Public Slaves in Rome: 'Privileged' Or Not? *

The Classical Quarterly 70.1 368–384 © The Classical Association (2020) 368 doi:10.1017/S0009838820000506

PUBLIC SLAVES IN ROME: ‘PRIVILEGED’ OR NOT?*

INTRODUCTION

In the Roman world, slavery played a crucial role. Besides private slaves, owned by individual masters, and—from the beginning of the Principate—imperial slaves, who were the property of the emperors, there were also the so-called public slaves: non-free individuals who were owned by a community, such as the Roman people as a whole in Rome (serui publici populi Romani), or the citizen body of a colony or a municipium in Italy or in the provinces (serui ciuitatum). Public slaves in Rome were employed for numerous public services and acted under the authority of the Senate as assistants to public magistrates, officers or priests. Similarly, in Italian and in provincial cities, they juridically depended on the decisions of local councils and performed various activities within the civic administration, beholden to the magistrates.1 In historical and legal texts, the most frequent references are to a seruus publicus or to a seruus ciuitatis, whereas in Latin inscriptions we generally find a single personal name for the slave, which was the only name that slaves typically possessed, followed by the expression seruus publicus or by the ethnonym of the community—in the genitive case—to which they belonged. In some of these inscriptional instances, mostly from the city of Rome, public slaves are referred to with a second name (agnomen), derived from the nomen or the cognomen of their former masters. Modern scholarship has tended to distinguish serui publici from the general slave population, whether in Rome or in the municipalities, and regardless of chronology. This was due not only to their legal status (that is, as property of a collective entity) but also to the common opinion that they enjoyed an exceptionally high status and social mobility, which would have set them apart from other slaves. This paper aims to reassess this specific matter by relativizing the above-mentioned assumption. The focus of the investigation is indeed the social position of public slaves in the city of Rome, particularly in the Imperial period. The opening section will provide a review of the scholarly views on the social status of public slaves in the Roman world. This study will then discuss the various indicators of privileged status for public slaves, which have been adduced by modern scholarship,

* This paper is part of the ‘Serui Publici: Everybody’s Slaves (SPES)’ project, which was based at Newcastle University, and received funding under a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020–MSCA–IF–2015) under grant agreement no. 704716. I am very grateful to A. Russell, F. Santangelo, A. Wallace-Hadrill and G. Woolf for their useful comments on previous oral or written versions of this paper. Remarks and criticism from the anonymous reviewer and from B. Gibson proved invaluable. 1 The main studies of public slavery in the Roman world are L. Halkin, Les esclaves publics chez les Romains (Brussels, 1897; repr. 1965); W. Eder, Servitus publica. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung, Entwicklung und Funktion der öffentlichen Sklaverei in Rom (Wiesbaden, 1980); A. Weiss, Sklave der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des römischen Reiches (Stuttgart, 2004).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 28 Sep 2021 at 15:25:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838820000506 PUBLIC SLAVES IN ROME 369

with particular focus on the city of Rome. The third part will examine epigraphic evidence that can shed light on the manumission of serui publici populi Romani. There will follow a discussion of the possible existence of a hierarchy among members of the familia publica in Rome. The final section will examine how public slaves were viewed in ancient times, through analysis of a selection of passages from literary and legal texts.

1. PUBLIC SLAVES AS PRIVILEGED: THE COMMON VIEW

It is generally accepted that public slaves in the Roman world enjoyed a higher status within the servile population, benefitting to some extent from a privileged life and good social conditions. This interpretation stems from the fact that various legal measures provided for public slaves to receive certain ‘benefits’ (lodging, board and clothing, a possible remuneration, the right to dispose of half of their peculium testamentarily). In respect of all these formal ‘advantages’, Theodor Mommsen was among the first scholars to admit the existence of ‘theils factische, theils rechtliche Unterschiede’ between public and private slaves.2 The same arguments were advanced in 1897 by Léon Halkin.3 From then on, this view pervaded subsequent scholarship. In 1908, for example, William W. Buckland outlined that public slaves ‘took a social rank very different from that of ordinary slaves’,4 while, two decades later, Reginald H. Barrow stated that ‘the social and legal status of these [that is, public] slaves was superior to that of private slaves’.5 This perspective basically prevailed until the second half of the twentieth century and thereafter. For instance, when Gerard Boulvert and Paul Weaver embarked on their studies of imperial slavery, a topic somehow related to seruitus publica, they both shared the view that serui publici were privileged slaves.6 In 1977, in an article commenting (at times sternly) on Halkin’s book, Nourbert Rouland also ended up confirming the idea that public slaves enjoyed better conditions than private slaves.7 A few years later, Walter Eder reaffirmed ‘der privilegierte Stellung’ of the serui publici populi Romani: in addition to the formal ‘benefits’ already noted by previous scholars, he regarded the fact that public slaves in Rome generally partnered with freeborn or manumitted women as proof of a privileged condition; moreover, he supposed (though without evidence) that they were not required to perform operae for the state after their manumission, and interpreted this as a marker of status.8 While the lack of evidence makes this assumption simply impossible to prove for public slaves in Rome, the subsequent finding of the Lex Irnitana demonstrated that Eder’s hypothesis is most likely wrong for serui ciuitatum.9 In the decades that followed, other scholars agreed

2 T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 18873), 1.323; cf. 2.836. 3 Halkin (n. 1), 112, 120, 135. 4 W.W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery. The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge, 1908), 321. 5 R.H. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire (London, 1928), 130–2. 6 G. Boulvert, Esclaves et affranchis imperiaux sous le Haut-Empire romain. Rôle politique et administratif (Naples, 1970), 11; P.R.C. Weaver, Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge, 1972), 215. 7 N. Rouland, ‘A propos des serui publici populi Romani’, Chiron 7 (1977), 261–79, at 276. 8 Eder (n. 1), 122. Analogously, Rouland (n. 7) was sceptical about the possibility that public slaves were subject to the obligation of operae. 9 See n. 76 below.

with the commonly held idea of an overall better social condition of public slaves in comparison with the social condition of private slaves.10 In his 2004 book on public slaves in the cities of the Empire, Alexander Weiss devoted a whole chapter to ‘Die Stellung der öffentlichen Sklaven in der römischen Gesellschaft’.11 After an accurate analysis of the overall matter, Weiss concluded that the tendency to place municipal and colonial slaves on a high level within the whole slave society is legitimate. Indeed, besides their frequent unions with free or freed women, the possibility of some of these slaves receiving a sort of remuneration (as well as the fact that they performed euergetic acts) led him to infer that they had considerable liquid assets. As a result, Weiss suggested that municipal slaves be ranked immediately below those in the imperial household. This has remained as the prevailing opinion among scholars working on public slavery. For instance, in 2006, when studying the legal aspects of public slavery, János Zlinszky came to the conclusion that a public slave was entirely different from a private slave because of ‘eine gewisse Selbständigkeit’.12 Analogously, in 2007, when referring specifically to the familia publica of Ostia, Françoise Sudi-Guiral assumed that this group of slaves enjoyed ‘une position de supériorité’.13 Most recently, in 2011, Leonard Schumacher stated that public slaves were characterized by ‘a, relatively speaking, higher social position’.14 Finally, Richard Gamauf counted the ‘[s]erui publici owned by the state or a municipality’ among the ‘privileged […] groups of slaves’, as they ‘had a better legal position’.15 Only a few scholars—such as Paul Louis in 1912 or, more recently, José Miguel Serrano Delgado in 1996 and Christer Bruun in 2008—have openly questioned the assumption that public slaves occupied a ‘privileged’ position.16 Both Louis and Serrano Delgado argued that the majority of public slaves in Rome and in the municipalities performed menial jobs, which made their fate uncertain and debarred them from any career. Analysing the case study of Ostia, then, Bruun convincingly demonstrated that the former public slaves hardly reached a good social position, expressing an opposing opinion to that previously proposed by Sudi-Guiral.17

10 Cf. M. Morabito, Les réalités de l’esclavage d’après le Digeste (Paris, 1981), 177; A.T. Fear, ‘Ciues Latini, serui publici and the Lex Irnitana’, RIDA 37 (1990), 149–66, at 163; J.F. Rodríguez Neila, ‘Apparitores y personal servil en la administración local de la Bética’, SHHA 1 (1997), 197–228, at 223; M. Silvestrini, ‘Gli arcarii delle città’, MEFRA 117 (2005), 541–54, at 550. 11 Weiss (n. 1), 163–79. 12 J. Zlinszky, ‘Gemeineigentum am Beispiel der serui publici’, in T. Finkenauer (ed.), Sklaverei und Freilassung im römischen Recht. Symposium für Hans Josef Wieling zum 70. Geburstag (Berlin and Heidelberg, 2006), 317–26, at 323. 13 F. Sudi-Guiral, ‘La familia publica d’Ostie’, MEFRA 119 (2007), 421–6, at 426. Cf. also M. Cébeillac Gervasoni, M.L. Caldelli and F. Zevi, Épigraphie latine (Paris, 2006), 298. 14 L. Schumacher, ‘Slaves in Roman society’, in M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford, 2011), 589–608, at 598. 15 R. Gamauf, ‘Slavery: social position and legal capacity’, in P.J. Du Plessis, C. Ando and K. Tuori (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society (Oxford, 2016), 386–401, at 387 n. 9. 16 P. Louis, Le travail dans le monde romain (Paris, 1912), 61; J.M. Serrano Delgado, ‘Sceleratissimus seruus publicus: un episodio de la vida municipal afectando a la familia publica’, in Homenaje a José Ma Blásquez, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1996), 3.331–44, at 344; C. Bruun, ‘La familia publica di Ostia antica’, in M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori and S. Orlandi (edd.), Epigrafia 2006. Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’Épigraphie in onore di Silvio Panciera con altri contributi di colleghi, allievi e collaboratori (Rome, 2008), 537–56, at 549–53. 17 Bruun (n. 16), 552–3.

The greatest merit of these studies (Bruun’s in particular) is that of relativizing to a particular context the general assumption that public slaves were ‘privileged’,if compared to privately owned slaves. Indeed, it is possible to argue that in certain cities afewserui ciuitatum actually enjoyed an overall better social condition within the slave population in respect of the potential to gain freedom and improve their social position by becoming seuiri or Augustales. This was especially the case for those (limocincti, tabularii, actores, dispensatores, uilici and arcarii) who had a greater chance of being integrated into the local sub-elites.18 Such a situation was most likely to apply to the smallest towns, where the possibility of building strong links with local elites was easier for the public slaves who attended upon magistrates or acted in close association with them, rather than in the largest cities, such as Ostia, where the scope for social mobility was presumably significantly reduced. With regard to this, an examination of the biggest city (that is, Rome) would constitute a particularly significant case study, which has been overlooked so far.19

2. WHICH ‘PRIVILEGES’?

Before coming to any conclusion, it is necessary to discuss in greater detail whether the indicators of a privileged status identified by modern scholarship applied to all public slaves, that is, serui ciuitatum in colonies or municipia and serui publici populi Romani in Rome, and if these ‘privileges’ actually made them stand out from the rest of the slave population.

a) Lodging One of the regulations recorded in the bronze tables from Heraclea in Lucania, dating to the first century B.C., attests that in Italian municipalities some places were normally assigned to public slaves by censors for habitation or use.20 The same practice is likely to have remained in force even beyond this time, in all cities in Italy and abroad. A passage from Tacitus suggests that accommodation for public slaves was also provided in Rome, at least for those who were in charge as custodians of the temples (aeditui). In A.D. 68, escaping from the praetorians hired by Otho to kill him, Piso fled into the temple of Vesta in the Forum, where a public slave ( publicus seruus)

18 Weiss (n. 1), 177–9. See also G. Fabre, ‘Mobilité et stratification: le cas des serviteurs impériaux’, in E. Frézouls (ed.), La mobilité sociale dans le monde romain. Actes du colloque. Strasbourg, novembre 1988 (Strasbourg, 1992), 123–59, at 157; Serrano Delgado (n. 16), 343. 19 Specific studies on public slavery in Rome are Halkin (n. 1), 15–136 and Eder (n. 1). At least 142 inscriptions from Rome (mentioning more than 154 public slaves) could be taken into account by consulting the epigraphic source lists of Halkin (n. 1), 231–2 and Eder (n. 1), 2 n. 11, 175–7, as well as Table 1 in F. Luciani, ‘Public slaves in Rome and in the cities of the Latin West: new additions to the epigraphic corpus’, in C. Noreña, N. Papazarkadas (edd.), From Document to History: Epigraphic Insights into the Greco-Roman World (Leiden, 2019), 279–305, at 283–4. A complete list is now available at https://research.ncl.ac.uk/spes/. All this epigraphic evidence dates from the first century B.C. to the third century A.D. 20 CIL 12.593, line 82; cf. M.H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, 2 vols. (London, 1996), 1.366, 1.375. For the problems related to the date and nature of this legal text, see S. Sisani, ‘Le istituzioni municipali: legislazione e prassi tra il I secolo a.C. e l’età flavia’, in L. Capogrossi Colognesi, E. Lo Cascio and E. Tassi Scandone (edd.), L’Italia dei Flavi (Atti del Convegno, Roma, 4–5 ottobre 2012) (Rome, 2016), 9–55, at 29–47 with previous bibliography.

helped him to hide in his chamber (contubernium eius).21 Although no other evidence is currently available, it is likely that all public slaves employed in Rome had some accommodation at their disposal.22 However, none of these examples constitutes a real ‘benefit’; indeed, it is well known that lodging could also be granted to private slaves by their masters.23 The sole difference concerned the type of accommodation: private slaves typically lived with their masters under the same roof, whilst serui publici likely had lodgings at their disposal in public spaces of the city.24 These may have been shared among several slaves, as the term contubernium used by Tacitus seems to suggest.25

b) Board and clothing The so-called Lex Irnitana, the Flavian law on the administration of the municipium of Irni in Baetica, attests that a section of the city budget was devoted to food and clothing for those who were slaves of the municipes, that is, public slaves.26 There is no evidence of a similar practice in Rome, but it is more than likely that food and clothes for the serui publici populi Romani were also provided at the expense of the state. Indeed, in the Roman world, providing board and clothing for a slave commonly fell within the duties of a dominus, as made clear by Seneca (who clearly warned against calling this a ‘benefit’).27 It is possible to assume that the Senate in Rome was required to make sure that board and garments were duly supplied to the serui publici populi Romani, exactly as the local council (ordo decurionum) in the cities had to do for the serui ciuitatum.28 Hence, it seems that two more alleged ‘privileges’, that is, board and clothing, were actually basic needs provided for most slaves and not exclusively for public ones. The only difference is possibly that, besides receiving their daily board, some public slaves in Rome could also draw a salary from the public treasury. Frontinus attests that in 11 B.C.asenatus consultum decreed that a yearly food allowance (cibaria annua) in the

21 Tac. Hist. 1.43. Cf. also Tac. Hist. 3.74 and Suet. Dom. 1: again, in A.D. 68, during the war between Flavius Sabinus and Vitellius, the future emperor Domitian was hidden in the contubernium of the aedituus of the Capitol; the social status of this attendant is not specified by the two authors, but it is possible to infer that he was a public slave. On this, see also Halkin (n. 1), 68–9. 22 Archaeological traces of rooms found under the Forum of Nerva, in a public building dating to the Late Republican Age, have been recently interpreted as chambers for public slaves even though no firm evidence survives: see A. Rinaldi, ‘Preesistenze tardo repubblicane di carattere abitativo sotto la pavimentazione del foro di Nerva (con appendice di G. Maglie)’, Scienze dell’Antichità 21 (2015), 3–32, at 23. 23 Cf. the contributions of J. Edmondson (‘Slavery and the Roman family’) and M. George (‘Slavery and Roman material culture’) in K. Bradley and P. Cartledge (edd.), The Cambridge World History of Slavery (Cambridge, 2011), 1.337–61, at 1.343–6, and 1.385–413, at 388 respectively. 24 Eder (n. 1), 107–8. 25 Pliny’s young slaves also slept together in the paedagogium: Plin. Ep. 7.27.13. 26 J. Gonzalez and M.H. Crawford, ‘The Lex Irnitana: a new copy of the Flavian municipal law’, JRS 76 (1986), 147–243, at 174 (chapter 79, tablet IXA, lines 5–6). 27 Sen. Ben. 3.21; Seneca regarded as benefits either the fact that a master was indulgent to a slave or that he gave the slave the possibility of being educated like a freeborn person. Cf. also Epictetus, Diss. 4.1.37; Dig. 7.1.15.2 (Ulp. 18 Ad Sab.). 28 See also Halkin (n. 1), 15–16, 108, 140–1; F. Luciani, ‘Cittadini come domini, cittadini come patroni. Rapporti tra serui publici e città prima e dopo la manomissione’, in M. Dondin-Payre and N. Tran (edd.), Esclaves et maîtres dans le monde romain. Expressions épigraphiques de leurs relations (Rome, 2017), 45–64, at 47.

form of money ( pecunia) had to be granted to the three serui publici who assisted the public water commissioners (curatores aquarum publicarum).29 In another passage, Frontinus informs us that the team of 240 public slaves employed for the maintenance of the conduits ( familia publica aquaria) also received a kind of remuneration (commoda) paid from the state treasury (aerarium);30 this term may include a payment in cash, which could correspond to basic subsistence expenses.31 At any rate, there is no explicit evidence that all public slaves were salaried, as suggested by Eder.32 The fact that at least some public slaves could receive a remuneration led them to put aside and manage a monetary allowance or property ( peculium). The peculium of a public slave is also mentioned by Papinian.33 This is certainly not an exclusive ‘benefit’ for public slaves; indeed, it is well known that private masters could also offer their slaves a peculium.34 The only real difference is that serui publici populi Romani had the right to bequeath half their peculium.

c) Bequeathing A fragment of Ulpian explicitly states that a public slave of the Roman people had the right to dispose of half of their peculium testamentarily.35 Traces of how this right was exercised are scarce. Indeed, only one inscription from Rome mentions the heir of a public slave. This consists of a marble stele set up by Bithus Paullianus for Aemilia Prima, who is mentioned as being his concubine and heir.36 Of the other 142 epigraphic sources mentioning public slaves from Rome, only one case records the abbreviation H.M.H.E.N.S. (standing for hoc monumentum heredes exteros non sequetur), meaning ‘This monument does not follow heirs external to the family.’37 Conversely, there is no evidence for the formula T.F.I. (or anything similar), which stands for testamento fieri iussit,thatis,‘[The deceased] ordered [a funerary monument] to be made in his will.’ Slaves uicarii could also be included in the peculium of a slave.38 However, whereas several inscriptions attest that municipal or colonial slaves possessed uicarii in the cities of the Empire,39 no epigraphic evidence of public slaves’ uicarii is recorded in Rome. This suggests that public slaves in Rome used their peculium mostly to buy inscribed funerary monuments for themselves and/or their family.40 Moreover, since the vast

29 Frontin. Aq. 2.100. 30 Frontin. Aq. 2.118. 31 R.H. Rodgers (ed.), Frontinus. De aquaeductu urbis Romae (Cambridge, 2004), 302. 32 Eder (n. 1), 108–9. See also Rodgers (n. 31), 271. It is known that public slaves in most cities of Bithynia drew a yearly emolument too; cf. Plin. Ep. 10.31–2. 33 Dig. 16.2.19 (Pap. 11 resp.). 34 Cf., for example, Sen. Ep. 80.7. For the peculium of slaves, see A. Watson, Roman Slave Law (Baltimore, 1987), 90–101. 35 Ulp. Fragm. 20.16. On this passage, see M. Avenarius, Der pseudo-ulpianische liber singularis regularum. Entstehung, Eigenart und Überlieferung einer hochklassischen Juristenschrift. Analyse, Neuedition und deutsche Übersetzung (Göttingen, 2005), 394–5. 36 CIL 6.2354. 37 CIL 6.2345 = ILS 1975; cf. CIL 6, page 3828. 38 On the municipal slaves’ uicarii, see A. Nicoletti, ‘Serui publici e uicarii in C.I. 7, 9, 1’,in V. Giuffrè (ed.), Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino, 9 vols. (Naples, 1984–5), 3.1483– 7; F. Reduzzi Merola, Seruo parere. Studi sulla condizione giuridica degli schiavi vicari e dei sottoposti a schiavi nelle esperienze greca e romana (Naples, 1990), 176–9. 39 Cf. Halkin (n. 1), 220; Weiss (n. 1), 170–1. 40 Half of the inscriptions mentioning public slaves with partners (and/or family) (25 out of 50) are made either by the public slaves themselves or together with their partners.

majority of these epitaphs appeared on simple plaques, it is possible to infer that the amount of money at their disposal was not considerably high. While the possibility for public slaves in Rome of disposing of half of their peculium testamentarily may indeed be recognized as a ‘privilege’, the available inscriptional evidence does not provide us with much information about the management of such property and its impact in the life of public slaves. At the same time, however, these epigraphic sources offer a glimpse into the family relationships of serui publici.

d) Family relationships A significant number of inscriptions (50 out of 142) attest to unions between public slaves and women who are either ingenuae or libertae or of unclear status.41 As stated in the first section of this article, Eder has interpreted this as proof of a privileged status.42 However, unions between slaves and free (or freed) partners were fairly common and depended on the approval of their masters.43 When analysing the partners of Roman public slaves from an onomastic standpoint, it is immediately clear that only one ingenua is attested.44 All the other partners are either libertae or women of unclear status (most of whom were probably freedwomen themselves, as their Greek names would suggest). Then there is only one example of a union between a public slave and a female member of the familia Caesaris: Philippus Rustianus, a public slave assistant to the keeper of the shrine of the Deified Augustus in the Neronian Age, set up a tombstone for his partner (called coniunx) Claudia Lachne, who was a freedwoman of Claudius’ daughter Antonia.45 All this evidence seems to indicate that public slaves in Rome cohabited with ingenuae much more rarely than with libertae. The latter did not generally belong to the familia Caesaris, that is, the real elite among the slave-class and freedman-class of imperial society.46 Moreover, these unions clearly had the status of contubernia,as it happened with all other slaves.47 In the Roman world, any children born from a contubernium would be freeborn but illegitimate: according to the ius gentium, they indeed followed their mother’s condition, also obtaining her nomen.48 Six out of the fifty-five inscriptions mentioning unions between public slaves and free women clearly demonstrate that all children born in such ‘mixed marriages’ bear their mother’s nomen and are thus to be considered as illegitimate freeborn children.49 This undoubtedly demonstrates that

41 See also E. Herrmann-Otto, Ex ancilla natus. Untersuchungen zu den ‘hausgeborenen’ Sklaven und Sklavinnen im Westen des römischen Kaiserreiches (Stuttgart, 1994), 201. 42 Eder (n. 1), 112. 43 S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford, 1991), 53. 44 CIL 6.2335 = ILS 1967; cf. CIL 6, page 3828 (Asinia C. f. Sabina). 45 CIL 6.2329 = ILS 4992; cf. CIL 6, pages 3318, 3828. See also J. Rüpke and A. Glock, Fasti Sacerdotum. A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish and Christian Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 B.C.toA.D. 499 (Oxford, 2008), 838 no. 2698; Terme di Diocleziano. La collezione epigrafica (Milan, 2012), 268 no. V.5. 46 Weaver (n. 6), 295. 47 Cf. Paulus, Sententiae 2.19.6. 48 Gai. Inst. 1.80. See also P.A. Weaver, ‘The status of children in mixed marriage’, in B. Rawson (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome (London and Sydney, 1986), 145–69, at 145–7. 49 CIL 6.2310 = 6.4462, cf. page 3318 (early first century A.D.); CIL 6.2311 (early first century A.D.); CIL 6.2321 (early first century A.D.); CIL 6.2363, cf. page 3318 (second century A.D.); CIL 6.2374, cf. page 3318 (first century A.D.); CIL 6.37176 = ILS 9050 = AE 1910, 70 (second century A.D.). See also Herrmann-Otto (n. 41), 200–5. The case recorded in CIL 6.2316 (early second century

public slaves in Rome did not have the right to a legal marriage. This fact, however, did not prevent public slaves and their partners from defining themselves as coniuges in the inscriptions.50 In A.D. 52, Claudius persuaded the Senate to issue a senatus consultum,wherebya female Roman citizen (ingenua or liberta) entering into a relationship with a slave without the knowledge and consent of his master would have become enslaved to her partner’s owner. Conversely, she could remain free with the consent of the slave’s master, but any child born from her union with the slave would become a slave of the father’smaster, against the principle of the ius gentium, which was later restored by Hadrian.51 There is no explicit evidence that allows us to infer that this measure also affected public slaves in Rome. There are only three cases in which children of serui publici and women of uncertain status are recorded as slaves (though not as public slaves).52 In contrast, an inscription from Augusta Emerita seems to demonstrate that the senatus consultum Claudianum might have affected public slaves in that colony and possibly in other cities of the Empire too.53 Despite this measure, however, the practice of ‘mixed marriages’ continued to be common among municipal and colonial slaves, although a large number of inscriptions attest that unions between male and female public slaves were frequent too; as a result, the children born from such unions became public slaves themselves, implying that ‘slave breeding’ was one of the largest supply sources of public slaves in the cities of the Empire.54 In Rome, there is no evidence for female public slaves. Therefore, the most common way to provide Rome with serui publici was not by ‘slave breeding’ but by purchasing them (or receiving them as a donation) from the estates of private families. The second

A.D.) is quite exceptional: Helius Afinianus, a public slave attending on the augurs, and his partner Sextia Psyche set up a funerary monument to Vivenia Helias, daughter of Lucius, mentioned as the ‘most dutiful daughter’. Apparently, she was given as a cognomen a feminine form of her father’s name, but she did not take her mother’s nomen, as we would expect; moreover, the presence of the patronymic is inexplicable. Another unusual case is CIL 6.2345 = ILS 1975, cf. CIL 6, page 3828 (second century A.D.): Laetus, a workman of the public water supply, and Flavia Dionysia, presumably his partner, set up this monument to his daughter Aulia Argyris, who did not take her mother’s nomen. 50 The word coniunx is used in 33 out of the 50 inscriptions that mention public slaves with partners in Rome. The term maritus is attested in two cases, with uxor in only one case. Expressions such as concubina or contubernalis, which would have been the more lawful ones, are recorded once each. 51 Gai. Inst. 1.84. Cf. P.A. Weaver, ‘Gaius i. 84 and the S. C. Claudianum’, CR 14 (1986), 137–9, at 137. For the senatus consultum Claudianum, see P. Buongiorno, Senatus consulta Claudianis temporibus facta. Una palingenesi delle deliberazioni senatorie dell’età di Claudio (41–54 d.C.) (Naples, 2010), 311–25. 52 CIL 6.2343 (first century A.D.; the child is mentioned as a uerna); CIL 6.2357 = CLE 838, cf. CIL 6, page 3318 = ILS 8204 (first century A.D.); CIL 6.2361 (second century A.D.; the child is mentioned as a uerna). They might have been born before their mothers were manumitted. Cf. Herrmann-Otto (n. 41), 202–5. Rouland (n. 7), 265 n. 22 assumed that public slaves were exempt from the provisions of the senatus consultum Claudianum. 53 M. Schmidt, Spiegelbilder römischer Lebenswelt. Inschriftliches aus dem Archiv des Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum ausgewählt und kommentiert / Reflections of Roman Life and Living: Clichés from the Archive of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Selected and with a Commentary (Berlin and New York, 2003), 28 no. 12 (late first century A.D.). On this inscription and its implications, see J. Edmondson, ‘Glimpses inside the familia publica at Augusta Emerita (Mérida)’, in J. Carbonell Monils and H. Gimeno Pascual (edd.), A Baete ad fluuium Anam: Cultura epigráfica en la Bética Occidental y territorios fronterizos. Homenaje al profesor José Luis Moralejo Álvarez (Alcalá de Henares, 2016), 65–81; Luciani (n. 19), 298; F. Luciani and D. Urbanová, ‘Cursing not just the body. Some remarks on a defixio from Nomentum in the light of the role of female public slaves in the Roman world’, Epigraphica 81 (2019), 421–42, at 440–1. 54 Weiss (n. 1), 24–8.

name (agnomen) that most public slaves from Rome had along with their simplex nomen derived precisely from the nomen or the cognomen of their former master.55 Mommsen linked the fact that public slaves in Rome bore two names with the high social status that they would have enjoyed among the slave population, going so far as to interpret this practice as the expression of a hybrid position between real freedom and real enslavement.56 However, not all the serui publici in Rome had an agnomen.57 Unless one argues that public slaves without a second name were of lower status (which would seem difficult), this means that the agnomen actually had legal rather than social significance, just indicating the slave’s previous private master before the slave entered into public property.58

If one thus considers all the supposed ‘privileges’ that have been analysed so far, it appears that many other slaves in Rome might potentially have lived in conditions not dissimilar to those of the serui publici populi Romani. The most noticeable difference is that many aspects of the life of public slaves were regulated by law. This certainly had a legal significance: considering that public slaves in Rome were the property of the populus Romanus as a whole and not subject to the potestas of a single dominus, it is not surprising that their overall conditions of life should be legally—and publicly—formalized: this was in the interests of the populus and the res publica. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate whether other factors might have determined a better social position of serui publici within the slave population, that is, their chances to obtain manumission or at least their opportunities for promotion.

3. MANUMISSION: A REALISTIC HOPE?

The Lex Irnitana constitutes the main source of information about the manumission of serui ciuitatum. Chapter 72, entitled De seruis publicis manumittendis, established that a duumuir who wished to set a public slave free had to submit his proposal to the majority of the local councillors (decuriones); should they agree to the request and fix the amount of money that had to be received from the public slave, the duumuir could set him (or her) free.59 The same or similar rules were probably followed in other cities of the Empire as well.60 In the case of public slaves in Rome, there is no direct evidence for the procedure of manumitting them, but it is possible to surmise that it was analogous, involving a magistrate’s decision, previously authorized by the Senate. Indeed, when Varro makes reference to the manumission of public slaves both in Rome and in the municipalities, with specific attention to their onomastics, he also mentions the role played by Roman public magistrates.61 According to his account, most freedmen who had been set free in a municipium got their names from that town: Faventinus derived from Faventia and Reatinus from Reate; analogously, the freedmen of the Romans (Romanorum liberti) ought to have been given the name Romanus. However, in Rome this onomastic rule must have changed over time. Indeed, Varro himself says

55 Halkin (n. 1), 15–22, 32–5; Eder (n. 1), 14; Weiss (n. 1), 19–23. 56 Mommsen (n. 2), 1.323 n. 2. Similarly, Weaver (n. 6), 214–15. 57 At least 36 out of more than 154 public slaves are epigraphically attested with no agnomen. 58 Contra, Weaver (n. 6), 214–15. 59 Gonzalez and Crawford (n. 26), 171 (chapter 72, tablet VIIIB, lines 1–30). 60 Luciani (n. 28), 46. 61 Varro, Ling. 8.82–3.

that at some point before his time Roman public freedmen began to take the name of the magistrates who set them free—presumably the same magistrates who had proposed their manumission. A trace of the first—and most ancient?—onomastic habit mentioned by Varro may be found in an episode described by Livy for the year 405–404 B.C.,62 even though Livy’s reliability regarding this archaic period must always be carefully assessed, as he could have anticipated a later practice. At any rate, Livy tells that, during a battle against the Volsci, the Roman army was encountering difficulties in capturing the besieged citadel of Artena; it was only thanks to a slave, who let some soldiers in through a steep passage, that the Romans could enter the fortress and destroy it. The traitor slave was given as a reward, besides freedom, the properties of two families, and was named Servius Romanus. An example of the second onomastic rule may be found in Appian, notably when he mentions over 10,000 slaves of the proscribed, upon whom Sulla bestowed freedom, Roman citizenship and the nomen of Cornelius after himself. According to Appian, by act- ing this way Sulla sought to ensure for himself a huge number of individuals who would always have been ready to obey his commands.63 Beingconfiscatedbythestate,thepatri- mony of these proscribed men, including their slaves, was transferred into public property. These serui,havingbecomepublici, were manumitted by Sulla in his capacity as dictator, probably as a reward for their collaboration during the violence of the proscriptions.64 A third onomastic practice, not mentioned by Varro and probably in use by the first century B.C., must also be acknowledged. Two sources, Cicero and Pomponius (recorded in the Digest),65 provide information about a certain Menander, a former Greek slave sent to Greece as an official interpreter during a diplomatic mission, either before the Hannibalic War66 or after the battle of Pydna of 168 B.C. or possibly even after the destruction of Corinth in 146 B.C.67 Cicero mentions his complete name in full, Gnaeus Publicius Menander, whilst Pomponius simply records him as Menander, but specifies that he had been manumitted among the Romans (apud nos manumissus erat). He was probably a prisoner of war who initially became a public slave, then a public freedman. Consequently, it is possible to argue that public freedmen of the Romans could also receive the nomen Publicius, as happened to several liberti ciuitatum.68 Only one epigraphic document out of the 142 inscriptions mentioning public slaves from Rome refers to a manumitted public slave: it is the case of Tiberius Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus, a former public slave probably employed in a lawcourt ( publicus a subsellis tribunorum), who apparently took his praenomen and his nomen from the magistrate who set him free.69 Most likely, the emancipator is to be identified with an emperor (Claudius or Nero) in his capacity as magistrate.

62 Livy, 4.61.7–10. 63 App. B Ciu. 1.100. Cf. also F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome and Paris, 1985), 84; F. Santangelo, Sulla, the Elites and the Empire. A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East (Leiden, 2007), 95–9. 64 A. Thein, ‘Rewards to slaves in the proscriptions of 82 B.C.’, Tyche 28 (2013), 164–75, at 164–5. 65 Cic. Balb. 11.28; Dig. 49.15.5 (Pomp. 37 ad Q. Muc.). 66 F. Münzer, ‘Cn. Publicius Menander; M. Publicius Scaeva; Publicia’,inRE 23.2 (1959), 1902 no. 24. 67 R. Gardner, Cicero. The Speeches: Pro Caelio, De prouinciis consularibus, Pro Balbo (London and Cambridge MA, 1958), 660; G. Bellardi, Le orazioni di M. Tullio Cicerone (Turin, 1975), 694. 68 Halkin (n. 1), 39, 150–2; Eder (n. 1), 116–17. 69 CIL 6.2340 = ILS 1973, cf. CIL 6, page 3828. Cf. SupplIt. Imagines 2 (Rome, 2003), 474–5 no.

Within the large number of inscriptions from Rome recording Tiberii Claudii or Publicii whose status is not explicitly stated, not one plausible public freedman can be found.70 Rather, they are to be identified as imperial freedmen or former slaves of the gens Publicia. Some former public slaves could also be among them, although it would be strange, at the very least, for a former seruus publicus to conceal his previous condition or his current status of public freedman, especially if one assumes that serui publici were privileged. It is even more difficult to trace potential public freedmen if they took the name of a senatorial magistrate and if their status of former public slaves is not explicitly mentioned in their epitaphs or in the epitaphs of their partners and/or children. In all these cases, however, the issue related to the reason for their possible ‘camouflage’ should be addressed. Conversely, the great number of inscriptions mentioning public slaves who died in a condition of servitude, together with the almost complete absence of any certain public freedmen, seems to prove that, in Rome, manumitting public slaves was an extremely rare practice, at least during the Imperial Age.71 In contrast, in other cities of the Empire, the manumission of serui publici was arguably more common. According to Weiss’s catalogue, more than 360 inscriptions from all over the Empire record a total of about 300 public slaves and 90 public freedmen.72 The surviving inscriptional evidence does not necessarily represent an accurate reflection of the overall composition of the population of public slaves, especially if one considers the impact of the epigraphic ‘habit’ throughout the Empire. However, the difference between the number of attestations of public freedmen in Rome and in other cities of the Roman world is undoubtedly remarkable. It seems, therefore, possible that public slaves in Rome had no easy opportunities to gain freedom during the Empire, unlike what might have happened during the Republican period. The evidence actually shows that from the first to the third century A.D. serui publici in Rome were individuals who were mostly born into slavery (or had been enslaved), then transferred from private to public property, and eventually died as public slaves.73 Therefore, they did not use their peculium to pay for their own freedom, as was often the case with private slaves or with serui ciuitatum, who also enjoyed the benefit of maintaining half of their peculium on manumission.74

3108, 570–1 no. 3353 (a modern copy of the inscription is now preserved at the Antiquarium Comunale del Celio in Rome). 70 Only two cases may be considered: Tiberius Claudius Velox, mentioned by CIL 6.32444 = ILS 4164, could be interpreted as a public freedman, but his onomastics and his function of hymnologus primus M(atris) D(eum) I(daeae) e[t] Atti[d]is publicus are not to be intended as indisputable proofs; an analogous case would be that of Tiberius Claudius Glyptus, hymnologus de campo Caelemontano, attested by CIL 6.9475. 71 Eder’s estimate ([n. 1], 120) of 40–60 manumissions of public slaves in Rome per year, based on Cicero’s well-known remark that slaves might expect to be manumitted after seven years of enslavement (Cic. Phil. 8.11), refers to the Late Republic only. See also K.R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. A Study in Social Control (Oxford, 1987), 85, who argued that there are no grounds for believing Cicero’s statement to be generally valid. 72 Cf. Weiss (n. 1), 194–247. 73 So far, there is no evidence of public slaves who were purchased (or repurchased) by private masters and then possibly manumitted. 74 Dig. 40.3.3 (Pap. 14 resp.); cf. also H. Mouritsen, The Freedman in the Roman World (Cambridge, 2011), 201 n. 361. Chapter 72 of the Lex Irnitana attests to the payment of a sum for the manumission of public slaves: Gonzalez and Crawford (n. 26), 171, 192–3 (chapter 72, tablet VIIIB, lines 12–14). On possible traces of this practice in epigraphic sources, see Luciani (n. 28), 46, 63–4.

In this context of manumission, it is certainly important to deal with the issue of the operae, the services that Roman freedmen were generally obliged to perform for their former masters after the manumission.75 Indeed, as already mentioned, Eder supposed that public slaves were not required to perform such operae for the state after their manumission and interpreted this as a marker of status. Instead, public slaves in the cities were likely subject to this obligation towards their municipalities: chapter 72 of the Lex Irnitana makes indeed clear reference to operae, which municipal slaves were required to offer to the municipium of Irni.76 There are various attestations of colonial and municipal freedmen who were employed in the same activities on behalf of their cities as those they performed as slaves, and this circumstance seems to support the assumption that public slaves in the cities were subject to operae, like all other slaves.77 As for Rome, there is no similar evidence to infer whether former serui publici were obliged or not to perform any service for the state. This is why both Rouland and Eder suggested the possibility that public slaves had the privilege of exemption from operae.78 There are only very few sources which may allow us to challenge this view. One clue can be offered by the employment of the above-mentioned public freedman, Gnaeus Publicius Menander, who was employed as an official interpreter during a diplomatic mission for the Roman state.79 This might have been a service imposed by the Roman government on a former public slave, but it cannot be established with cer- tainty. The case of the other cited public freedman, Tiberius Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus, seems more significant. The fact that he is mentioned on his tombstone by his title of publicus a subsellis tribunorum may suggest that he also remained in this post after his manumission.80 After all, it would not be unimaginable that public freedmen in Rome could be obliged to offer service to the state, in the rare cases of their manumission. Indeed, as Henrik Mouritsen convincingly stressed, ‘formalised services [that is, operae] may have been more important in cases of “impersonal” patrons’.81 Anyhow, our sources are too scarce to ascertain whether or not public freedmen were required to perform operae for the state; it is not, therefore, possible to come to an unquestionable conclusion in this regard. However, the assumption that public freedmen in Rome were exempted from the obligation of operae is also groundless and this possible privilege is to be ruled out until proven otherwise.

4. AN INTERNAL HIERARCHY

Since public slaves in Rome apparently had no realistic prospect of manumission, it is necessary to examine whether there could have been any difference within their class, in order to understand whether they were given any chance of social advancement. A passage from the proceedings of the Arval Brethren attests that in A.D. 155 a public slave in attendance on this priesthood was ‘promoted’ to a more important office, that is, copying documents for the quaestors ( promotus ad tabulas quaestorias

75 W. Waldstein, Operae libertorum. Untersuchungen zur Dienstpflicht freigelassener Sklaven (Stuttgart, 1986). 76 Gonzalez and Crawford (n. 26), 171, 192–3 (chapter 72, tablet VIIIB, lines 23–4). 77 Weiss (n. 1), 164–6; Luciani (n. 28), 47–56. 78 See n. 8 above. 79 See n. 65 above. 80 See n. 69 above. 81 Mouritsen (n. 74), 201 n. 361.

transscribendas).82 This source seems to demonstrate that being in the service of the quaestores was regarded as a higher position than attending on the Fratres Aruales; we can thus infer that public slaves assisting magistrates were presumably held in higher regard than those attending on priests. The different economic treatment reserved for the above-mentioned three serui publici in attendance on the curatores aquarum publicarum (who received cibaria annua)andfor the team of 240 public slaves employed for the maintenance of the conduits (who were instead entitled to receive commoda) seems to confirm the existence of a comparable hierarchy.83 It is likely that the 240 members of the familia publica aquaria performed more menial jobs than the three serui publici who were part of the retinue of the curatores, and that, for this reason, their remuneration was comparatively lower. Such a distinction is also attested by the formal attire that some serui publici were wearing. According to two passages from Isidore of Seville, public slaves used to wear a particular garment called a limus: a kind of belt of varying width, which presented several crosswise purple stripes.84 These two excerpts from Isidore’s work led both Mommsen and Eder to consider the limus as the distinctive garment of all public slaves and, therefore, to regard it as a marker of status in its own right. However, a sentence of Marcus Tullius Tiro, freedman of Cicero, recorded by Aulus Gellius, suggests that a garment called limum (neuter form of the commonly attested masculine term limus) was worn only by the attendants of the magistrates.85 Although any more precise allusion to these limum-bearers is lacking, it is most likely that Tiro was referring to those public slaves who served and accompanied magistrates.86 After all, in Italian and in provincial cities too only the small group of public slaves who attended on the highest magistrates wore this particular garment (limocinti or publici cum cincto limo), which was actually a marker of distinction.87 Public slaves who assisted the highest magistrates (limocincti), together with archivists (tabularii), agents (actores), financial administrators and managers (dispensatores and uilici), and treasurers (arcarii), were also the only ones who performed acts of euergetism in the cities, which were sometimes even quite significant.88 Consequently, an internal hierarchy among serui ciuitatum clearly existed; public slaves belonging to the above-mentioned categories reached a more prominent position within the familia publica in the cities.89 Analogously, from what we can glimpse from literary and epigraphic sources, we may assume that a sort of hierarchy might also have existed within the body of the serui publici

82 CIL 6.2086, lines 62–6 (11 December A.D. 155). Cf. J. Scheid, Recherches archéologiques à la Magliana. Commentarii fratrum arualium qui supersunt. Les copies épigraphiques des protocoles annuels de la confrérie arvale (21 av.–304 ap. J.-C.) (Rome, 1998), 238. 83 See notes 29–30 above. 84 Isid. Etym. 15.14.2, 19.33.4. 85 Gell. NA 12.3.3. See also Hyg. Grom. Lim. const. 167.17–19 La. = 132.20–133.1 Th. Cf. TLL 7.2.1427.69–1428.18; J.-Y. Guillaumin, Les arpenteurs romains,I,Hygin le Gromatique, Frontin (Paris, 2005), 171–2. 86 On this and, more generally, on the iconography of Roman public slaves, see F. Luciani, ‘Notes on the external appearance of Roman public slaves’, in A. Binsfeld and M. Ghetta (edd.), Ubi servi erant? Die Ikonographie von Sklaven und Freigelassenen in der römischen Kunst (Stuttgart, 2019), 37–51, in which the hypothesis that public slaves had the right to wear the toga is also discussed and eventually rejected. 87 See A. Weiss, ‘Limocincti in Irni. Zur Ergänzung des Duumvirnparagraphen 18 der Lex Irnitana’, ZPE 135 (2001), 284–6, at 284; Weiss (n. 1), 31–3; Luciani (n. 86), 42–3. 88 Weiss (n. 1), 170–2; Luciani (n. 28), 57–63. 89 Serrano Delgado (n. 16), 343; Weiss (n. 1), 179.

populi Romani. Public slaves attending upon magistrates or curators certainly stood out from the group of serui publici, as they received a higher remuneration and wore the limus; we can say that they were at the top levels of the familia publica. Public slaves assisting priests—who probably did not wear the limus—were immediately below them. The rest of the serui publici, that is, those employed in more menial tasks, who were most likely to be the largest group, lay at the lowest rank of the familia publica. Ultimately then, since the limus was worn only by public slaves who were at the top of the hierarchy within public slavery, this garment cannot be regarded per se as a distinctive feature of all public slaves. Moreover, just as the fasces carried by the lictors, rather than the lictors themselves, were a symbol of the power of the magistrates, the limus was a representation of the authority of the public officials rather than a marker of distinction for those public slaves who were wearing it.

5. THE REPUTATION OF PUBLIC SLAVES IN LITERARY AND LEGAL SOURCES

Having found evidence for an internal hierarchy within the familia publica in Rome, it is worth examining some literary and legal sources in order to find possible information about ancient attitudes towards public slaves. First, serui publici have received much less attention in Latin literature than their imperial counterparts.90 Moreover, there is no reference at all to any positive, remarkable or even exceptional deed performed by a public slave or freedman, as in the case, for instance, of the father of Claudius Etruscus, the imperial freedman praised by Statius for his extraordinary rise and fall.91 Nevertheless, among the few authors who mention serui publici, some passages are quite significant, because they give an idea of how this slave class was perceived in ancient times. Two passages from Livy and Valerius Maximus may be of interest in this respect. Both authors record the same episode in which, in 312 B.C., the Censor Appius Claudius Caecus transferred to the state the cult of Hercules at the so-called Ara Maxima, an altar in the Forum Boarium.92 Such a cult had previously been maintained by two noble families, the gens Potitia and the gens Pinaria; thereafter, it was administered by public slaves (or, in fact, by a praetor with public slaves in attendance). Traditionally, it is believed that such intervention caused the blindness of Appius himself, as well as the extinction of the Potitii. Livy (9.34.17–19) records the

90 On imperial slaves and freedmen in literary sources, see Weaver (n. 6), 281–95. 91 Stat. Silu. 3.3. Cf. P. Weaver, ‘The father of Claudius Etruscus: Statius, Siluae 3.3’, CQ 15 (1965), 145–54; C.E. Newlands, Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire (Cambridge, 2004), 220–3. 92 On this episode, see Livy 1.7.14, 9.29.9–11, 9.34.17–19; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.40.5; Val. Max. 1.1.17; Festus, Gloss. Lat. 270; Lactant. Diu. inst. 2.7.15; Serv. 8.179 (cf. also 269); Macrob. Sat. 3.6.13; [Aur. Vict.] Orig. 8.5; [Aur. Vict.] De uir. ill. 34.1–2. Cf. F. Cassola, I gruppi politici romani nel III secolo a.C. (Trieste, 1962), 129; R.E.A. Palmer, ‘The censors of 312 B.C. and the state religion’, Historia 14 (1965), 293–324; B. Biondo, ‘I Potizi, i Pinari e la statizzazione del culto di Ercole’,in G. Franciosi (ed.), Ricerche sulla organizzazione gentilizia romana, 3 vols. (Naples, 1988), 2.189– 210; M. Humm, Appius Claudius Caecus. La République accomplice (Rome, 2005), 642–3; J. Rüpke, Religion in Republican Rome. Rationalization and Ritual Change (Philadelphia, 2012), 107. See also Varro, Ling. 6.54. A praetor urbanus overseeing the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima is also mentioned in CIL 6.313 = ILS 3402 = CLE 228 from Rome (third century A.D.), with reference to the Potitii too. On public slaves attending on a praetor, see Val. Max. 7.3.9.

indignation displayed by the tribune Publius Sempronius in the Senate in 310 B.C.atthe transfer of the Hercules cult service from the supervision of very noble priests to the service of (public) slaves (ab nobilissimis antistitibus … ad seruorum ministerium). Valerius Maximus (1.1.17) used a similar expression (humile seruorum publicorum ministerium), placing emphasis on the fact that the cult of Hercules was transferred into the lowly hands of public slaves. In the first case, the political stance underlying the words of the tribune Sempronius, who tried to compel Appius Claudius to lay his censorship down, is evident; in the second case, the attempt to glorify the nobility of the ancient families in opposition to the slaves (and against the ‘nationalization’ of the cult) is equally clear. However, these two disparaging remarks might also be considered as a trace of the possible ‘general’ low opinion of public slaves, especially those who attended on priests. Other literary sources mention public slaves who performed humble and violent (albeit legal) deeds, which they were probably coerced to accomplish, arguably even by using force. In 88 B.C., when the Senate declared Marius (together with Sulpicius and ten more individuals) a public enemy, the executioner who was sent to Minturnae to kill him seems to have been a public slave, although he did not commit the deed.93 In the Late Republican period, Varro, according to Aulus Gellius, complained about the impossibility of arresting aediles who were called into court by a private citizen, for these magistrates were surrounded by public slaves who could even be used to disperse the people.94 In 44 B.C., Cicero described as ‘shameful’ the flogging of Lucius Varius Cotyla, carried out by the public slaves attending on Antony in his capacity as consul.95 Cicero purposely mentions this episode in order to denigrate Antony; however, the event itself shows the extent to which public slaves could be compelled to fulfil even the most deplorable orders. Finally, a passage from the Lex Aelia Sentia dated to A.D. 4 might also be of some interest for the purpose of this overview. Among its regulations, this law established that private slaves who had been punished or condemned for ignominious crimes and subsequently manumitted would become free men but of the same status as foreigners who had capitulated ( peregrini dediticii). Such individuals would never become Roman citizens and they could not inherit or make a will; in the text of the law, it is said that this was the lowest sort of freedom ( pessima […] libertas).96 Furthermore, they were not allowed to remain in Rome or even within one hundred miles of the city. Those who contravened these rules were made slaves again, without any future possibility of being manumitted, and were forbidden to stay in Rome or within one hundred miles of it. If they were unlawfully set free, they would become slaves of the Roman people (serui populi Romani).97 This last penalty was intended to punish a master by depriving him of his slaves, rather than to penalize the slaves themselves; however, it is remarkable that the event of becoming a public slave was intended as the last step to degrade people who had previously experienced both slavery (twice) and pessima libertas.

93 Livy, Per.77(seruus natione Gallus); Vell. Pat. 2.19 (seruus publicus natione Germanus); Val. Max. 2.10.6 (seruus publicus natione Cimber); Plut. Mar. 39.1–2(ἱππεὺςδὲ Γαλάτης τὸ γένος ἢ Κίμβρος); App. B Ciu. 1.61 (Γαλάτην ἄνδρα); [Aur. Vict.] De uir. ill. 67.4–5(percussorem Gallum); Oros. 5.19.7 ( percussorem). 94 Gell. NA 13.13.4. 95 Cic. Phil. 8.24, 13.26. Cf. also G. Traina, ‘Notes classico-orientales 4–5’, Electrum 10 (2005), 89–93; G. Manuwald, Cicero, “Philippics” 3–9 (Berlin and Boston, 2007), 996. 96 Gai. Inst. 1.13–15, 1.25–6. 97 Gai. Inst. 1.27. Cf. also Buckland (n. 4), 544–6.

6. CONCLUSION: ‘PRIVILEGED’ TO WHAT EXTENT?

As has been discussed in Section 2 above, it may be concluded that most of the ‘privileges’ considered by modern scholars as a prerogative of public slaves were actually not exclusive to them. Indeed, slaves of any status could be provided with board, lodging and clothing. Perhaps some public slaves received also a sort of remuneration in exchange for their services. Arguably, though, this did not happen across the board. Furthermore, it was not unusual for private masters to also offer a wage or peculium to their slaves. The possibility of partnering free or freed women, which was commonly given to serui publici populi Romani by Roman authorities, cannot be counted as a marker of status either. Indeed, it was also possible for private slaves to cohabit with non-slave women, with the consent of their masters. Since unions between public slaves and non-slave women were not legal marriages, their children were illegitimate. Moreover, available sources show that the partners of public slaves did not generally belong to the familia Caesaris. The sole real ‘privilege’ granted to serui publici populi Romani (and not to other slaves) was the right to dispose of half of their peculium testamentarily and to maintain it on manumission. Nevertheless, only few epigraphic attestations of public slaves’ heirs exist in Rome to this day. Furthermore, the generally simple funerary monuments left by serui publici populi Romani (or their partners) suggest that their peculium was not a large sum. The absence of uicarii of public slaves in Rome, as opposed to what is attested in other cities of the Empire, seems to further confirm this inference. Section 3 above dealt with the most remarkable and surprising aspect concerning public slavery in Rome: the very scarce number of epigraphic sources mentioning public freedmen, which seems to suggest that manumission of public slaves in Rome was rare, at least during the Imperial Age. Contrary to what happened to public slaves in the cities, who could relatively often be granted freedom, the very large majority of serui publici in Rome had no real prospect of manumission. The sources examined in Section 4 above suggest that a kind of differentiation existed within the class of public slaves in Rome with respect to their duties. Attending on magistrates or curators was regarded as a better position than assisting priests, and public slaves who performed this duty had the opportunity to wear the limus. All the other publici enjoyed a humbler condition in life and reputation and were presumably dressed in a much less distinctive way. The limus cannot, therefore, be interpreted as a marker of status for all public slaves; it was an attribute of the highest serui publici in rank alone, that is, those attending on magistrates. As for public slaves in general, the literary sources analysed in Section 5 above convey an image of humble individuals, who were sometimes coerced to perform menial tasks or even violent deeds; these sources might be interpreted as conveying traces of the low esteem in which public slaves were generally held in ancient times. As for Rome, the impression is that the difference between serui publici and other slaves was more apparent in law than in practice. Any basic needs (lodging, board and clothing) as well as any possible real ‘privilege’ (the opportunity to get a remuneration and the right to dispose of half of their peculium testamentarily) had to be legally and officially formalized. This was precisely due to the fact that public slaves were owned by a community, not by a private individual. With regard to this, they certainly occupied a position legally different from the position of other slaves: being less exposed to the whim of a single master, one might suppose that they enjoyed relative independence, which might have made their lives safer and more stable than the lives of other slaves. If one considers, however, how public slaves in Rome could aspire to

social advancement and manumission, a different picture can be drawn. Contrary to what one can deduce for public slaves in colonies and in municipia, serui publici populi Romani in Rome could at best aspire to a promotion to a ‘higher’ office. The available evidence also shows that public slaves did not have exceptional assets or uicarii at their disposal. Moreover, despite their close collaboration with the highest public magistrates and priests, and despite the possibility of managing a peculium, even by a will, they could surely neither hope nor pay for their manumission, as many other slaves certainly did. The extraordinary right granted to public slaves to dispose of half of their peculium testamentarily might have been a sort of compensation for their difficulty in gaining freedom. These limited opportunities for socio-economic advancement and manumission prevent us from assimilating serui publici populi Romani into the category of the most favoured slaves in Rome, notably the imperial slaves. Indeed, serui Caesaris had the real chance to take up a sort of career (cursus) in imperial administration posts, to gain great wealth and political influence, and finally to expect manumission.98 This certainly reflects a change of the power mechanism after the institution of the Principate. During the Republican Age, some public slaves might have got close to the political power and, if they succeeded in building a strong link with a magistrate, they might have hoped for freedom. In contrast, in the Imperial Age, when serui Caesaris gained the predominant position within the servile population, especially in Rome, serui publici populi Romani just remained as a symbolic part of the apparatus of the Republican government. In certain Italian and provincial cities, some public slaves might indeed have enjoyed an overall better social condition within the slave population than serui publici populi Romani did in Rome. The possibility of them gaining freedom and improving their social position was certainly greater, especially if one considers the attendants of magistrates, or the archivists, agents and treasurers, who had more chances to integrate into the local elites. As the epigraphic evidence collected and discussed by Weiss demonstrates, together with the case study of Ostia examined by Bruun, the possibility of upward social mobility was presumably much easier in a small town than in a large city.99 To conclude, even if one admits the use of the uncomfortable—and even insensitive —notion of ‘privileged’ slaves to describe a particular case of the unfree condition, the common tendency to place public slaves on a higher level within the overall slave population and regard them as an elite among the slave classes of imperial society, without any proper contextualization and relativization, is far less acceptable. It is indeed necessary to consider which public slaves (according to their specific role) might have stood out from the rest of the overall unfree group, where this occurred (in Rome or in other cities, whether in large or in small ones) and when (during the Republic or under the Empire). Moreover, one should set public slaves apart not because of the ‘benefits’ they may or may not have received but rather for their condition of being the slaves of a collective entity, that is, of an ‘impersonal’ master; accordingly, it would be more appropriate to define the whole of serui publici as a ‘distinctive’ group of slaves rather than as a ‘privileged’ one.

Newcastle University FRANCO LUCIANI [email protected]

98 Weaver (n. 6), 97–104. 99 See the references at notes 17–18 above.