanus Rome no ? Helviae Proculaes disp. no 25 ? ?

verna Philetus vix. Anno CIL 6, 9325 Alex Rome no ? I no no ? ?

311

coniunges Volusia Prima co- (vix. XX, IX, XXIV); Epaphrod comm. W Volusia Olympias (vix. CIL 6, 9326 itus Rome no son XXV, X, V) no 41 yes yes

M. no (qui Licinius dispensav Volusia Olympis CIL 6, 9327 Eutychus Rome no it) coniunx yes no no ?

Iuliae Tyche contubernali Primigeniae filiae... Et sibi C. Iulio CIL 6, 9328 Anicetus Rome no yes Aniceto yes no yes prob.

coniunx Nebris/Tertullae CIL 6, 9330 Aspectus Rome no yes Afri disp. no no ? ?

filio vix. III... disp. Threpti Sallustiaes CIL 6, 9331 Hermes Rome no ? Lucanae no no ? ?

CIL 6, 9332 Athicus Rome no ? Luci Vitelli no no ? ?

Ianuarius et Synerusa CIL 6, 9333 Calaus Rome no no contubernalis no no ? ?

freed wife - Licinia Helpis dedit (Liciniae CIL 6, 9334 Castor Rome no no (wife) Marcellae disp. no no no no

Charitinu CIL 6 9335 s Rome no yes contubernali Paezusae no no yes yes

Chryserot coniunx Mummiae CIL 6, 9336 us Rome no no Vituliae no no no no

Cinnamu Ostia Primagenes et CIL 6, 9337 s Rome no no Calligenes disp. no no no no

mater et Arruntia Philia et CIL 6, 9339 Crotus Rome no soror Lochias no 26 no no

CIL, 6, 9341 Daphnus Rome no ? Crispinus Caepio no no ? ?

daught. Anesis - disp. CIL 6, 9342 Epaphra Rome no ? Tariani no no ? ?

CIL 6, 9343 Thalerus Rome no yes pro Quint. et Commune no no yes yes

312

wife Paccia Secunda - CIL 6, 9344 Faustus Rome no no (wife) Paccii Saturnini lib. no no no no

contubernali Hamilliae CIL 6, 9345 Festus Rome no yes Alponiae ornatrice no no no no

disp. Valeriae Brocchillae...Valeriae Successae... [Collib. et] CIL 6, 9346 Halys Rome no comm, coniugi optimae... yes no yes yes

CIL 6, 9347 Heracla Rome no ? ? no no ? ?

fratri conservi Paridi CIL 6, 9349 Hilarus Rome no yes Valeriae Pollae no no yes yes

CIL 6, 9350 Hilarus Rome no ? Lepidi disp. no no ? ?

Innocentis libertae CIL 6, 9351 Limen Rome no yes coniugi no no yes yes

sorori lib. L. Fulciniae(?) Phoebadi... Claudiae CIL 6, 9352 Malchio Rome no yes Gorgonicidis disp. no no yes yes

Q. Marius Nicomac qui fuit dispensator et CIL 6, 9353 hus Rome no yes Maria Prepe yes no yes yes

Menelao CIL 6, 9354 us Rome no ? Cai Ceoni Silvani disp. no 23 ? ?

Boionia Antulia (mother) CIL 6, 9355 Narcissus Rome no mother et et Boioniae Prociliae no 26 no no

coniugi Noniae P. lib. - CIL 6, 9356 Olympus Rome no yes diff. master no no no no

Ti. Caepio Hieronymus Onesimu et suis... Disp. Caepionis CIL 6, 9357 s Rome no coll.?? Hisponis no no no no

Onesimu conservi CIL 6, 9358 s Rome no (?) Paullinae filiae suae no no yes yes

CIL 6, 9359 Patroclus Rome no yes Meroe coniugi no no yes yes

313

CIL 6, 9360 Phoebus Rome no conservi Martiali conservi no no yes yes

Fortunatu CIL 6, 9360 s Rome no conservi Martiali conservi no no yes yes

Pituniuae L. libertae Primigeni Phoebe contubernali CIL 6, 9361 us Rome no yes carissimae - diff. master no no yes yes

CIL 6, 9362 Gemella Rome no ? Primi disp. no 20 no no

CIL 6, 9363 Quietus Rome no yes ? no no yes yes

Stlaccia Quinta lib. viro CIL 6, 9364 Salvius Rome no wife suo et sibi - same master no no no no

CIL 6, 9365 Salvianus Rome no ? Paridis disp. no 28 ? ?

CIL 6, 9366 Spatalus Rome no yes Corneliae Q. lib. coniugi no no yes yes

CIL 6, 9367 Xanthus Rome no ? disp. Aeni no no ? ?

P(ubli) l(ibertus) dispen(sator) - "amicus CIL 6, 10084 ? Rome no ? conservis" yes no ? ?

libertorum Decurionum CIL 6, 10100 Ibycus Rome no ? Coccei curatore yes no ? ?

libertorum Decurionum CIL 6, 10100 Psaltys Rome no ? Coccei curatore yes no ? ?

libertorum Decurionum CIL 6, 10100 Modestus Rome no ? Coccei curatore yes no ? ?

Norbanorum Flacci et CIL 6, 33472 Chrestus Rome no ? Balbi no no ? ?

CIL 6, 33774 Laphyrus Rome no ? Antoniae Drusi disp. no no ? ?

L. CIL 6, 33847 Cocceius Rome no ? ? poss. no ? ?

CIL 6, 33848 Iuba Rome no ? ? no no prob. prob.

Urbanae matri Mantani CIL 6, 33849 Mantanus Rome no ? disp. Norbanorum no no ? ?

314

Pamphilu CIL 6, 33850 s Rome no vicarius Octavi vicarius no 35 ? ?

CIL 6, 36858 Orimus Rome no ? Quintus nostri no no ? ?

CIL 6, 37720 Chius Rome no ? ? no 25 ? ?

Popilliae l(ibertae) sorori Iucundae Clemens CIL 6, 37790 Clemens Rome no yes Sextiliae disp. no no yes yes

Philomus Sostrate contubernali b. CIL 6, 37791 us Rome no yes m. no no yes yes

CIL 6, 37792 Quintius Rome no yes prob. Daughter (slave) no no yes yes

freed son C. Iulius Hilarus ... Et Paccia CIL 8, Iustina parentes filio... 10572/14459 Datosus Afr. Proc. no yes Fecerunt no no yes prob.

CIL 8, 15594 Victor Afr. Proc. no ? verna no 46 ? ?

[ex [ex disp.] alumno bene merito disp.] CIL 8, 24687 Anicetus Afr. Proc. tutor (?) yes Primitivos (sic) no (?) no yes yes

(freed wife) Munatiae L. Saturninu Apulia et l. Voluptati Sat. Modiae CIL 9, 2558 s Calabria no yes disp. no no yes yes

CIL 9, 3375 Eutyches Samnium no ? ? no no ? ?

CIL 9, 3378 ? Samnium no ? Orfidiae Proculae disp. no no ? ?

(daughter? - vix. VII?) Vettienae T. l. Faventinae... Q. Feroni CIL 9, 3405 Hilarius Samnium no yes Crispi disp. no no yes yes

magister Laribus familiarib Melanta cellaria... CIL 9, 3424 Phileros Samnium us yes Donum dederunt (?) no no yes yes

Campeste CIL 9, 3445 r Samnium no ? Biolenae Quintae servo no no ? ?

315

Speration conserv. conserva Myrtale - disp. CIL 9, 3448 is Samnium no Myrtale P. Salvieni Pauli no no no no

filiae Restitutae (!!) Marci Peduliae servae... Restitutu co- Et Pretiosa mater CIL 9, 4523 s Samnium no comm. posuerunt... Vix. XX no no yes prob.

CIL 9, 4644 Synhistor Samnium no yes ? [date: 5 BCE] no no yes yes

CIL 9, 4665 Euplus Samnium no ? disp. Sarrenae Paulinae no no ? ?

Vera coniugi incomparabili cum quo CIL 10, 237 Gamus Bruttium no no (wife) vix. XX m. IIII no 40 no ?

(?O)ptum ? Quintus Marcius Felix CIL 10, 1919 ius Latium no ? ? no (?) no ? ?

Philadelp CIL 10, 1920 hus Latium no ? disp. Sexsti(!) Cerinthi no 35 ? ?

Stephanu Victoria Vitalis coniugi CIL 10, 1921 s Latium no no (wife) b. m. no no no ?

Raia C. lib. Sabina Sabinus no mater... Disp. C. Rai CIL 10, 4594 Secundus Latium no (mother) Gemini yes no no no

CIL 10, 8059, 154 Eutychus Campania no ? disp. Sulpici Prisci no no ? ?

CIL 10, 8059, 172 Fuscus Campania no ? disp. Auli Vibbi no no ? ?

Heracleo CIL 10, 8059 n Campania no ? ser. L(uci) no no ? ?

ex Fortunatu dispensat Ulpiae Florentinae prob. CIL 11, 1359 s Etruria oribus yes coniugi incomparabili (?) no yes prob.

CIL 11, 4103 Thiasus Umbria no ? disp. Glabrionis no no ? ?

amico karissimo... Sexto Caesio Sex. Lib. Chresimo... Disp. CIL 11, 5065 Glyptus Umbria no yes Caepionis no no yes yes

316

vicarius Tertius vic... Disp. CIL 11, 5418 Priscus Umbria no (Tertius) Poppeae Sabinae no no no no

co- comm. W disp. Alliae Cordillae...et CIL 11, 6108 Linus Etruria no conservi Urania conserva no no yes yes

disp. Laribus et CIL 11, 7092 Festius Etruria no yes famil(iae) no no yes yes

honouring vicaria by CIL 11, 7251 Crescens Etruria no no conservus Felix no no no yes

Cypare contubern(ali) Peregrinu pientissimo Anistiae Piae CIL 12, 856 s Gall. Narb. no no libertae disp. no no no ?

CIL 13, 1364a Damonus Aquitania no yes T. Sabini Dic(---) disp. no no yes yes

poss. Imp. Disp. "Asclepiades vernae CIL 13, 5194 ? Germ. Sup. verna no disp(ensatoris) vicarius" no no no yes (vicar.)

D.M. Paridi vicario CIL 13, 6423 Eutychas Germ. Sup. no yes Eutychas disp. no no yes yes (vicar.)

CIL 13, 11068 (---)s Aquitania no yes disp. (---)nni Poll(---) no no yes yes

Primigeni CIL 14, 1396 anus Ostia no yes N]asseni disp. no no yes yes

Basilides bicarius(!) CIL 14, 1876 Sabinus Ostia no no Sabini dispensatoris no no no yes (vicar.)

Familiae Et libertis Q. Latium/Camp Marci Q. l. Aeschini CIL 14, 3033 Primus . no yes Primus disp. no no yes yes

no Valentinu (sons/chil fili(i) fecerunt bene CIL 14, 4486 s Ostia no dren) merenti no 48 ? ?

co-commemorated with "Maternus servus HEp 5, 385 Paternus Baetica no ? publicus"...? no 97 ? ?

317

Didymoi 217 Calaul(?) Egypt no ? ? no no ? ?

filio Atimeti et Appiae Cale contubernali fecit... EDCS, 108 Atimetus Rome no yes Appiae Severae disp. no no yes yes

Calocaer co- Urbanae sorori Cal. AE, 1964, 94 us Rome no comm. Paulinae Asiaticae disp. no no yes yes

AE 1965, 333 C]eladus Rome no yes no no no yes yes

AE 2008, 664 Turannus Baetica no yes Flacco nostro... Dat no no yes yes

Piperas Tim. Dispensatoris vicarius et Timostrat Aelia Epictesis P. Aelio AE 1959, 307 us Dacia no no Aeliano filio fecerunt no no no yes (vicar.)

IK 15, 1993 ? Asia no ? ]n vicarius disp no no yes yes (vicar.)

Marius prob. CLE, 2278 (?) Afr. Proc. no yes dispensique (!) (?) no ? ?

magister Laribus MGR, 1990, et 196 Euaratus Rome familiae yes [Geni]o Galli nostri no no yes yes

NSA, 1914, Marco Lucceio M. f. 389 Phillipus Rome no yes Volt. Maximo no no yes yes

NSA, 1916, 99 ]ictus Rome no ? 3]lani disp. no no ? ?

Mussiae T. l. Sintyche contubernali suae et sibi NSA, 1919, et post. vix. 25 ... T. 100 Verna(?) Rome no yes Mussi Sabini disp. no no yes yes

NSA 1923, Lyris coniugi b.m. ... P. 376 Ingenuus Rome no no (wife) Properti Paterculi disp. no no ? ?

NSA 1926, 433 Alcimus Capua no no (wife) fecit coniunx (unnamed) no 32 ? ?

Inscr.It., 10, Venetia et 01, 173 Sabinus Histria no ? ? no ? ? ?

318

Fructuosi Venusto AE 2001, Fructuos vicario Marianus suo 1785 us Macedonia no vicarius colliberto no (?) no no yes (2 vicar.)

Daphnus Classici AE 1985, 657 Classicus Alpes Poen. no vicarius dispensator(is) vicar(ius) no no no yes (vicar.)

AE 1997, Threpti disp. Surus 1266 Threptus Pann. Sup. no vicarius vicarius no no no yes (vicar.)

SIPSurrentum Latium/Camp Claudiae Capitolinae , 20 Cursor . no ? disp. no 29 ? ?

Attice P. Timini Serani AE 1984, 291 Phrates Samnium no yes ancillae conservae vix 15 no no yes yes

AE 1992, 362 ]r Samnium no yes ? no no yes yes

no Venetia et (brother - Titaciae Tertiae disp. AE 1966, 155 Synhodus Histria no not free?) Frater (fecit) no no ? ?

Catallage Camilli Rutili lanipendiae Primus Apulia et Rutili disp. Conservae et AE 2008, 419 Primus Calabria no yes sibi fecit no no yes yes

AE 1995, 467 Optatus Umbria no ? ? no no ? ?

idemque magister Laribus TermeDiocl., et 1, 412 Dymas Samnium familiae yes ? no no yes yes

AE 2009, 1292 Tychicus Achaea verna fam. (?) sui fecerunt et suis no no no ?

319

Appendix 1b: Personal Relationships mentioned in Dispensator Inscriptions

Slave/ incerti dispensatores: Manumitted dispensatores:

Type of Relationship mentioned Type of Relationship mentioned

Freed coniunx (same master) 10 Freed coniunx (same master) 4

Freed contubernalis (same master) 1 Freed contubernalis (same master) 1

Freed coniunx (different master) 1 Freed coniunx (different master) 1

Freed/free coniunx (master unknown) 5 Freed brother (same master) 3

Freed contubernalis (diff. master) 1 Free/freed daughter 2

Coniunx (slave/status unknown) 9 Slave mother (same master) 1

Contubernalis (slave/status unknown) 6 Total 12

Freed mother (same master) 3

Freed sister (diff. master) 1

Slave coniunx 8

Slave contubernalis 6

Child (slave/status unknown) 7

Other 1

Total 59

320

Appendix 2: Inscriptions of Cubicularii from Italy

Additional De Pecu Inscription Name Region duty/info Commemorator Family Manumitted Age Sua lium

AE 1905, 66 Vitalis Rome no no no slave 36 no ?

AE 1980, 151 Pro]phetes Rome no no no slave no no ?

Iunia Sextus Euche CIL 6, 942 Iunius Rome no no serva ? no no ?

CIL 6, 977 Corinthus Rome no no no slave 25 no ?

Tryphera Nome Erotis CIL 6, 5748 cubicularia Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

Arruntia CIL 6, 5942 Musa Rome Fausti liberta ? no yes no ? ?

Rome (monumentum no (see CIL 6, Aster CIL 6, 6254 Alter Statiliorum ) 6255) ? magister prob. slave 18 ? ?

Rome (monumentum no (see CIL 6, Aster CIL 6, 6255 Alter Statiliorum ) 6254) ? magister prob. slave 18 ? ?

Rome (monumentum cubic. Tauri CIL 6, 6256 Apthonus Statiliorum ) patris ? no slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentum cubic. Tauri CIL 6, 6257 Clarus Statiliorum ) adulesc. ? no slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentum brother to a brother CIL 6, 6258 Eutychus Statiliorum ) velarius yes (slave) prob. slave no yes yes

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 6259 Felix Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

321

Rome (monumentum (Donata? CIL 6, 6260 Glycon Statiliorum ) no no ) prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 6261 Hilario Statiliorum ) no ? no slave 20 ? ?

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 6262 Iucundus Statiliorum ) verna ? no slave 21 ? ?

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 6263 Menophilus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave 30 ? ?

Rome T. Statilius (monumentum Corneliaes CIL 6, 6264 Phileros Statiliorum ) cubicularius ? no yes no ? ?

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 6265 Teres Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentum conservus to conservu CIL 6, 6595 Diodorus Statiliorum ) an a manu yes s slave no yes yes

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 6615 Sos]stratus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome T. Statilius (monumentum supra (Laetilia? CIL 6, 6645 Tauri l. Statiliorum ) cubicularios no ) yes no no ?

CIL 6, 6724 Ingenuus Rome no ? no no no ? ?

Rome (monumentum Luci Volusi CIL 6, 7287 Cer[---] Volusiorum ) cubic. no (contub.) contub. slave no ? ?

«Anatole » (second/n Rome ew (monumentum Luci Volussi contubnal CIL 6, 7288 Iphus Volusiorum ) cubic. no (contub.) is?) slave no ? ?

322

Volusia Prima patrono suo ..coniugi … Thyrso a cella Lucius Rome vixit Volusius (monumentum capsarius et a annos CIL 6, 7368 Heracla Volusiorum ) cubiculo no XXXV yes no no ?

Rome (monumentum (collegae CIL 6, 7369 Hebenus Volusiorum ) no no (collegae) ) prob. slave no no ?

yes CIL 6, 7370 Paris Rome procurator no (family) (loads) yes no no ?

CIL 6 7603 Charopinus Rome no ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 7604 Eros Rome no ? no prob. slave 30 ? ?

Chrysis Appi M. Slianus liberta CIL 6, 7605 Iugurtha Rome (Appus?) no (coniunx) coniugu slave 27 no ?

Appi Silani CIL 6, 7606 Logus Rome cubic, ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 7654 Chr[---] Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

Q. Servaei Epaphrodit Innocentis a conservu CIL 6, 9285 us Rome cubic yes s slave no yes yes

conservu CIL 6, 9286 Philinus Rome verna ? s slave 27 ? ?

supra T. Statilius cubicularios CIL 6, 9287 Synistor Rome Tauri libertus ? no yes no ? ?

(cubic. CIL 6, 9291 Abscanthus Rome no no (cubic. Met. Met. prob. slave 20 no ?

323

(cubic. CIL 6, 9291 Metrobius Rome no yes Abscant. prob. slave no yes yes

Agathopod (collegae CIL 6, 9296 us Rome no no ) slave no no ?

Calais[---] CIL 6, 9298 Pulcher Rome no yes coniunx ? no yes ?

Marciae CIL 6, 9298a Corinthus Rome cubic. ? no slave 25 ? ?

Eros CIL 6, 9299 Cinnamus Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

CIL 6, 9300 Eros Rome no ? no slave no ? ?

Publi Octavi cubiculari coniuns CIL 6, 9301 Eros Rome conuugi fecit yes libraria slave no yes yes

CIL 6, 9302 Eryx Rome no ? no prob. slave 18 ? ?

Rome (monumentum CIL 6, 9303 Faustus Volusiorum ) no no (frater) frater prob. slave no no ?

Rome (monumentum Volusi father CIL 6, 9304 Herma Volusiorum ) Saturni cubic. no (father) (Anteros) slave no no ?

Iucunda CIL 6, 9305 Optatus Rome Opsi cubic. no (conservae) conserva slave no no ?

CIL 6, 9306 Paneros Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9307 Philetus Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9308 Polybius Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

L. Pomponius CIL 6, 9309 Phila Rome L. libertus ? no yes no ? ?

L. Domitii ex collegio curante conservu CIL 6, 9310 Zmaragdus Rome Apollinaris Nicostrato s (?) no (ser) no yes yes

324

Diadumenu being CIL 6, 10229 s Rome test. Dasum. no conservi manumitted no no ?

being CIL 6, 10229 Eutyches Rome test. Dasum. no conservi manumitted no no ?

CIL 6, 28395 Pro[---] Rome no yes coniugi ? no yes ?

M. Reguli CIL 6, 33398 Helops Rome cubicularius ? no slave no ? ?

Eburnaes ser(vo) supra CIL 6, 33842 Alexa Rome cubicularios ? no slave no ? ?

(Quinti CIL 6, 33843 Isthmus Rome no yes libertus?) prob. slave no yes yes

Iulia Hecatodoru cubiculario Graphis CIL 6, 33844 s Rome Sergiani no coniugi slave no no ?

mater et CIL 6, 34271 Eugenes Rome no no (mater et pater) pater ? no no ?

cubic. Decimi CIL 6, 34272 Felix Rome nostri ? no slave 30 ? ?

Phyllis CIL 6, 37719 Carystus Rome no ? coniunx prob. slave no ? ?

Q. Iunius CIL 6, 37785 Blasius (?) Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

L. Vitelli CIL 6, 37786 Pyramus Rome cubic. ? no slave no ? ?

C. Marius CIL 9, 824 Salvius Venafrum C. libertus ? no yes no ? ?

CIL 11, 6265 Isidorus Umbria no ? no ? no ? ?

cum suis votum yes AE 1975, 416 [---]nus Aquileia no yes solvit no no yes (?)

325

Appendix 3: Other Domestic Occupational Inscriptions from Italy

Cocus/Coquus:

Additional Commemorato Manumitte De Inscription Name Region duty/info r Family d Age Sua Peculium

AE 1994, 441 Chrestio Apulia ? ? prob. slave ? ? ?

Cappadox Galbae cocus Onesimus fect contubernalis AE 1980, 151 Cappadox Rome contubernali Onesimus contub. prob. slave no no ?

Rome (monumen tum Statilioru cocus servus CIL 6, 6246 Eros m) Posidippi ? no slave no ? ?

Rome (monumen tum Statilioru cocus CIL 6, 6247 Hilarus m) Barbianus ? No Slave No ? ?

Nireus Rome [Ph]ilerotis (monumen l(iberti) coci tum ser(vus) / Statilioru vix(it) servus CIL 6, 6248 Phileros m) ann(os) V prob. Nireus yes no ? ?

Rome (monumen tum Statilioru CIL 6, 6249 Zena m) no no no prob. slave no ? ?

Caecili P. P(ubli) Caecilius l(iberti) CIL 6, 7433 Felix Rome Felicis coci ? no yes no ? ?

cocus CIL 6, 7602 Acastus Rome Torquati ? no slave no ? ?

326

Sophe yes Adrasti coci (wife/freed CIL 6, 9263 Adrastus Rome liberate uxor yes woman) yes no yes N/A

Marcellae Minoris CIL 6, 8755 Zethus Rome cocus ? no slave no ? ?

Iucunda CIL 6, 9265 Apollonius Rome no no (Iucunda) (conser?) prob. slave no ? ?

Alche CIL 6, 9266 Arax Rome no ? pedisequa prob. slave no ? ?

Philargus familiae et prob. CIL 6, 9268 Pr[---] Rome no yes libertis free/freed no yes ?

CIL 6, 9269 Turannus Rome no yes ? prob. slave no yes yes (?)

M. Fuficius CIL 6, 9270 M. l. Eros Rome no yes conliberta yes no yes ?

C. Genicilius C. l. Domesticu Sexti Lartidi CIL 6, 9271 s Rome cocus ? no yes no ? ?

CIL 6, 9272 [---]nio Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

L. Clodius L. l. liberti and CIL 10, 5211 Antiochus Latium no yes colliberti yes no yes ?

L. Arruntius L. l. Cil 11, 3850 Hilarius Etruria no ? no yes 40 ? ?

L. Trebonius mul. l. AE 1928, 8 Antiochus Rome mulieris lib. ? no yes no ? ?

L. Ateius NSA 1914 L. l. 378-06 Priamus Rome no ? no yes no ? ?

327

Dasumii (ln. Freed by CIL 6, 10229 [--]us Rome 42) no colliberti will no no ?

Grammicu Dasumii (ln. Freed by CIL 6, 10229 s Rome 42) no colliberti will no no ?

named with CIL 14, 2875 unnamed Latium atriensis yes, w atriens maybe prob. slave no yes yes

A manu:

De Inscriptio Additional Commemorato Manumitte Su Peculiu n Name Region duty/info r Family d Age a m

Faustus AE 1980, C(ai) 150 Galbae Rome no yes cosservi slave no yes yes

Synhetus CIL 6, Magnae l. a 1961 Synhetus Rome manu ? colliberti yes no ? ?

CIL 6, Felicio Attali 4243 Felicio Rome a manu ? ? slave no no no

CIL 6, Ligus L. Aeli 6030 Ligus Rome Seiani a manu ? ? slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu CIL 6, T. Statilius m T. Statilius T. 6273 Optatus Statiliorum ) l. Optatus ? colliberti yes 26 ? ?

Rome ? (monumentu (prima CIL 6, m Nothi librari a aetatis 6314 Nothus Statiliorum ) manu coniunx coniunx prob. slave ) no ?

Epapho / Rome Corvini a Diodorus (monumentu manu / conser(vus) / CIL 6, m ann(os) cubicularius / 6595 Epaphus Statiliorum ) XXXV fecit conservus slave 35 no ?

328

Rome (monumentu Hedylalo / a (cf. CIL 6, CIL 6, m manu 7281a/ CIL 6, 7281 Hedylalus Volusiorum ) curatoibus 9539) conservi slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu curatoribus… CIL 6, m Hedylalus a 7281a Hedylalus Volusiorum ) manu ? conservi slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu CIL 6, m Hedylalo / a 9539 Hedylalus Volusiorum ) manu curavit ? conservi slave no ? ?

L. Volusi / CIL 6, Saturnini / a 7294 Cestus Rome manu conservus conservus slave 23 no ?

CIL 6, Q. nostri / a contubernal 7372 Niceros Rome manu contubernali (?) i slave no ? ?

L. Volusio CIL 6, Phaedro… a 7373 Herma Rome manu yes master (?) prob. slave no yes yes

Pitheros / Pompeiae / Q(uinti) f(ilii) CIL 6, librarius / a 9524 Pitheros Rome manu ? father (?) slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9534 Atticus Rome yes ? prob. slave no yes yes

L. Sei / CIL 6, Strabonis a Salvilla coniunx 9535 Liburnus Rome manu fec. coniunx slave no no no

Ti(beri) CIL 6, n(ostri) a 9536 Myrtilus Rome manu ? ? slave no ? ?

Prepon C. Atei CIL 6, Capitonis / a (co?)liberta 9537 Prepon Rome manu yes coniunx slave no yes yes

329

CIL 6, Primigeniu Q. nostri / a 9538 s Rome manu Festa conserva conserva slave no no no

Egnatiae coniugi Caius CIL 6, Grapte Maximillae a Egnatius coniunx 9540 (woman) Rome manu Arogus libertus slave no no no

CIL 6, Tyche Hermes coniugi 9541 (woman) Rome fecit coniunx slave no no no

CIL 9, 4909 Ionius slave

CIL 9, C. Plaetorius C. Plaetorius 4909 Eileisus Samnium Florus Florus/ master conservi slave no no no

Stertini CIL 14, Quarti / a 2654 Mansuetus Tusculum manu Carpus fratri frater ? no no no

GLINY 00010 Felicio Rome Cale conservo conserva slave no no no

Notarius:

Additional De Inscription Name Region duty/info Commemorator Family Manumitted Age Sua Peculium

Rome AE 2001, (Crypta 517 Bitus Balbi) Biti / notari ? ? prob. slave no ? ?

AIIRoma- 11, 10 Temenus Rome ? ? prob. slave no ? ?

servus notarius et CIL 6, 9130 Flavianus Rome actor yes coniunx slave no yes yes

CIL 6, Diadumen Test. Das. 10229 us Rome Ln. 43 no ? being freed no no yes

CIL 6, Test. Das. Contubernal 10229 Sabinus Rome Ln. 40 no is freed by will no no yes

CIL 6, notariae coniunx 33892 Hapate Rome Graecae no (coniunx) (Pittosus) prob. slave 25 no no

330

notario / CIL 10, Voconii 1932 Fortunatus Puteoli Polybii no no slave no no no

AE 1990, M. Fabius Bruttiu librarius no (Cinarus 213 Colendus m notarius paedagogus) no yes 19 no no

Pedisequus:

De Additional Commemorato Manumitte Ag Su Peculiu Inscription Name Region duty/info r Family d e a m

AE 1913, 107 Cypraeus (!) Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

ab conservas Philusa unnamed pedisequas Andraei CIL 6, 4354 conservi Rome (!) yes liberti uxor slave no yes yes

CIL 6, 5983 Rusticus Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6332 Eutrophus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6333 Felix Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6334 Iphi[---] Statiliorum ) no ? no ? no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m Statiliaes CIL 6, 6336 Posis Statiliorum ) pedisequa ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 7012 ]men[---] Rome no (?) ? no ? no ? ?

CIL 6, 7410 Methe Rome pedisequa ? no prob. slave 20 ? ?

331

Arax cocus/Alche CIL 6, 9266 Alche Rome pedisequa ? (cocus?) prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9768 Dasius Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9770 Priscus Rome no ? no prob. slave 20 ? ?

CIL 6, 9772 unnamed Rome no ? no ? 26 ? ?

CIL 6, 9773 Anthusa Rome pedisequa ? no prob. slave no ? ?

pedisequa / CIL 6, 9774 Chloe Rome Apollonidae ? no slave no ? ?

Statiliae Erotis ad minoris impediment CIL 6, 9775 Doris Rome pedisequa ? a (24 years) slave no ? ?

Syntomus CIL 6, 9776 Galateae Rome pedisequa coniunx coniunx prob. slave 21 ? ?

Homerus CIL 6, 9777 Grata Rome pedisequa coniunx coniunx slave no no ?

CIL 6, 9778 Iunia Rome pedisequa ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9779 Notis Rome pedisequa ? no prob. slave 27 ? ?

Fidelis et Thoas CIL 6, 9780 Plote Rome pedisequa no (conservi) conservi slave 25 ? ?

CIL 6, 9781 Rufa Rome pedisequa ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 33476 Berullus Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 33477 Lyde Rome pedisequa ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 33896 Anthusa Rome pedisequa ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 37722 Cypaerus Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

332

Manius CIL 10, Poblicius 1949 Niceros Puteoli no fratres fratres ? no ? ?

CIL 14, 3560 Optatus Tibur no yes (conservus?) prob. slave no ? ?

AE 1945, Aeliaes 110 Cledo Rome pedisequa ? no slave no ? ?

Fortio et AE 1933, Chrysostomu 153 s Brixellum no yes to domini slave no ? ?

ViaImp 127 Vitalis Rome no yes Honorata (?) prob. slave no yes ?

Atriensis:

Additional De Peculiu Inscription Name Region duty/info Commemorator Family Manumitted Age Sua m

Stephano AE 1964, atriensi 88 Stephanus Rome Antoniano ? no ? no ? ?

C. Batonius CIL 6, 966 Epigonus Rome no yes ? ? (free) no yes ?

CIL 6, captus a 5847 Chresimus Rome Corinthis ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, conlegium 6215 Bathyllus Rome commemm. yes conservi slave no ? ?

CIL 6, Antigonus 6239 Canidianus Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

Rome (monumentu Hilarus CIL 6, m no (Hilarus (magistro 6240 Felix Statiliorum ) no magistro suo) suo) prob. slave no no ?

Rome (monumentu CIL 6, m ex horteis, 6241 Lentiscus Statiliorum ) atriensis ? no prob. slave no ? ?

333

Rome (monumentu CIL 6, m 6242 Primus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

yes (Statiliae Rome Titi (monumentu libertae CIL 6, m Hilarae 6250 Philologus Statiliorum ) no yes coniugi) prob. slave no yes yes

Rome (monumentu CIL 6, m 7301 [---]ho Volusiorum ) no no (brother) brother prob. slave no no ?

CIL 6, 9192 Acutus Rome no yes no prob. slave no yes yes (?)

CIL 6, Anigonus 9193 Carpus Rome no yes (??) prob. slave no yes yes (?)

CIL 6, no (Asini 9194 Eros Rome atriensis) ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, (Sperata 9195 Eunus Rome no (maybe)? ornatrix?) prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9196 Nicephorus Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9197 Princeps Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, T. Vini yes 9199 Zethus Rome atriensis no (brother) (brother) slave 20 no ?

coques atriensis Fortunae Primigenia CIL 14, e donum 2875 unnamed Praeneste dant… yes no ? no yes yes (?)

(on a lamp) CIL 15, Eros 6420 Eros Rome Atriensis no no prob. slave no ? ?

334

Ostiarius:

Additional Manumitte De Inscription Name Region duty/info Commemorator Family d Age Sua Peculium

conservi Rome (colorator (monument libertus um curator Amaranthus CIL 6, 6215 Musaeus Statiliorum ) conlegium yes ) prob. slave no yes yes

Rome curator (monument conlegium um and CIL 6, 6217 Musaeus Statiliorum ) silentiarius yes conservi prob. slave no yes yes

Rome (monument amici um Pasaes (conservi CIL 6, 6326 Optata Statiliorum ) ostiaria no (amici) ?) slave no no ?

CIL 6, 9737 Cilliba Rome no no no prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9738 Zethus Rome no no no prob. slave no ? ?

...et Chreste Bassaes AE 2006, 234 Macedo Rome ministra ? (Chreste?) slave no ? ?

Lecticarii:

Additional Commemorato Manumitte Ag De Peculiu Inscription Name Region duty/info r Family d e Sua m

collegium collegium Fabricius C. lecticarioru lecticarioru CIL 1, 3066 libertus Praeneste m ? m yes no ? ?

Iole Diogenes Pomeiana CIL 6, 5865 Pompeianus Rome no ? tonstrix yes no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6218 Antiochus Statiliorum ) de collegio ? de collegio prob. slave no ? ?

335

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6302 Aba Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome Calliste (monumentu vicaria m lecticario Philogus et CIL 6, 6303 Agathon Statiliorum ) Tauri no Felix fecit slave no no yes

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6304 Alcimus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave 40 ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6305 Ascla Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave 40 ? ?

Rome (monumentu m Tauri CIL 6, 6307 Bithus Statiliorum ) lecticarius ? no slave 40 ? ?

Rome (monumentu Callista et m Tauri Philogus CIL 6, 6308 Iucundus Statiliorum ) lecticarius no (conservi?) (conservi?) slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6309 Laetus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6310 Medus Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m Pap(h)lago CIL 6, 6311 Phileros Statiliorum ) lecticarius ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome Sissenae CIL 6, 6312 Potamus (monumentu lect(icarius) ? no slave no ? ?

336

m Statiliorum )

Rome (monumentu m CIL 6, 6313 Trugunda Statiliorum ) no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

Rome (monumentu m no (libert. libert. CIL 6, 7292 Nicephor Volusiorum ) no Conser) Conser.? slave no ? ?

M. Silani CIL 6, 7608 Dryans Rome lecticar. ? no slave no ? ?

L. Canini Galli CIL 6, 7989 Primus Rome ser(vus) ? no slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 9462a Hesiodos Rome no ? colliberti yes no ? ?

CIL 6, 9504 Antiochus Rome no ? no no no ? ?

Paullinae CIL 6, 9505 Eros Rome lecticarius ? Lecadis vir slave no ? ?

Ti(beri) n(ostri) Tytyche servo Faustinaes CIL 6, 9506 Eufra Rome lecticario no (coniugi) coniugi slave no no ?

CIL 6, 9507 Felix Rome Regilli ? no slave no ? ?

D. Iunius (mulieris) CIL 6, 9509 Nicander Rome libertus ? no yes no ? ?

CIL 6, 9510 Nicarchus Rome no yes conservi (?) prob. slave no yes yes (?)

CIL 6, 9510 Nobilis Rome no yes conservi (?) prob. slave no yes yes (?)

Nymphodotu M. Silani CIL 6, 9511 s Rome lecticar. ? no slave no ? ?

(Arruntia L. CIL 6, 9512 Seleucus Rome no ? lib. Storge?) prob. slave no ? ?

CIL 6, 33424 Antiochus Rome no ? no prob. slave no ? ?

337

Rome (monumentu supra T. Statilius T. Statilius m lect(icarius) Crescens CIL 6, 6301 Spinther Statiliorum ) Tauri lib. ? f(ilius) yes no ? ?

Tabellarius:

De Additional Commemorato Ag Su Peculiu Inscription Name Region duty/info r Family Manumitted e a m

Rome (monumentu m tabellarius coniunx CIL 6, 6342 Scaeva Statiliorum ) Tauri yes quasillaria slave no yes yes

Rome (monumentu Diomede m contubernale CIL 6, 6357 s Statiliorum ) no contubernales s prob. slave no no ?

ex publico et CIL 6, 6869 Felix Rome no no ex sodalicio prob. slave no no ?

CIL 6, 9916 Eutychus Rome no yes no prob. slave no yes yes (?)

CIL 10, 1961 Urbanus Puteoli no yes no prob. slave no yes yes (?)

Capsarius:

Inscriptio Additional Commemorato Manumitte De Peculiu n Name Region duty/info r Family d Age Sua m

AE 1946, Q. Histrius capsarius Q. Histrio 128 Felix Rome de Velabro yes Alexandro (?) ? no yes ?

M. CIL 5, Terrentius 3158 Marcellus Rome no ? M. filius ingen. no ? ?

Rome (monumentu CIL 6, m puer 6245 Epaphra Statiliorum ) capsarius ? no no no ? ?

338

Rome L. (monumentu capsarius CIL 6, Volusius m et a liberta et ? 7368 Heracla Volusiorum ) cubiculo no coniunx yes no no (vicaria?)

Not. Sc. 1923, 361 Firmus Rome no ? no no 7 ? ?

Ornatrix:

De Additional Commemorato Manumitte Ag Su Peculiu Inscription Name Region duty/info r Family d e a m

AJAH, 1976, p. 76 Eliusi[--] Rome no no (contub.) contub. no (ser) no no ?

Clodia L. l. CIL 5, 4194 Prisca Brixia no Ascula publicus ? yes no no ?

Aponia a tutul(o) other household CIL 6, 966 * Successa Rome ornatrici ? liberti ? no ? ?

libert. Same CIL 6, 5876 Ploce Rome ornatrix pia ? master no (ser) no ? ?

Corneliae Volusiae coniunx coniunx CIL 6, 7296 Elate Rome ornatrix Hellanicus Hellanicus no (ser) 20 no ?

Volusii w CIL 6, 7297 Panope Rome contubern. no (contub.) contub. no (ser) 22 no ?

CIL 6, 7656 Acume Rome no ? no no no ? ?

Eunus atriens. CIL 6, 9195 Sperata Rome Volusii ? (?) no 22 ? ?

Hamilla Quintae Festus Festus contub. CIL 6, 9345 Alpionia Rome ornatrici contubern. (not same?) ? no no ?

a list of CIL 6, Prima freed 9462a liberta Rome domest. ? colliberti yes no ? ?

CIL 6, 9690 Morphe Rome no Felix coniunx Felix coniunx no (ser) 19 no ?

339

filia Antoniae libertae CIL 6, 9726 Anthis Rome Eronis no (mother) mother (freed) no 12 no ?

CIL 6, 9727 Cypare Rome no no (conser.?) (conser.?) no no no ?

CIL 6, 9728 Lalus Rome no father father no 19 no ?

CIL 6, 9728 Sperata Rome no no ? no 13 no ?

Pierinis ancilla ornatrix (2 CIL 6, 9730 Gnome Rome BCE) ? no no (ser) no ? ?

Hilara mater CIL 6, 9731 Pieris Rome no pos. Hilara mater no 9 no ?

Mithrodates Furiae pistor Flacci CIL 6, 9732 Psamate Rome ornatrix Thori Mithrodates (?) no (ser) 18 no ?

CIL 6, 9733 Sperata Rome no ? ? no 22 ? ?

CIL 6, 9734 ]oero Rome no ? ? no (ser) no ? ?

ancillae suae CIL 6, 9735 [3]cae Rome ornatrici no (domina) no no (ser) 27 no ?

Nostia ornatrix de CIL 6, 9736 Daphne Rome vico Longo ? her own liberta yes no ? ?

CIL 6, 33425 Irene Rome no ? ? no no ? ?

CIL 6, 34274 Serapias Rome no ? ? no no ? ?

CIL 6, Pollia w. tonsor de 37811 Urbana Rome Aemilianis yes (coniun.?) yes no yes ?

Numisiae CIL 10, ornatrix (11 Diaphyrus 1935 Chrematine Puteoli BCE) conservae conservus no (ser) no no ?

CIL 10, 1941 Clymene Puteoli no ? ? no no ? ?

340

CIL 10, Valeria 1942 Callityche Puteoli no ? no yes no ? ?

a whole list CIL 14, Agathemeri of servile 5306 s Ostia orn. ? ? no (ser) no ? ?

AE 1914, 144 Primilla Rome no ? no ? no ? ?

Tonsor:

Additional Commemorato Manumitt De Inscription Name Region duty/info r Family ed Age Sua Peculium

Ossa Q. Marius Q. Stabilionis libertus Q(uinti) Mari Primus XLV AE 1948, 71 Stabilio Rome to(n)soris ? years slave 25 ? ?

CIL 4, 8619a Aristus Pompeii Aristo tonsori ? no prob. slave no ? ?

P. Cornelius CIL 4, 8741 Faventinus Pompeii no ? no ? no

L. Baburius L. libertus yes (and CIL 5, 4101 Anthus Cremona no yes Firmo liberto) yes no yes ?

Ancaeus Hilarionis CIL 10, 1963 Ancaeus Puteoli tonsor ? no slave 28 ? ?

Rome (monume ntum Statilior CIL 6, 6366 Cadmus um ) no no (mother) mother prob. slave no no no

Rome (monume ntum Statilior CIL 6, 6367 Primus um ) no ? no prob. slave no no no

341

C. Publius 8 colliberti C. l. Statius (one named as CIL 6, 6994 tonsor Rome no ? a fullo) yes no ? ?

L. Gemini et Calpurnius Gemelli CIL 6, 9937 Idris Rome tonsor ? no ? no ? ?

et impubis - N(umeri) Vibi pos. broth. Or CIL 6, 9938 Pistus Rome Sereni tonsor ? sister slave no ? ?

A. Plauti CIL 6, 9939 Zethus Rome tonsori ? no slave no ? ?

P. Petronius P. l. CIL 6, 9940 Philomusus Rome de vico Scauri ? no yes no ? ?

tonsor de CIL 6, 31900 Filuminus Rome Circum ? conservi (??) prob. slave no ? ?

M. Calidius tonsor et M. l. Urbana liberta CIL 6, 37811 Apollonius Rome ornatrix no (wife ?) Urbana (?) yes no no ?

C. Iulius CIL 6, 37822 Festus Rome no ? no ? ? ? ?

CIL 10, 1964 Onomastus Puteoli no conservus conservus slave 20 no no

T. Sallustius CIL 11, 1071 T. l. Pusio Parma no w other liberti diff. liberti yes no yes ?

L. Cominius AE 1982, 259 L. l. Hilarus Umbria no ? diff. liberti yes no ? ?

C. Mettius C. l. AE 2000, 585 Germanus Liguria no ? no yes no ? ?

L. Rubirius father/mother/ AE 2003, 656 Stabilio Mutina no yes liberta ingen. no yes N/A