Slaves of the People: A Political and Social History of Roman Public Slavery 351513140X, 9783515131407

Citation preview

Franco Luciani

Slaves of the People A Political and Social History of Roman Public Slavery

Classics Franz Steiner Verlag

Potsdamer Altertums wissenschaftliche Beiträge

79

Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge Herausgegeben von Elisabeth Begemann (Erfurt), Daniela Bonanno (Palermo), Filippo Carlà-Uhink (Potsdam) und Anna-Katharina Rieger (Graz) Band 79

Slaves of the People A Political and Social History of Roman Public Slavery Franco Luciani

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2022 Layout und Herstellung durch den Verlag Druck: Druckerei Steinmeier GmbH & Co. KG, Deiningen Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-13140-7 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-13143-8 (E-Book)

A Mameta

Acknowledgements The idea of a monograph on Roman public slavery grew out of the PhD on public slaves in Cisalpine Gaul that I completed at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice in 2011. However, this book goes considerably further than my thesis and constitutes its significant extension. The project underwent a hiatus in the following years because I was offered post-doctoral fellowships on different themes. Most of the research towards this volume was carried out during the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2015, grant agreement no. 704716) that I held at Newcastle University from 2016 to 2018.1 It is a pleasure to record my gratitude to those who have inspired, corrected, or distracted me since this book’s inception. Giovannella Cresci Marrone supervised my PhD at Ca’ Foscari. My interest in Roman history and Latin epigraphy was crucially inspired by her teaching and example since my undergraduate years. It is hard to think of a greater intellectual debt. For his collaboration, discussion, and suggestions during (and immediately after) my PhD I am deeply grateful to Jean-Jacques Aubert, who welcomed me at Université de Neuchâtel in 2010–11. As external examiners during my PhD examination, Elisabeth Deniaux and Gian Luca Gregori provided me with invaluable advice on my thesis. During the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship and the following twoyear Lectureship at Newcastle University I have been fortunate to find a generous and supportive colleague in Federico Santangelo, whose guidance was instrumental in bringing this project to completion. Warm thanks go out to a number of colleagues for useful discussion on various aspects of this book: Dorian Borbonus, Simon Corcoran, Marc Kleijwegt, Rose MacLean, Ulrike Roth, Amy Russell, Françoise Sudi-Guiral, Roger Tomlin, Daniela Urbanová, and Greg Woolf. Simona Antolini, Marco Buonocore, Lorenzo Calvelli, Jeffrey Easton, Annarosa Gallo, Ivan Matijašić, Elvira Migliario, Riccardo Montalbano, Cecilia Ricci, Marco

1

The website of the project is available at https://research.ncl.ac.uk/spes/ (last accessed: 25/06/2021).

8

Acknowledgements

Tentori Montalto, and Nicolas Tran have generously shared and/or suggested published and unpublished work at various stages. My gratitude goes to them all. A special thought goes to the fruitful conversations on provincial and municipal slaves I had with Anthony Birley and Mireille Cébeillac-Gervasoni; some reflections in this book also serve to honour their memory. I am also most grateful to the participants in the international conference Being Everybody’s Slaves. Public Slavery in Ancient and Modern World, which I organized at Newcastle University on 22–24 March 2018. On that occasion I especially benefitted from discussions with Andrea Binsfeld, Paulin Ismard, Orlando Patterson, Nicholas Purcell, Benedetta Rossi, and Jane Webster. My exchanges with Alexander Weiss, both then and at various points over the years, have also been extremely fruitful. I should like to thank Anne-Catherine Biedermann (Agence photographique de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux et du Grand Palais, Paris), Margherita Bolla (Museo Archeologico al Teatro romano, Verona), Maria Daniela Donninelli, Antonella Ferraro, Agnese Pergola, Stéphane Verger (Museo Nazionale Romano), Andreas Fassbender (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin), Claudia Ferro, Claudio Parisi Presicce, Marco Polizzy Carbonelli, Daniela Velestino (Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali  – Musei Capitolini, Rome), Ana Kruh (Goriški muzej Kromberk, Nova Gorica), Marta Novello (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Aquileia), and Wendy A. Watkins (Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies, The Ohio State University) for kindly allowing me to publish the images included in this book. A special thank you goes to Gabriel Zuchtriegel (Parco Archeologico di Pompei) for the permission to mention a new (and unpublished) find from Pompeii in this book he granted to me, and for the fruitful discussion on it. I am especially grateful to the Editors of the Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge for accepting this book in the series, to Jörg Rüpke for his advice and support, and to Elisabeth Begemann, Nicole Runge, Katharina Stüdemann, and Andrea Walker for their editorial guidance. I also owe thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their feedback, and to Louise Chapman for her careful copy-editing of the manuscript. Completing this monograph before your birth, Claudio, was a stimulating challenge. I am proud to have accepted it and happy to have lost it because you are already here now! Without your companionship, confidence, insights, help, and love, Stefania, this project would never have been possible. Thank you for everything.

Table of Contents Introduction Approaching Roman Public Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Public Slaves in Modern Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Reassessing Public Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Being a Public Slave Framing the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Was a Public Slave? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Slaves in Rome: Slaves of the Roman People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Cities: Slaves of the Townsfolk . . . . . . . Approaching a Definition: Slaves of the People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Becoming a Slave of the Roman People: The Supply of Public Slaves in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Becoming a Slave of the Townsfolk: The Supply of Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Three Specifics of Public Slaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belonging to an Administrative District: Slaves and Freedmen of Provinces . . Public Slaves and Slaves of the Guilds: Two Sides of the Same Coin? . . . . . . . Martiales and Venerii: Slaves of the Gods, Not of the People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Slaves Across Time A History of Roman Public Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Slaves in Rome between the Late 6th and 4th Centuries BCE? . . . . . . . . Towards a Consolidation of the Institution: Public Slaves in Rome under the Middle Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At the Service of the Political Power: Public Slaves in Rome in the Late Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back to the Republican Origins: Public Slaves in Rome under Augustus . . . . A Relic of the Republic in the Imperial World: Public Slaves in Rome during the Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Historical Overview of Public Slavery in the Italian and Provincial Cities . .

19 19 20 22 26 26 29 31 33 35 40 44 44 47 51 54 57 59

10 3.

Table of Contents

Serving the State Public Slaves and Freedmen in the City of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.1 At the Service of the Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.1.1 Serving the Traditional Republican Magistrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.1.1.1 Public Slaves Attached to Consuls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.1.1.2 Public Slaves Attached to Praetors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1.1.3 Public Slaves Attached to Aediles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.1.1.4 Public Slaves Attached to Tribunes of the Plebs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.1.1.5 Public Slaves Attached to Quaestors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.1.1.6 Public Slaves Attached to Censors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.1.2 At the Service of the Augustan Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.1.2.1 Public Slaves in Firefighting Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.1.2.2 Public Slaves Assisting the curatores (or praefecti) frumenti dandi and the curatores aquarum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3.1.2.3 Public Slaves and the Praefects of the Military Treasury . . . . . . . . . 80 3.1.2.4 Public Slaves and the curatores operum publicorum . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3.1.3 At the Service of the Imperial Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.1.3.1 Public Slaves and the praefecti reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.1.4 At the Service of Political Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.1.4.1 Public Slaves in the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.2 At the Service of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.2.1 Serving the Priestly Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.2.1.1 Public Slaves and Pontiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.2.1.2 Public Slaves and Augurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 3.2.1.3 Public Slaves and the quindecimviri sacris faciundis . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.2.1.4 Public Slaves and the septemviri epulonum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 3.2.2 Serving Other Priestly Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.2.2.1 Public Slaves and the curiones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.2.2.2 Public Slaves and the fetiales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.2.2.3 Public Slaves and the sodales Titii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.2.3 Serving the Goddess Dia: Public Slaves and the Arval Brethren . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.2.4 Serving the Deified Emperors: Public Slaves and the Priests of the Imperial Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3.2.5 Public Slaves and the Cult: The Uncertain Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 3.2.6 In Charge of the Temples: Public Slaves as aeditui or a sacrario . . . . . . . . . 112 3.3 At the Service of the Infrastructures of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 3.3.1 Public Slaves in Archives and Basilicas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 3.3.2 Public Slaves in the Library in the Porticus Octaviae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 3.3.3 The familia publica aquaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table of Contents

4. 4.1 4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

11

Serving the Cities Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italy and the Western Provinces . . . . 124 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 The Assignment of Tasks to Public Slaves, Freedmen, and Freedwomen . . . . 124 4.1.1 “What Type of Business Each Public Slave Should be Assigned To” . . . . . . . 125 4.1.2 Work and Service for the City After Manumission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Public Slaves and Local Magistrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 4.2.1 The limocincti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 4.2.1.1 At the Service of the Highest Magistrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 4.2.1.2 What Was the limus/-m of the limocincti? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 4.2.1.3 Images of limocincti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 4.2.2 The officiales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 4.2.3 Public Slaves as an Honour Worthy of a Magistrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 4.3.1 Public Slaves and Freedmen as Assistants of Priests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 4.3.2 Public Slaves and Freedmen as aeditui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 4.3.3 Public Slaves and the Magna Mater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 4.3.4 Public Freedmen and the Imperial Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 4.4.1 The Management of Public Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 4.4.1.1 Public Archives in the Roman Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 4.4.1.2 Public Slaves and Freedmen as tabularii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 4.4.1.3 Producing and Protecting Public Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4.4.2 The Management of the Public Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4.4.2.1 Public Slaves and Freedmen as arcarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 4.4.2.2 Public Slaves Attached as arcarii to Specific Cash Departments . . . 163 4.4.2.3 Public Slaves and Freedmen as dispensatores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 4.4.2.4 Public Slaves and Freedmen as actores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 4.4.2.5 Public Slaves and Freedmen as vilici aerarii or summarum or nude dicti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 4.4.2.6 Managing Public Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 4.5.1 Granaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 4.5.2 Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 4.5.3 Weights and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 4.5.4 Baths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 4.5.5 Public Slaves in the Amphitheatres? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 4.5.6 Urban Embellishment and Street Furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 4.6.1 Public Slaves as saltuarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 4.6.1.1 The Available Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

12

Table of Contents

4.6.1.2 What Was a saltus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 4.6.1.3 The Working Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 4.6.2 Public Slaves as mensores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 4.7 Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 4.7.1 Public Slaves as plumbarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 4.7.1.1 The Available Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 4.7.1.2 The Manufacture of Water Lead Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 4.7.2 Public Slaves as tegularii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 4.8 Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 4.8.1 Public Slaves as Prison Guards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 4.8.2 Public Slaves Involved in Public Policing and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 5.

Being Freed by the Community The Manumission of Public Slaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 5.1 Public Freedmen in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 5.1.1 The Official Procedure for Manumitting Public Slaves in Rome . . . . . . . . . . 213 5.1.2 The Nomenclature of Public Freedmen in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 5.1.3 The Number of Public Freedmen in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 5.1.4 Serving the State After the Manumission: The operae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 5.1.5 Legal Status of Public Freedmen in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 5.2 Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 5.2.1 The Official Procedure for Manumitting Public Slaves in Italy and the Provinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 5.2.2 The Nomenclature of Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 5.2.3 The Number of Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 5.2.4 Serving the Community After the Manumission: The operae . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 5.2.5 Legal Status of Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 5.2.5.1 Freed Public Slaves at Irni: Latin Citizens, Not Junian Latins . . . . 226 5.2.5.2 Freed Public Slaves in Italian Communities: Roman Citizens . . . . 229 5.2.6 Paying Honour to the City: Freed Public Slaves and the obsequium . . . . . . 231 5.2.7 The Price of Freedom: Freed Public Slaves Paying for Manumission . . . . . . 236 5.2.8 A Very Disrespectful Public Slave: The “sceleratissimus servus publicus” from Tuder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Table of Contents

6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

13

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”? Public Slaves in the Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Providing for Public Slaves: Lodging, Board and Clothing at Public Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Managing and Bequeathing Property: Public Slaves and their peculium . . . . . . 244 Having A Family: Public Slaves, their Partners and their Children . . . . . . . . . . 247 Ranking Public Slaves: The Hierarchy within the Group of the servi publici . . . 250 Hoping for Manumission: Public Slaves and the Chances of Being Freed . . . 253 Life After Freedom: Freed Public Slaves and their Social Position . . . . . . . . . . 254 Opinions about Public Slaves: Voices from the Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Conclusions Roman Public Slaves: Distinctive, not Necessarily Advantaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns . . . . . . . . 314 Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Appendix 4 Incerti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 Appendix 5 Slaves and Freedmen of the Provinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 Appendix 6 Slaves and Freedmen of Associations and Guilds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 Index Locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 Literary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481

Introduction Approaching Roman Public Slavery 1. Public Slaves in Modern Scholarship Slavery played a crucial economic and social role in Roman history. Since the earliest times, unfree individuals were employed to perform a range of duties, from menial labour to highly skilled work, in both the domestic environment and the public sphere.1 Along with the large population of private slaves (servi) who were owned by individual masters (domini), and the far smaller but highly influential group of Imperial slaves who were property of the emperors and are attested from Augustus onwards (servi Caesaris),2 another category of slaves is also present in the ancient evidence: the socalled ‘public slaves’ (servi publici), who were sometimes referred to as a group (familia publica). Public slaves were unfree individuals, owned by a community rather than a single master. So far, there have been only three full-scale studies on public slavery in the Roman world. The earliest discussion on the topic goes back to the late 19th century: the important book Les esclaves publics chez les Romains, published by Léon Halkin in 1897 (and reprinted in 1965), was the first – and is so far the only – monograph to examine the phenomenon of public slavery both in Rome and in other cities of the Roman Empire.3 Despite its title, Halkin’s book did not confine its focus to public slaves; it also dealt with the issue of manumission and discussed the role of freed public slaves in society. Halkin’s work is still a valid reference point, especially on account of the comprehensiveness of the treatment it provides.4 Nevertheless, the epigraphical and archaeological evidence has considerably increased since the publication of Halkin’s book, and its catalogue of sources is now obsolete. Walter Eder’s 1980 volume (Servi1 2 3 4

For a useful discussion on Roman slavery see Bradley 1994; Schumacher 2001; Joshel 2010; Bradley – Cartledge 2011. On the historiography of slavery, modern theories and their relevant reception, see Finley 1980; Patterson 1982; Bodel – Scheidel 2017; Lenski 2018; Vlassopoulos 2020. See Boulvert 1970; Weaver 1972; Boulvert 1974. Halkin 1897. See also Halkin’s later article on the nomenclature of freed public slaves: Halkin 1935. Important earlier discussions: Mommsen 18873, 250–259; Lehmann 1889. Cébeillac-Gervasoni 2009, 23 n. 3.

16

Introduction

tus publica. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung, Entwicklung und Funktion der öffentlichen Sklaverei in Rom) was the second full-scale attempt to deal with public slavery.5 After almost a century since Halkin’s book, Eder embarked on a study that focused exclusively on public slaves in Rome. This important book trails off markedly in the Imperial period when – Eder assumed – servi publici were substantially replaced by the slaves owned by the emperors. Since Eder provided neither a comprehensive corpus of the available evidence nor a relevant discursive overview of it, his monograph could not fully replace Halkin’s work. The third study on public slavery is the recent monograph entitled Sklave der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des römischen Reiches, published by Alexander Weiss in 2004, which is entirely devoted to public slaves in cities other than Rome.6 As predicted by Noel Lenski both in his review of the book and in a later study on public slaves in Late Antiquity,7 Weiss’ monograph has become a major reference book on public slavery. Thanks to the collection of numerous epigraphic sources brought to light across the 20th century, Weiss considerably increased Halkin’s corpus of sources and shed light on a long-overlooked topic: as pointed out by Anna Bricchi in her 2006 review,8 very few studies had previously drawn attention to public slaves in the cities of the Roman Empire.9 Weiss’ monograph therefore made a major contribution to the scholarship on the topic of public slavery. However, his work still contained gaps that offer opportunities for further study. For example, by focusing exclusively on the public slaves who were owned by self-governing communities, Weiss consciously chose not to discuss their counterparts in Rome; he also omitted the issues of manumission and the legal status of freed public slaves. Moreover, his valuable catalogue of the primary evidence, especially the epigraphic one, is far from complete.10 Despite the fact that a significant number of papers concerning Roman public slavery have been published over the last fifteen years,11 this topic remains largely under-

5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Eder 1980. In between Halkin’s and Eder’s books, the only available contribution on public slavery is the article by Rouland 1977, partly rejecting some of the Halkin’s arguments. Weiss 2004. Lenski 2005 and 2006. Bricchi 2006a, 321–327. The discovery of the Flavian charter on the municipium of Irni (Baetica) in 1981 had partly contributed to revitalise the debate on public slavery: see, e. g., Giménez-Candela 1981; Fear 1990; Weiss 2001. A reassessment of the social position of public slaves in Roman towns based on a case study of an inscription from Tuder was then provided by Serrano Delgado 1996; see also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.8. A highly problematic attempt to discuss the issue of public slavery in the Etruscan context was made by Mastrocinque 1996. For a regional study on apparitores and public slaves in Cisalpine Gaul see Giorcelli Bersani 2002. See updates in Luciani 2010; Luciani 2019c; Ricci 2020. Cimarosti 2005; Silvestrini 2005; Bricchi 2006b; Lenski 2006; Zlinszky 2006; Sudi-Guiral 2007; Bruun 2008; Sudi-Guiral 2008; Luciani 2010; Sudi-Guiral 2010a; Sudi-Guiral 2010b; Sudi-Guiral 2010c; Zimonyi 2015; Edmondson 2016; Luciani 2017; Spichenko 2018; Easton 2019; Luciani 2019a;

Reassessing Public Slavery

17

studied. In light of new evidence, a full-scale reconsideration of the subject and a different approach are required. 2. Reassessing Public Slavery The aim of this book is to fill this gap and provide a new comprehensive study of public slavery in the Roman world. The book will focus on the use of public slaves in both Rome and in other cities of the Western Empire, as well as on the development of public slavery from the Middle Republic (mid-third century BCE) to Late Antiquity (sixth century CE). The book will offer a holistic vision of public slavery in the Roman world. A crucial working assumption of the book is that only an integrative approach can do justice to such a complex phenomenon. The first section of this project attempts to define public slavery. To accurately describe the meaning of this concept, one must investigate the significance of ‘publicness’ from a legal standpoint and analyse the way, or ways, in which an individual became a public slave (Chapter 1). The work then explores how the role of public slavery changed across time, especially during the transition from Republic to Empire (Chapter 2). By analysing the duties carried out by public slaves both in Rome and in other cities, the study also analyses the role played by public slaves in the life of a community and their relationships with the authorities (Chapters 3 and 4). The book then draws specific attention to the manumission of public slaves and to the legal status of freed public slaves. This section attempts to understand the circumstances that determined the scale and range of the manumission, as well as the possible relationship between public slaves and their masters before manumission, or between freed public slaves and their patrons (Chapter 5). Finally, the book addresses the position of public slaves in Roman society and reassesses the widely held assumption that they enjoyed a higher status within the Roman slave population (Chapter 6). The discussions in this book are based on primary sources – not only epigraphical and literary texts, but archaeological and iconographic material as well. The analysis of all this evidence has led to a significant update of the previously collected collections of sources: 752 instances of public slaves, public freedmen or public freedwomen attested (as individuals or as a group) by literary and epigraphic sources are set out in a full thematic overview at the end of the volume (Appendices 1–3, 5–6). Appendices 4 includes records of individuals who can reasonably be recognized as public slaves or public freedmen and freedwomen, in light of not only their nomenclature but also the relevant context (e. g., their relationships with other public slaves and/or public

Luciani 2019c; Luciani  – Urbanová 2019; Luciani 2020; Ricci 2020; Easton 2021; Luciani 2021a; Luciani 2021b; Sitek 2021; Gallo 2021; Luciani 2021a–b.

18

Introduction

freedmen or freedwomen, their duties, etc.). The most relevant cases are also discussed in detail and suitably contextualised in the main text. Other individuals of uncertain status, whose nomenclature is the only argument to support their identification as public slaves, freedmen or freedwomen, are not included: indeed, they may have been descendants or former slaves of public freedmen and freedwomen.12

12

The same method has also been used by Halkin 1897; Vitucci 1958, 913; Weiss 2004, 191–192. A different approach to the issue was taken by Ricci 2020 and Gallo 2021. However, Ollie Salomies also issued a warning about using nomenclature indiscriminately in order to identify freed public slaves: cf. Salomies 2019, 283.

1. Being a Public Slave Framing the Issue 1.1 What Was a Public Slave? Public slaves are attested by a wide spectrum of literary, historical, legal and epigraphic evidence. Nevertheless, an explicit definition of what being a public slave in the Roman world meant, or, more broadly, of public slavery as an institution, is missing in the surviving sources. In order to explain the nature of this institution from a legal and an ideological point of view, it is necessary to reflect on the concept of publicness, and especially on the term publicus. The concept of ‘public’ in Roman culture certainly differed from that currently found in contemporary Western discourse. If one applies modern models to the ancient notion of ‘public’, the latter might even appear ambiguous or paradoxical to some extent.1 From a legal standpoint, however, it is probably more meaningful to identify boundaries for the concept of publicness and public property.2 When one considers that ‘things’ of common use were called ‘public’, as Cicero makes clear (res ad communem utilitatem, quas publicas appellamus),3 it is not surprising that the slaves who performed public duties for the Roman State or for a city were generally called servi publici or servae publicae.4 Slaves were, after all, legally intended as mancipable things (res mancipi), which could be acquired as property.5 Servi publici and servae publicae were thus ‘public things’. In some legal sources, the adjective publicus was used to designate property of both the Roman people (populus Romanus) and self-governing towns (civitates) at least until the early third century CE. In his commentary on the provincial edict, Gaius, a jurist who flourished in the mid-second century CE, still included the res publicae populi Romani et civitatum among the things that were exempted from usucaption (i. e., 1 2 3 4 5

For recent and especially helpful discussions on this topic, see Winterling 2009, 58–76, with a focus on Imperial times, and Russell 2016, 25–42, who drew her attention to Republican times instead. Moatti 2018, 299–346 is now essential reading on the legal concept of public property. Cic. Sest. 42.91. See TLL X, s. v. publicus, col. 2452.13–44. For an overview of the concept of state under the Roman Republic and a detailed discussion of the topic, see Lundgreen 2014. Ulp. 19.1.

20

Being a Public Slave

the acquisition of a title or right to property by uninterrupted and undisputed possession for a prescribed term) when he dealt with that issue.6 Later on, however, use of the term publicus to define a property of either the Roman people or the self-governing towns was regarded as incorrect. In the early third century CE, Ulpian explained that: bona civitatis abusive ‘publica’ dicta sunt: sola enim ea publica sunt, quae populi Romani sunt. the goods of a community are wrongly called ‘public’, as only those things are public that belong to the Roman people.7

In another passage of his commentary on the provincial edict, Gaius admitted that: nam ‘publica’ appelatio in compluribus causis ad populum Romanum respicit: civitates enim privatorum loco habentur the designation ‘public’ relates in a number of cases to the Roman people, whilst communities are regarded as being in the position of private people.8

The fact that it was customary, if not legal, that the term ‘public’ was applied to the property of both the Roman people and the cities justifies a comprehensive study and categorization of public slaves in both Rome and the other self-governing communities of the Roman world.9 However, it is also worth examining what other sources suggest about the reach and significance of public slavery in the city of Rome, the towns of Italy, and the provinces. 1.2 Public Slaves in Rome: Slaves of the Roman People A number of inscriptions from Rome, dating to the first and second centuries CE, point to a close link between public slaves and the Roman people: they mention slaves whose nomenclature consisted of a single personal name combined with the formula, whether abbreviated or not, of publicus (scil. servus) populi Romani, i. e., “public (scil. slave) belonging to the Roman people” (Fig. 1).10 Although this expression might seem a pleonasm, it was commonly used to designate public possessions, even in the Republican period. For instance, in the agrarian law of 111 BCE, there are several occurrences of the phrase ager poplicus/publicus populi Romanei, i. e., “public land belonging

6 7 8 9 10

Dig. 41.3.9 (Gai. 4 edict. prov.). Dig. 50.16.15 (Ulp. 10 ad edict.); translation by Watson 1985, 448 (vol. 4). Dig. 50.16.16 (Gai. 3 edict. prov.); translation by Watson 1985, 449 (vol. 4). On this, cf. also Halkin 1897, 6, 137–139. Cf. Antiochus publicus p(opuli) R(omani) Aemilianus (no.  31); Laetus publicus populi Romani (no. 84); Agatho Claudianus publicus populi R(omani) (no. 25).

Public Slaves in Rome: Slaves of the Roman People

21

Fig. 1 Marble slab that mentions Agatho Claudianus publicus populi R(omani) (no. 25) – Rome, second c. CE (Rome, Musei Capitolini – Antiquarium; inv. NCE 44; photo: Archivio Fotografico dei Musei Capitolini NCE 44 © Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali).

to the Roman people”.11 In the lex Antonia de Termessibus, most likely passed in 68 BCE, the revenues from public property are referred to as vectigalia publica populi Romani.12 Since the link between public slaves and the Roman people must have been selfevident, most of the inscriptions from Rome that mention public slaves contain only the adjective publicus next to their single name or – rarely – beside the word servus.13 The term publicus was often sufficient to designate a slave who belonged to the Roman people and was therefore ‘public’. The link between public property and the people as a whole is also evident in another passage from the jurist Gaius, this time from the Institutions: Quae publicae sunt, nullius videntur in bonis esse; ipsius enim universitatis esse creduntur. Privatae sunt, quae singulorum hominum sunt. Public things are regarded as no one’s property; for they are thought of as belonging to the whole body of the people. Private things are those belonging to individuals.14

11 12 13 14

CIL I2, 585 = Crawford 1996, 113–180 no. 2 = AE 2001, 206; see also Sisani 2015. CIL I2, 589 = ILS 38 = AE 1990, 21 = AE 1993, 107 = Crawford 1996, 331–340 no. 19. Cf., e. g., Cosmus publicus (no. 46); Papi(as) ser(vus) publicus (no. 108). Gai. Inst. 2.11; translation by Gordon – Robinson 1988, 127.

22

Being a Public Slave

The term publicus is clearly derived from populus,15 a link that could provide an important clue. Writing in the late 50s BCE during a time of major political turmoil, in his dialogue On the Commonwealth Cicero has Scipio Aemilianus’ say: “[…] the Republic is the property of the people”.16 In the early second century CE, when Tacitus records Nero’s speech in the Senate after the death of Claudius, he uses the term publicae provinciae to refer to the senatorial provinces, which belonged to the people and were not administered by the emperor.17 As Amy Russell recently pointed out, “publicus was not ‘concerning everyone’ but ‘concerning the populus Romanus, the legally constituted universality of Roman citizens’”.18 Servi publici in Rome were no exception: they were mancipable things that belonged to the Roman people as a collective of citizens both under the Republic and during the Empire.19 For this reason, they were at the disposal of the res publica. In this respect, one may say that public slaves also belonged to the State, although the latter must not be understood in the modern sense.20 For this reason, in his Handbuch des römischen Privatrechtes, Max Kaser distinguished between slaves of the State (“Sklave des Staates”) and slaves who belonged to a private individual (“Sklave eines Privaten”) or to the emperor (“Sklave des Kaisers”).21 This distinction is useful in seeking to understand the unique legal situation of public slaves who belonged to neither private individuals nor emperors. However, an expression like ‘slaves belonging to the State’ is not entirely suitable to define the servi publici. Indeed, the slaves of the emperor may also be included in such a category, especially from Claudius’ time onward, as they gradually became a crucial part of the administration of the State.22 It is therefore preferable to define public slaves in Rome as ‘slaves of the Roman people’. 1.3 Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Cities: Slaves of the Townsfolk Similar information can be gathered from sources that refer to public slaves in other cities of the Roman Empire, whether in Italy or the provinces. A passage from Aelius Marcianus’ Institutions, a legal handbook written in the early third century CE and

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

On this etymology and, in general, on the term publicus see TLL X, s. v. publicus, coll. 2448–2472. Cic. Rep. 1.39: est […] res publica res populi (my translation). Tac. Ann. 13.4.2. Russell 2016, 27. I cannot agree on the idea that “[S]ervi publici were [...] the property of the Roman people during the republic (populus Romanus), and during the empire they were the property of emperors” (Sitek 2021, 252). Cf. Lundgreen 2014. Kaser 1971, 285. Boulvert 1970, 374–418, 436–437; Eck 1995, 18–19; Eck 1998, 147–165.

Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Cities: Slaves of the Townsfolk

23

partly included in the Digest, gives valuable clues about the legal status of a public slave in a self-governing community (civitas): Universitatis sunt non singulorum veluti quae in civitatibus sunt theatra et stadia et similia et si qua alia sunt communia civitatium. Ideoque nec servus communis civitatis singulorum pro parte intellegitur, sed universitatis […]. Things in ‘civitates’ such as theatres and stadiums and such like, and anything else which belongs communally to the ‘civitates’ are property of the community corporately not of separate individuals. Thus, even the communal slave of the ‘civitas’ is considered to belong not to individuals in undivided shares but to the community corporately […].23

In the second century CE, the fact that a public slave in a self-governing town did not belong to individual citizens led to some disagreements among jurists, as an excerpt from Paul’s Commentaries on the Praetorian Edict makes clear: Municipes per se nihil possidere possunt, quia universi consentire non possunt. Forum autem et basilicam hisque similia non possident, sed promiscue his utuntur. Sed Nerva filius ait, per servum quae peculiariter adquisierint et possidere et usucapere posse: sed quidam contra putant, quoniam ipsos servos non possideant. Citizens of a municipality can possess nothing of themselves, because the consent of all is not possible. Hence, they do not possess the marketplace, public buildings, and the like, but they use them in common. The younger Nerva, however, says that they can both possess and usucapt through a slave what he has acquired through his peculium; there are, though, those who think differently, since the citizens do not own the slaves themselves.24

A slave of a civitas thus seems to have legally belonged to the people of that civitas collectively. In other words, a slave of a civitas belonged to the universality of citizens who formed the community, not the individual citizens. The same expression used by Aelius Marcianus, i. e., servus communis civitatis, can also be found in the so-called lex Irnitana, the Flavian law on the administration of the municipium of Irni in Baetica. In the lex Irnitana, municipal slaves are alternatively referred to as servi communes municipum eius municipia, i. e., “common slaves of the municipes of that municipium” (Chapters 18–20), and servi publici, i. e., “public slaves” (Chapters 72, 78).25 First, the adjective communis, followed by the plural genitive of the noun municeps, indicates that the slave was possessed in common by all the inhabitants of the municipium, as in

23 24 25

Dig. 1.8.6.1 (Marc. 3 inst.); translation by Watson 1985, 26 (vol. 1). Dig. 41.2.1.22 (Paul. 54 ad ed.); translation by Watson 1985, 504 (vol. 4). For editions and translations in different languages of the text of the so-called lex Irnitana (lex Irn.), see AE 1986, 333 (French translation by Patrick Le Roux); González – Crawford 1986 (English); d’Ors – d’Ors 1988 (Spanish); Lamberti 1993 (Italian); Wolf 2011 (German).

24

Being a Public Slave

Aelius Marcianus’ passage. Also, the expression servi publici, which was used with the same meaning, confirms that by the first century CE the term publicus could also refer to the property of self-governing towns – namely, municipal slaves – and not just to the belongings of the Roman people. Other legal texts show that the term publicus commonly referred to the slaves belonging to self-governing towns, whether in Italy or in the provinces. The municipal slaves mentioned in the charter that regulated Italian municipia in the first century BCE, which is recorded in two bronze tables from Heraclea in Lucania,26 are referred to as publicei (no. 330). Analogously, the slaves belonging to the Caesarian colonia Genetiva Iulia (Urso in Baetica) cited in the Flavian copy of its charter27 are designated as publici (no. 534). The link with the people was legally significant for public slaves in the cities at least as much as for those in Rome. Three inscriptions, from Petelia, Asisium and Ameria respectively, each refer to a slave belonging to the community through a formula (not abbreviated) such as publicus of the townsfolk of that particular city.28 Such an expression is not substantially different from publicus populi Romani. Various other inscriptions record slaves of colonies or municipia by mentioning their single personal name, followed by the (unabbreviated) expression colonorum or municipum servus,29 or by the collective ethnonym in the genitive (Fig. 2).30 In some cases, the formula populi servus – or libertus, if manumitted – is also attested.31 In other – less frequent – cases, the link with the townsfolk seemed to indicate that the public slave was the property of the town. Thus, one finds expressions such as coloniae or municipii servus/-a and coloniae or municipii libertus/-a, also in the plural.32 Some inscriptions also reference slaves 26 27 28 29

30 31 32

For the edition and translation of the text of the so-called tabula Heracleensis, see Crawford 1996, 355–391 no. 24. For the edition and translation of the text of the lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis (lex Urs.), see Crawford 1996, 393–454 no. 25. Cf. Euctus publicus Petelinorum vilicus (no. 332); Felix servus publicus Amerinorum (no. 391); Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus (no. 397). Colonorum servi: Ellanicus (sic) colonorun (sic) (scil. servus) (no.  220); Privatus colonorum coloniae Veneriae Corneliae Pompeianorum ser(vus) (no.  283); Niceros colonorum coloniae Puteolanae servus arcarius (no. 287); Abascantus colonorum Aquil(eiensium) ser(vus) officio luc(or)um Herculis (no. 444); Helius colonorum (scil. servus) (no. 453); Evancelus (sic) colonorum Polensium (scil. servus) (no.  484). Municipum servi or liberti: Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus (no. 397); M(anius) Amiternius municipum l(ibertus) Iucundus (no.  345); L(ucius) Publicius Celer municipum Cars(ulanorum) lib(ertus) (no.  399); C(aius) Poblicius municipum Mediolaniens(i)u(m) l(ibertus) Alexsander (no. 510). Cf., e.g, Phoebus Veronens(ium) vilicus plumbarior(um) (no. 499). Castus populi s(ervus) (no. 194); Urbicus popul[i (scil. servus)] (no. 344); Montanus populi Antinatium Ma[r]sor(um) ser(vus) arcarius (no. 347); A(ulus) Poblici(us) populi l(ibertus) Ap(h)ro[di]si(us) (no. 476). Coloniae servi or liberti: Publicia coloniae l(iberta) Graecul[a] (no.  572); (scil. Aelius) Moderatus libertus coloniae Lingonum (no. 563); Orinus coloniae (scil. servus) (no. 586); Phoebus coloniae (scil. servus) (no. 587); Tharsa coloniae (scil. servus) (no. 589). Municipii servi or liberti: C(aius) Saepinius

Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Cities: Slaves of the Townsfolk

25

Fig. 2 Limestone altar dedicated to Iuppiter Lustralis by Phoebus Veronens(ium) vilicus plumbarior(um) (no. 499) – Verona, first c. CE (Verona, Museo Archeologico al Teatro romano; inv. 22673).

of the res publica,33 whereas in legal sources formulas like servi civitatis/-tum are more common. In most of the extant inscriptional evidence, however, the status of each public slave or freedman/-woman is indicated by COL or MVN plus SER or S or LIB or L. These abbreviated forms do not allow us to verify whether the reference to the ‘masters’ was by the collective name of the citizens, i. e., col(onorum) vel mun(icipum) ser(vus/-a) vel s(ervus/-a) vel lib(ertus/-a) vel l(ibertus/-a), or to the self-governing town, i. e., col(oniae) vel mun(icipii) ser(vus/-a) vel s(ervus/-a) vel lib(ertus/-a) vel l(ibertus/-a). However, the impression is that such slaves, like the servi publici populi Romani, belonged to the citizens as a collective, and were slaves of the townsfolk as a whole. Consequently, they were also part of the public property (publicum) of a city.34

33 34

municipi [l(ibertus)] Albanus (no. 372); Felix ser(vus) municipi Falisci (no. 415); C(aius) Iulius municipi l(ibertus) Felicio (no. 627); Ti(berius) Claudiu[s] municipii Celeia[e] lib(ertus) Favor (no. 600). Cf. Parthenius arcarius rei publicae Lavicanorum Quintanensium (no. 196); Proculus rei public(a)e (scil. servus) (no. 289); Festus rei publicae Cluniensium servus (no. 633). Cf. also Spichenko 2018. For this reason, in the final Appendices we have preferred to expand abbreviated expressions like COL vel MVN SER vel S vel LIB vel L as col(onorum) vel mun(icipum) ser(vus/-a) vel s(ervus/-a) vel lib(ertus/-a) vel l(ibertus/-a) rather than col(oniae) vel mun(icipii) ser(vus/-a) vel s(ervus/-a) vel lib(ertus/-a) vel l(ibertus/-a).

26

Being a Public Slave

1.4 Approaching a Definition: Slaves of the People The expression servi communes municipum eius municipii, used in the lex Irnitana, suggests that ‘common slaves’35 or ‘communal slaves’36 might also be appropriate ways of defining such slaves in English, as they were property of a community (whether the Roman State, a colony or a municipium) and belonged to all its members collectively. However, the expression ‘common (or communal) slaves’ overlooks the important connection between such slaves and the Roman people in Rome or the townsfolk as a whole in other cities, who were their real, albeit ‘impersonal’, masters. This link with the people distinguished public slaves from all other slaves, especially Imperial slaves. Such a relation would much better be encompassed by the English adjective ‘public’, as they were intrinsically linked to the people, understood as either the populus Romanus in Rome or the group of the coloni and the municipes, whether in a colonia or in a municipium. Public slavery as an institution was solidly rooted in the traditional Republican political order, and the connection with the people was its most salient feature. Chapter 2 will discuss the ways in which public slavery served as a residual symbol of the Republic, when that regime was supplanted by the Principate. In any case, we can use the expression ‘public slaves’ to refer to both the slaves who belonged to the populus Romanus in Rome and the slaves who were collectively owned by the townsfolk of a self-governing city (a colony or a municipium), whether in Italy or in the provinces. 1.5 Becoming a Slave of the Roman People: The Supply of Public Slaves in Rome Having established the first and most essential feature of public slaves, i. e., the fact that they belonged to a well-defined community of people, whether the populus Romanus or the townsfolk of a colony or municipium, we can now explore how an individual became a servus publicus. The military expansion of Rome between the mid-third and the mid-second centuries BCE led to extensive enslavements of prisoners of war (servi captivi).37 Therefore, one can assume that one of the most ancient ways to supply Rome with public slaves was by the enslavement of captured enemies. Plautus’ play The Captives or The Prison-

35 36 37

See Michael H. Crawford’s translation, “common slaves of the municipes of that municipium”, for the expression servi communes municipum eius municipii in the lex Irn. 18, 20: Gonzalez – Crawford 1986, 182. See Alan Watson’s translation, “the communal slave of the civitas”, for the expression servus communis civitatis in Dig. 1.8.6.1: Watson 1985, 26 (vol. 1). Bradley 1999. On the enslavement of captives in warfare under the Principate, see Bradley 2004.

Becoming a Slave of the Roman People: The Supply of Public Slaves in Rome

27

ers (Captivi), which focuses on enslaved prisoners of war, references both private and public slavery.38 This mention seems to suggest that, between the late third and early second centuries BCE, prisoners of war in the Greco-Roman world could easily become public slaves. Technically, the servi captivi were slaves who had been made the property of the State. However, only those servi captivi who were employed for common use were regarded as ‘proper’ public slaves (as will be shown in greater detail in Paragraph 1.7). For instance, a number of the prisoners captured at Nova Carthago in 210 BCE were put into the service of the army, perhaps as military engineers, and were therefore declared ‘public slaves’.39 However, the other enslaved prisoners, who were eventually sold as slaves to private individuals, were not considered ‘public slaves’. Similarly, slaves who had been confiscated from the enemy could also become servi publici. This was the case for many of the slaves of the king Ptolemy of Cyprus, who were brought to Rome by Cato the Younger in 58 BCE and made public property, thereby becoming servi publici populi Romani.40 This will be examined more in detail in Chapter 2. A passage from the lex Aelia Sentia of 4 CE reveals another way in which Rome may have been supplied with servi publici.41 Under the provisions of this law, any private slaves who had been punished or convicted for dishonourable crimes, and later manumitted, would become free men. However, they would hold the same status as the foreigners who had capitulated (peregrini dediticii). These individuals would never become Roman citizens and could neither make a will nor inherit the contents of one. Moreover, they were not allowed to stay in Rome, or even within 100 miles of the city. Individuals who contravened these rules were made slaves again, without any possibility of being manumitted in the future, and were also forbidden from remaining in Rome or within 100 miles of the city. In the event that they were unlawfully set free, such individuals would become slaves of the Roman people (servi populi Romani). Other supply sources of public slaves in Rome, presumably the most common ones under the Empire, seem to have been slave markets, and donations or inheritances of slaves from private households. The inscriptional evidence clearly shows that most servi publici in Rome bore a second name (agnomen) next to their single name and the indication of their public status.42 This agnomen usually derived from the nomen or 38 39 40 41 42

Plaut. Capt. 334: sed is privatam servitutem servit illi an publicam?. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2. Polyb. 10.17.9; Livy 26.47.1–2. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2. Cass. Dio 39.23.2. See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.3. Gai. Inst. 1.27. Cf. Buckland 1908, 544–546. See also Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.8. Cf., e. g., Agatho Claudianus publicus populi R(omani) (no. 25). 89 out of 125 public slaves and one freedman, whose nomenclature is certain or can be restored with sufficient certainty, are epigraphically attested with an agnomen (cf. nos. 24–29, 31–33, 35, 39, 42–45, 48, 50–51, 54, 58–64, 67–70, 72–76, 79–80, 82–83, 87–90, 92–93, 95–100, 104–107, 109–114, 120, 123–124, 126–127, 130–134, 138–141, 143–144, 146–157).

28

Being a Public Slave

cognomen of their former masters.43 Theodor Mommsen has even interpreted the fact that public slaves in Rome had a second name as an expression of their hybrid position between real freedom and real enslavement.44 However, not all the servi publici in Rome bore an agnomen.45 There is evidence of public slaves with and without the agnomen, who are all referred to as (servi) publici.46 It is difficult to imagine not only an intermediate social condition between servi and ingenui for public slaves, but also a difference in status between the servi publici with agnomen and those without agnomen. Therefore, a different explanation is required. One possibility is that, in most cases, public slaves with an agnomen had been given as gifts from private individuals, often wealthy senators or even emperors and members of the Imperial family, rather than purchased on the slave market. The agnomen had legal significance, as it indicated the previous private master of the public slave before he became public property. The agnomen may also have served as a symbol of the liberality of someone who gave his own slave as a gift to the State, thus granting the former master further prestige.47 On the other hand, most of the public slaves with no agnomen may have been purchased on the slave market at public expense. However, another possibility must be considered: certain public slaves in Rome may have been born into that status under the provisions of the so-called Senatus Consultum Claudianum. According to this senatorial decree, issued under Claudius in 52 CE, a free woman (ingenua or liberta) who married a slave without the knowledge and the consent of his master became a slave of her partner’s owner. The woman could remain free if her partner’s master agreed to it, but any child born from her union with the slave would become a slave of the father’s master. The ancient practice of the ius gentium, which established that any child born from an unlawful marriage would take the same status as the mother, was later restored by Hadrian.48 If a free woman cohabited with a public slave, any child born from that union would be a servus publicus. As will be examined in greater detail in Chapter 6, partnerships between public slaves and free or freed women are well attested in Rome. Moreover, as we will see in the next paragraph, it seems that the Senatus Consultum 43 44 45 46 47

48

Halkin 1897, 15–22, 32–35; Eder 1980, 14; Weiss 2004, 19–23. Mommsen 18873, 1.323 n. 2. Similarly, Weaver 1972, 214–215. 36 out of 125 public slaves and one freedman, whose nomenclature is certain or can be restored with sufficient certainty, are epigraphically attested with no agnomen (cf. nos. 23, 30, 38, 40, 46–47, 49, 52–53, 55–57, 66, 71, 77–78, 85–86, 91, 101–103, 108, 115–119, 121–122, 125, 128–129, 135–137). Cf., e. g., Menop(h)ilus Alf(ianus) ser(vus) pub(licus) ex basilica Opimia (no. 92); Threptus ser(vus) public(us) (no. 136). For the dispute between Clodius and Cato on the agnomen Clodianus or Porcianus to each of the public slaves who had previously belonged to the king Ptolemy of Cyprus (58 BCE), and the case of the servi publici with the agnomen Iulianus employed in the library at the Porticus of Octavia, who had probably been offered as a gift by Augustus, see also Chapter 2, Paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4. Gai. Inst. 1.84. Cf. Weaver 1964, 137. For the Senatus Consultum Claudianum see Buongiorno 2010, 311–325.

Becoming a Slave of the Townsfolk

29

Claudianum did not exempt ingenuae and libertae who entered a marital relationship with public slaves from its legal purposes. As a result, from Claudius to Hadrian, a substantial number of the public slaves recorded by the available sources from Rome may have been born from a free woman (ingenua or liberta) who cohabited with a servus publicus. This may have been true for at least 28 public slaves who lived in a period between the mid-first and early second century CE and did not bear the agnomen (cf. nos. 23, 30, 38, 40, 46–47, 49, 52–53, 55–56, 66, 71, 77–78, 85, 91, 102, 108, 115–116, 122, 125, 128–129, 135–137). Nevertheless, slave breeding must have been limited in quantity and time, and was probably not the most common way to provide Rome with servi publici. It would have been relatively simple to have female public slaves, whose children would then also be born as public slaves according to the ius gentium. However, the complete absence of female public slaves in Rome seems to suggest that the State was mostly supplied with public slaves in the other ways mentioned above, i. e., enslavement of prisoners of war, confiscation of enemies’ slaves, appropriation of individuals enslaved under the provisions of the lex Aelia Sentia, purchase of slaves on the market at public expense, and receipt of slaves from private individuals through donation or inheritance.49 1.6 Becoming a Slave of the Townsfolk: The Supply of Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Cities Similar supply sources of public slaves likely existed in the other cities, whether in Italy or in the provinces, albeit with significant differences in quantity and frequency. Prisoners of war may have become public slaves in cities, but the available evidence is scarce; only a few examples are worth mentioning. The first case involved the man who had been entrusted with the task of executing Marius in Minturnae in 88 BCE; this fact was reported by several different sources, but its accuracy is doubtful.50 If one can trust Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus when they refer to the executioner as a public slave of Germanic or Cimbrian origin (no. 650), one might infer that he was an enslaved prisoner of the war fought by Marius against some Germanic tribes between 105 and 101 BCE.51 However, caution is in order. The second case is Agathyrsus Reg(iensium scil. servus) (no. 439), whose name was of Greek origin,52 and may have been derived from the ethnonym of the Agathyrsi, a population settled in Dacia. For this reason, some scholars have proposed that he was a prisoner who had been brought

49 50 51 52

Similarly, no female public slaves in Classical Athens are attested: see Jacob 1928, 8. Cf. Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.6. Val. Max. 2.10.6; Vell. Pat. 2.19. Solin 20032, 649.

30

Being a Public Slave

to Italy as a result of Trajan’s Dacian Wars (101–102, 105–106 CE).53 The inscription mentioning this public slave may be dated to the second century CE, but any conclusion must remain conjectural. The slave may have been an enslaved prisoner of war who had not become a public slave as such but had simply been put on sale on the slave market and then purchased by the city of Regium Lepidi. Purchase on the slave market was another method frequently used by cities to secure the supply of servi that were then put at the disposal of the community as publici.54 Under the provisions of the lex Irnitana, Chapter 79 (on “the spending of common funds of the municipes”), part of the public budget of the municipium of Irni was officially devoted to the “purchase” (emptiones) of “those who are the slaves of the municipes” (qui municipibus serviant) (no. 528). A similar clause was probably included in the charters of all the Roman self-governing towns, whether in Italy or the provinces. There is clear evidence of public slaves who had been bought. At Herculaneum, a slave was purchased at public expense with the stated purpose of being in charge of the weights of the city (no. 193). At Colonia Patricia Corduba (Baetica), [Tr]ophimus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) P(atriciae) ser(vus) [e]mpt(icius) Germanianus (no. 522) presented A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus (no. 521), a public priest in the colony and (twice) a magister of the college of the local familia publica, with an honorific inscription. The agnomen Germanianus seems to suggest that, before becoming a public slave, [Tr]ophimus may have been the servus of A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus (no. 521): the latter, who had likely been a public slave too (and then manumitted), had at some point sold his own slave to the city of Corduba. Traces of other public slaves who may have been purchased, donated or inherited from private masters can be found in the agnomina included in the nomenclature of two public slaves, namely Albanus ser(v)us publ(icus) Iunianus at Alba Helviorum (Gallia Narbonensis) (no.  543), Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus at Asisium (no. 397), and possibly a third one, Dexter Duroni(an)us a basilica at Capua (no. 646). In terms of supply sources of public slaves, one factor that differentiated Rome from other cities was the apparently high proportion of public slaves who were born as such. Weiss has suggested that ‘slave breeding’ may have played a crucial role in the supply of public slaves in Italian and provincial cities more important than seizure of prisoners of war, purchase on the slave market, and donation or inheritance of slaves from private masters.55 Female public slaves are well attested by available evidence from all over the Empire, and by giving birth to children, it is likely that they significantly contributed to supplying cities with new public slaves. As has already been mentioned, any child born from an unlawful marriage, like the one between a servus publicus and a serva 53 54 55

Kolosovskaja 1987, 214–217; cf. also Weiss 2004, 22. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 19–21. Weiss 2004, 24. On the phenomenon of ‘slave breeding’, see Bradley 1987a.

The Three Specifics of Public Slaves

31

publica, took the same status as the mother, according to the ius gentium.56 In the latter case, the child would have become a public slave when born. Cities did not prevent servi publici from partnering with servae publicae; available evidence suggests that such partnerships were frequent.57 However, the practice of ‘mixed marriages’ was also common: various unions between public slaves and ingenuae or libertae (or incertae) are attested.58 Any child born from such a union was an illegitimate freeborn.59 However, the promulgation of the above-mentioned Senatus Consultum Claudianum in 52 CE seems to have given cities the chance of not losing potential new public slaves. Servi publici were subject to the provisions of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum. This is attested by an early second century CE funerary altar set up for Herennius col(onorum) Emer(itensium) ser(vus) (no. 570), by Lucceia Herennia, his mother, from whom the former derived his own name, according to a practice also used among members of the familia publica.60 Lucceia Herennia was a freeborn (ingenua) or a freedwoman (liberta), whereas her child was a public slave. What explains the status difference between this woman and her son? One might imagine that, after entering a relationship with a public slave of the inhabitants of Augusta Emerita, she could have maintained her status as a free woman based on an agreement with the ordo decurionum of the city. Under the provisions of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum, her son Herennius became a slave of his father’s owner – i. e., the townsfolk of Augusta Emerita – and therefore a public slave.61 Whether servi publici partnered with servae publicae or free women, it seems that, between the mid-first and the mid-second centuries CE, the children of any public slave were public slaves at birth. This confirms the idea that ‘slave breeding’ was one of the largest supply sources of public slaves in the cities of the Empire. 1.7 The Three Specifics of Public Slaves The first essential feature of public slaves was their belonging to a well-defined group of individuals who formed the people of a city, whether Rome or any other self-governing community. Having a plural entity as a master instead of an individual person was the defining feature of a public slave.

56 57 58 59 60 61

Gai. Inst. 1.80. See also Weaver 1986, 145–147. Weiss 2004, 24. Weiss 2004, 166–167. See also Paragraph 1.5. See, e. g., CIL XIV, 2470 (Castrimoenium, Regio I): Sebera (sic), mother of Seberianus (sic) rei pub(licae) ver(na); CIL V, 3832 = IG XIV, 2312 (Verona, Regio X): Veronia Chreste, mother of C[hr]estus Veronensium (scil. servus). Cf. Edmondson 2016, 65–81; Luciani 2019c, 298.

32

Being a Public Slave

However, coming into and remaining in public possession were not a sufficient condition to be a public slave. As already mentioned,62 enslaved prisoners of war (servi captivi) were slaves who were the public property of the State, but who were not necessarily servi publici. Only those servi captivi who were employed for common use were regarded as servi publici. This was the case for the above-mentioned prisoners of war, who had been enslaved in Nova Carthago in 210 BCE and were employed as engineers in the army. As for public slaves in colonies and municipia, the potential to perform activities for common use was sufficient to recognize someone as a servus publicus. Indeed, a few funerary inscriptions refer to very young slaves as publici or mention the townsfolk as their masters.63 As discussed, these young slaves were likely the offspring of other public slaves, and had therefore been public slaves since birth. Their presumed future employment for common use, along with the fact that they were in public possession, must have been enough to designate them as servi publici, although they were not yet of an age suitable for work. The same seems to have applied to female public slaves. The substantial number of sources mentioning servae publicae – mentioned above – do not reference their occupations. Their main function was to give birth to new public slaves, besides rearing them and running the houses where their families lived. Although these activities were not legally or socially recognized, female public slaves were acting in the best interests of their communities. This justified their affiliation with the group of public slaves. In most other cases, though, it is the available evidence to provide all the necessary information about the official role played by each servus publicus, and one can thus safely conclude that performing duties of public interest and, generally speaking, being employed for common use was the second fundamental feature of all public slaves. The wide range of services that public slaves provided to the community, in Rome and in other cities, will be explored in Chapters 3 and 4. A third essential feature of public slaves’ predicament was their prospect of obtaining freedom through an official procedure. Like all other slaves in the Roman world, servi publici could be manumitted and obtain freedom. This does not mean that all public slaves were actually granted freedom. As will be analysed in detail in Chapter 5, public slaves in Rome were rarely manumitted. Conversely, public slaves in the colonies or the municipia were set free more frequently. However, this opportunity did exist for all public slaves. After being released from slavery, they became liberti publici or libertae publicae and received either the gentilicium of the magistrate who had manumitted them (most common in Rome); the nomen Poblicius/Publicius derived from the adjec62 63

See Paragraph 1.5. See, e. g., Primio publicus (no. 190), who lived for nine years and nine months; Neapolis Potent(inorum scil. servus) (no. 333), who lived for one year and four months; Secunda publica (421), who lived for seven years and 10 months. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 26.

Belonging to an Administrative District: Slaves and Freedmen of Provinces

33

tive publicus; or a nomen derived from the toponyms (or epithets) of the self-governing towns that set them free.64 Freed public slaves often continued to perform activities for their communities, usually the same ones that they had performed as slaves.65 1.8 Belonging to an Administrative District: Slaves and Freedmen of Provinces Like the civitates, each of the provinces (provinciae) also possessed a legal personality, as well as the capacity to hold and manumit its own slaves.66 A few inscriptions provide convincing evidence of slaves and freedmen who belonged to provinces.67 The most significant evidence was the case of a slave from the province of the Three Gauls (Tres Galliae), known as Abascantus (no. 733). Abascantus went to Ostia, likely on official business attending to a provincial officer, and then permanently settled there in the mid-second century CE, after having been set free by the provincial council at Lugdunum, and becoming P(ublius) Claudius trium Galliar(um) lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735).68 He is mentioned as a slave in a funerary marble altar that he set up for his partner Modestia Epigone on 177 CE, June 27th. Two other inscriptions, also from Ostia, refer to him as a freedman: P(ublius) Cl(audius) trium Galliar(um) lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735). To explain this nomenclature, Peter Herz has proposed that the freedman of the Three Gauls might have taken the gentilicium Claudius from Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus,69 the younger brother of Tiberius who was also known as Drusus the Elder, and who died in 9 BCE during the Germanic campaign across the River Rhine.70 Since he had built a special relation with the Gallic civitates, Herz supposed that he may have been regarded as a sort of (posthumous) patronus for the Gallic concilium. Herz wondered whether a link with the term publicus may have influenced the choice of the praenomen Publius. Although Herz’s theory is intriguing, the evidence supporting it is slightly problematic. For example, there was a considerable gap between 9 BCE and the late second century CE, when P(ublius) Cl(audius) trium Galliar(um) lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735) lived. Also, if freed slaves of the provinces (and in general all public freedmen) had derived their praenomen from the adjective publicus, one would expect to 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Luciani 2021a. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.4. Deininger 1965, 140. Cf. Appendix 5. Meiggs 1973,2 215 with n. 7; Noy 2000, 207. Another slave of the Three Gauls is known in Rome: Atticus I̅ I̅ I̅ provinciarum Galliarum servus (no. 734). Cf. also Noy 2000, 207; Ricci 2006, 17; Scuderi 2009, 94. Herz 1989, 168–170. Cass. Dio 55.1–2.

34

Being a Public Slave

find many more instances of public freedmen with the praenomen Publius than is the case.71 Therefore, Halkin’s theory is preferable: P(ublius) Claudius trium Galliar(um) lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735) probably took his nomen from one of the epithets of the capital of the Three Gauls, where the provincial council had its seat  – i. e., Colonia Copia Claudia Augusta Lugdunum (the official designation from the Emperor Claudius).72 As shown by the cases of Claudia Suavis colonor(um) lib(erta) (no. 542) and Tib(erius) Cl(audius) [C]hrestus, clavic(ularius) carc(eris) p(ublici) Lug(uduni) (no. 713), the public slaves of the townsfolk of Lugdunum took the gentilicium Claudius upon manumission.73 A similar situation existed in Corduba, the seat of the council of the province of Baetica.74 The inscription mentioning A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus (no. 521) – who had twice been a magister of the familia publica of Corduba – seems to suggest that public freedmen of the inhabitants of Corduba received the nomen Publicius. Likewise, two public freedmen of the province of Baetica, attested by other two inscriptions from Corduba, took the same nomen: C(aius) Public(ius) provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) [- - -] (no. 730) and P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus (no. 729). The latter was a sculptor of marble statues (marmorarius signuarius).75 All of these freedmen of the provinces likely took their nomen from the toponym of the city where the provincial council had its seat. The same applies for the public freedmen of those cities. As for their praenomen, they may have taken it from that of the official (or provincial flamen?) who proposed their manumission and then set them free.76 Other inscriptional evidence seems to suggest the existence of different nomenclature customs, although the interpretation of this evidence is far from certain. A late second century CE funerary stele from Bracara Augusta (Tarraconensis) refers to a man, Provincialis Nereus (no. 737), whose status as a freedman of the province was indicated by the abbreviated expression P. L. These initials may have stood for p(rovinciae) l(ibertus), but they may also have stood for P(ubli) l(ibertus). If the former interpretation is correct, then slaves of the provinces, when manumitted, may have also taken the

71

72 73 74 75 76

Only 8 individuals among the freedmen of civitates or provinces, including P(ublius) Cl(audius) trium Galliar(um) lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735), out of 157 bore the praenomen Publius: P(ublius) Ostiensis coloniae libertus Acutus (no.  233); P(ublius) Mevanas municip{i}um l(ibertus) Faustus (no. 404); P(ublius) Pisaur(ensis) col(onorum) lib(ertus) Achillas (no. 405); P(ublius) Public[ius] Brixian[or(um) l(ibertus)] (no.  471); P(ublius) Poblicius m(unicipum) V(icetinorum) l(ibertus) Valens (no.  506); P(ublius) Publicius coloni(a)e lib(ertus) Fortis (no.  618); P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus (no. 729). Halkin 1897, 149, 165 n.  4. On the seat of the concilium III Galliarum, see Deininger 1965, 99; Haensch 1997, 135. Cf. also Halkin 1935, 134; Luciani 2021a, 182. Deininger 1965, 128; Haensch 1997, 183. See Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.5.6. For the hypothesis about provincial flamines as manumitters of the slaves of the provinces, see Alföldy 1975, 184. Contra Herz 1989, 169.

Public Slaves and Slaves of the Guilds: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

35

nomen Provincialis, which derived from their previous status of servi or servae provinciae. However, caution is in order. One second century CE inscription from Tarraco, the capital of the province of Tarraconensis, suggests that the slaves of the provinces may also have received other nomina upon manumission. This inscription mentions a man, L(ucius) Fabius Victor (no. 736), whose status was indicated by the expression provinc(iae) lib(ertus). This man may well have taken his nomen from that of the officer (the provincial governor or flamen?) who decided and supervised his manumission. These issues reveal that the rules governing the nomenclature of the freedmen of the provinces were very similar to the ones that governed the freedmen of the Roman people and of the civitates. However, other reasons also suggest to assimilate the slaves of the provinces to public slaves. First, they belonged to an administrative community – i. e., the citizens of a province as a whole. Second, as we will examine in greater detail in Chapter 4, they were employed for common use. They may have served as assistants to the provincial governors or flamines, or they may have provided specific services to the provincial community. This was the case for the above-mentioned P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus (no. 729), who was a marmorarius signuarius, but Tertullus provinc(iae scil. servus) (no. 733) may also have been an assistant of the provincial governor.77 Finally, slaves of the province could be formally manumitted, which would officially render them provinciae liberti or libertae. 1.9 Public Slaves and Slaves of the Guilds: Two Sides of the Same Coin? In light of the three features of public slaves, which also seem to have applied to slaves of provinces, one could argue that the slaves of associations (societates) and guilds (collegia), who had similar legal features to the civitates, were very similar to servi publici: 1) the evidence suggests that associations and guilds also owned slaves; 2) these slaves were the property of the members as a whole and presumably acted in their interests; 3) they could also be manumitted. If we regard the group of apparitores as a collegium, as seems to have been the case,78 we should also consider an inscription engraved on a marble columbarium stele from Rome, which dates to the Claudian age. The inscription listed Turannus (no.  742), whose status – verna, tab(ularius) apparitor(um) sacris omnium – indicated that he was a slave of the group of attendants that oversaw sacred rites. Turannus was also a verna, i. e., a slave who was born in that condition. Therefore, we can conclude that collegia owned slaves. Some of those slaves might have even been born in the household of

77 78

See Chapter 4, Paragraphs 4.4.2.1 and 4.5.6. Waltzing 1895, 54–55; Waltzing 1899, 213–216.

36

Being a Public Slave

other slaves of the collegia, in which case they would have been slaves of the collegia since birth. Certain inscriptions also contain evidence of freedmen of associations and guilds. The evidence suggests that, in receiving a nomen derived from the name of an association or guild, these freedmen followed a nomenclature practice very similar to that of public freedmen and freedwomen in the cities. A first century CE inscription from Rome, whose text was copied by Ariodante Fabretti in the 19th century, mentions a maker or seller of vessels (vascularius), who was a soc(ietatis) l(ibertus) and was named P(ublius) Monetius Philogenes (no. 740). This man would have been a freedman of the societas monetalis. Similarly, C(aius) Miniarius Atimetus (no. 739), who is mentioned as a procu(rator) sociorum miniariarum (scil. officinarum) in the inscription on a late first or early second century CE marble urn from the Via Salaria, was likely a freedman of the societas of the workshops connected with the extraction of cinnabar (officinae miniariae).79 The same seems to have applied to the freedmen of the decuriae of apparitores, attested by two inscriptions from Rome. The first one – a first century CE marble stele from Rome, now kept in Urbino – clearly mentions T(itus) Velatius Ganymedes (no. 743) as a freedman of the accensi velati. During the Empire, the accensi velati were ministers of the official Roman cult. The accensi velati had a similar function to the apparitores ad sacra, who assisted the highest magistrates in Rome – the consuls – with performing public rites. They were organized in a centuria, which was divided into more decuriae and acted under the supervision of the college of pontiffs.80 The second inscription, probably dating to the first century CE, mentions L(ucius) Quaestorius Cinyra (no. 741) and indicates his status as a lib(ertus) librar(iorum) quaestor(iorum). The librarii quaestorii should be interpreted as the scribae librarii of the decuria quaestoria, i. e., the decuria from which these apparitores were chosen and then assigned to quaestors.81 In both cases, it is clear that the two former slaves of these collegia took names derived from the groups to which they belonged: Velatius < (accensi) velati; Quaestorius < (librarii) quaestorii. Other inscriptions from Italy and the provinces indicate that this nomenclature custom was very common. One example is M(arcus) Picarius Nuraeus (no. 744), whose status was indicated by the expression socior(um) lib(ertus) in an inscription from Pisaurum dating to the Imperial age. This man was a freedman of the members of the association of pitch makers (picarii) and took his nomen from the name of the societas.82 Another important example is the physician M(arcus) Aerarius Telemac(h)us, 79 80 81 82

The restoration of the term officina is not strictly necessary: for the feminine term miniaria, see TLL VIII, s. v. officina, coll. 998–999. Di Stefano Manzella 1994, 261; Di Stefano Manzella 2000, 226–227. Cf. also Purcell 2001, 641 n. 30. On the general organization of apparitores, see Purcell 1983. On scribae, see Muñiz Coello 1982; Purcell 2001; David 2019, 69–92. On the term picarius see TLL X.1, s. v. picarius, col. 2074. On the nomen Picarius, see Schulze 1904, 415.

Public Slaves and Slaves of the Guilds: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

37

whose early-first century CE funerary slab from Corduba (Baetica) referred to him as a soc(ietatis) aerar(iorum) l(ibertus) (no. 746). This shows that the slaves of the association of copper miners (societas aerariorum) also took a nomen derived from the name of the association which set them free. Analogously, three freedmen of the societas Sisaponensis (nos. 747–749) received the nomen Argentarius from the name of the metal (silver) mined by the association to which they belonged. An inscribed limestone altar from Brixia, dating to the late second or early third century CE, lists a man, Fabricius Centonius Cresimus (no. 745), whose status was indicated by the expression collegiorum lib(ertus). This man set up the funerary monument for his wife Fabricia Centonia Arethusa and his daughter Chresime. Fabricius Centonius Cresimus clearly took his two nomina from the names of the local collegia of fabri and centonarii, which had set him free.83 Because his wife shared his nomina, it is uncertain whether she was also a former slave of the two collegia or a freedwoman of Fabricius Centonius Cresimus. The same ambiguity applies to a number of individuals recorded by other inscriptions, who bore names derived from collegia, but lacked any explicit indication of their status as freedmen or freedwomen of associations or guilds.84 It is possible to draw an analogy between this nomenclature custom and the one used for many freed public slaves of the civitates: like the latter, who mostly bore nomina based on the toponyms of the cities that had set them free, the slaves of societates and collegia also seem to have taken nomina derived from the names of relevant associations or guilds upon manumission. In both cases, the single name they had as slaves became their cognomen. A different nomenclature custom is indicated in an inscription found in the 16th century near Metz (Divodurum, the administrative centre of the Mediomatrici) and dated to the late first or early second century CE. The text of this inscription mentions M(arcus) Publicius Secundanus nautarum Mosallicor(um) libertus (no.  751), an archivist (tabularius) who likely worked in the college itself, as well as a sexvir Augustalis. The members of the guild of the sailors of the Moselle (nautae Mosallici) had therefore set their own slave free, and the slave had in turn taken the nomen Publicius upon manumission. This custom was shared by public freedmen in Rome and other cities.

83 84

Cf. Liu 2009, 147–148, 177–178, 369 no. 162, where Fabricius is wrongly interpreted as a praenomen. See, e. g., Fabricius Iucun[dus], F[ab]rici(i) S[i]lv[an(us)] et Licinia[n(us)] (CIL III, 1553 = IDR III, 1, 269 = IDR III, 5/2, 528; Apulum – Dacia); Collegius Fabricius (CIL VIII, 3545 = ILS 7257a; Lambaesis – Numidia); Quinta Centonia (CIL XII, 1385; Vasio – Gallia Narbonensis); Q(uintus) Navicularius Victorinus (CIL XII, 853; Arelate – Gallia Narbonensis). Cf. also Liu 2009, 178. On the contrary, Waltzing 1895, 455–456, interpreted them all as former slaves of the collegia. It is equally unclear whether other individuals who bore nomina, such as Fullonius and Purpurarius, whose status is not explicitly indicated, were freedmen of the relevant collegia of fullones, purpurarii or rather their descendants: on the Purpurarii from Mutina, see Parisini 2013. Another freedman of the collegium of the fabri navales is attested by two epigraphical sources in Ostia, but his nomen is not indicated in the text: Calocaerus lib(ertus) (CIL XIV, 168–169; Ostia – Regio I).

38

Being a Public Slave

A slave of a collegium must have been regarded as the property of the members of the guild as a community, not unlike slaves and freedmen of a self-governing town. In this respect, a slave of a collegium was publicus/-a and hence entitled to receive the nomen Publicius/-a upon manumission. Another example comes from a late first or early second century CE stele, also from Metz, which mentions a man with the same nomen, Sex(tus) Public(ius) Decmanus (no. 750). This man’s status is indicated by the abbreviated expression COL MED LIB. In light of the previous case (no. 751), the most accurate expansion of COL MED LIB may be col(legii) med(icorum) lib(ertus).85 The guild of physicians (collegium medicorum) certainly existed in the Roman Imperial world, as attested by an inscription from Beneventum, dating to the Trajanic or Hadrianic age.86 On the contrary, Weiss’ interpretation of the abbreviated expansion as col(onorum) or col(oniae) Med(iomatricorum) lib(ertus) is not supported by any other evidence of the colonial status of the city of Divodurum.87 Scholars have been split between an interpretation involving a freedman of a guild and another involving a freedman of a city, simply because former slaves of cities and colleges could take the same nomen. These similar onomastic practices also seem to indicate a shared legal trait. From the Imperial period onward, the legal personalities of collegia were modelled on the personalities of the State and of self-governing communities.88 Legal texts regarding possession and usucaption from the second and third centuries CE often treated members of a guild in the same manner as they treated the citizens of a self-governing town. The following passage from Ulpian’s commentary On the Edict is clear on this point: Item municipes ad exhibendum conveniri possunt, quia facultas est restituendi: nam et possidere et usucapere eos posse constat: idem et in collegiis ceterisque corporibus dicendum erit. Again, the citizens of municipalities can be sued for production, because they have the power to restore; for it is agreed that they can also possess and usucapt. The same applies to collegia and other collective bodies.89

The possibility for collegia to have their own slaves fell within their right to possess and usucapt. The right to manumit slaves was granted to collegia by Marcus Aurelius, as was explicitly declared in a passage from Ulpian’s commentary on the civil law, Ad Sabinum (included in the Digest): Divus Marcus omnibus collegiis, quibus coeundi ius est, manumittendi potestatem dedit. Quare hi quoque legitimam hereditatem liberti vindicabunt.

85 86 87 88 89

Cf. also Rémy 2010, 178–179. CIL IX, 1618 = ILS 6507 (Beneventum, Regio II). Cf. also Tran 2012, 65. Weiss 2004, 243 no. L75. Bonfante 1987, 57; Tran 2012, 65–66, 71, 79–80. On the economic role of ancient collegia, see Verboven 2011. Dig. 10.4.7.3 (Ulp. 24 ad ed.); translation by Watson 1985, 332 (vol. 1).

Public Slaves and Slaves of the Guilds: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

39

The deified Marcus gave to all ‘collegia’ which have the right to meet the power to manumit, in consequence of which they will claim the lawful inheritance of the freedman.90

One could argue that Marcus Aurelius’ measure only affirmed an existing practice. The evidence of freedmen of associations and guilds seems to date mainly to a period prior to the second half of the second century CE; therefore, collegia probably manumitted their own slaves well before the second century CE.91 Furthermore, legal texts often mention the names of slaves and freedmen of collegia and decuriae alongside those of slaves and freedmen of self-governing towns. Another passage from Ulpian’s commentary Ad Sabinum is indicative: Servus municipum vel collegii vel decuriae heres institutus manumissus vel alienatus adibit hereditatem. A slave belonging to the citizens of a municipality or a collegium or a decuria, who has been instituted heir, if manumitted or alienated, will [be able to] accept the inheritance.92

Ulpian also dealt with the case of a servus rei publicae and the servi corporum in a passage from his books De officio proconsulis: Servum municipum posse in caput civium torqueri saepissime rescriptum est, quia non sit illorum servus, sed rei publicae. idemque in ceteris servis corporum dicendum est: nec enim plurium servus videtur, sed corporis. It has very frequently been written in rescripts that a slave belonging to a municipality [may] be tortured in capital cases affecting the citizens because he is not their slave but the State’s, and the same should be said of other slaves belonging to corporate bodies; for the slave appears to belong, not to a number of individuals, but to the body [itself].93

As for freedmen, the legal assimilation of collegia to civitates is clarified in another passage from Ulpian’s commentary On the Edict: Qui manumittitur a corpore aliquo vel collegio vel civitate, singulos in ius vocabit: nam non est illorum libertus.

90 91

92 93

Dig. 40.3.1–2 (Ulp. 5.14 ad Sab.); translation by Watson 1985, 429 (vol 3). See also Bonfante 1987, 57. Cf. also Waltzing 1895, 55 n. 2; Di Stefano Manzella 1994, 262–263 n. 3. It is uncertain whether the actor Eutyches, who is mentioned in an inscription from Rome (CIL VI, 671), was a slave of the collegium magnum Lar(um) et imag(inum) of Antoninus Pius, or a slave of the emperor: cf. Aubert 1999, 67. Dig. 29.2.25.1 (Ulp. 8 ad Sab.); translation by Watson 1985, 879 (vol. 2). Dig. 48.18.1.7 (Ulp. 8 de off. procons.); translation by Watson 1985, 841–843 (vol. 4).

40

Being a Public Slave

One who is manumitted by some guild or corporation or city, may summon the members as individuals; for he is not their freedman.94

This passage seems to compare slaves of guilds (collegia) to the slaves who belonged to the universality of citizens in a self-governing town (civitas). A similar juxtaposition is seen in Gaius’ commentary On the provincial edict (also excerpted in the Digest): Quibus autem permissum est corpus habere collegii societatis sive cuiusque alterius eorum nomine, proprium est ad exemplum rei publicae habere res communes, arcam communem et actorem sive syndicum, per quem tamquam in re publica, quod communiter agi fierique oporteat, agatur fiat. Those permitted to form a corporate body consisting of a collegium or partnership or specifically one or the other of these have the right on the pattern of the State to have common property, a common treasury, and an attorney or syndic through whom, as in a State, what should be transacted and done in common is transacted and done.95

If collegia, like res publicae, had the right to own common property (res communes), then it is clear that – at least, from the Imperial period – the legal status of collegia in relation to non-members was modelled on that of the State and the cities.96 As a result, slaves and freedmen of collegia: a) belonged to a corporate body equivalent to a community of citizens; b) were used for the common benefit of the guild and its members; and c) could be manumitted. As a result, slaves and freedmen of collegia can be classified as ‘public slaves’. 1.10 Martiales and Venerii: Slaves of the Gods, Not of the People An interesting application of the perspective of public slavery is the case of the Martiales and the Venerii, two slave groups recorded by Cicero. Martiales and Venerii have been interpreted as public slaves, although this hypothesis has not been widely accepted.97 The only reference to the Martiales is in a passage of the Pro Cluentio, Cicero’s speech in defence of Aulus Cluentius Habitus Minor (66 BCE):

94 95 96 97

Dig. 2.4.10.4 (Ulp. 5 ad ed.); translation by Watson 1985, 46 (vol. 1). Dig. 3.4.1.1 (Gai. 3 ad ed. provinc.); translation by Watson 1985, 96 (vol. 1). Bonfante 1987, 57. Eder 1980, 34; Pittia 2007, 71. Contra Martorana 1979, 80; Eppers – Heinen 1984; Weiss 2004, 138; Reduzzi Merola 2017, 279–280. There were also attempts to interpret them as ‘serfs’: cf. Haywood 1933; Scramuzza 1936.

Martiales and Venerii: Slaves of the Gods, Not of the People

41

[…] Martiales quidam Larini appellabantur, ministri publici Martis atque ei deo veteribus institutis religionibusque Larinatium consecrati; quorum cum satis magnus numerus esset, cumque item, ut in Sicilia permulti Venerii sunt, sic illi Larini in Martis familia numerarentur, repente Oppianicus eos omnes liberos esse civesque Romanos coepit defendere. … There were at Larinum certain persons called Martiales, priests of Mars, dedicated to the service of the god by local regulations and religious ordinances of great antiquity. Their number was considerable: moreover, as is the case with the numerous Venerii in Sicily, those at Larinum were regarded as belonging to the household of the god. But despite this Oppianicus suddenly began to maintain the plea that they were free men and Roman citizens.98

This passage indicates four main features of the Martiales: a) they were priests (ministri) of Mars in Larinum; b) they represented a long-lasting – and pre-Roman – tradition; c) they were a large group of individuals; d) they were of servile condition, comparable to the Venerii attested in Sicily.99 Cicero made this comparison explicitly, to describe their belonging to the familia of a god. This comparison could also be useful when seeking to better understand the legal status of such slaves. Indeed, there is much more information about the Venerii in Sicily than the Martiales in Larinum. Cicero mentions the Venerii several times in his orations against Verres, written in 70 BCE, a few years before the Pro Cluentio. The earliest and most significant reference to the Venerii is in the speech against Quintus Caecilius, pronounced during the selection process of a prosecutor of Gaius Verres: […] Agonis quaedam est Lilybitana, liberta Veneris Erycinae, quae mulier ante hunc quaestorem copiosa plane et locuples fuit. Ab hac praefectus Antoni quidam symphoniacos servos abducebat per iniuriam, quibus se in classe uti velle dicebat. Tum illa, ut mos in Sicilia est omnium Veneriorum et eorum qui a Venere se liberaverunt, ut praefecto illi religionem Veneris nomine obiceret, dixit et se et sua Veneris esse. … There is a certain woman of Lilybaeum, named Agonis, formerly a slave of Venus of Eryx. This woman, in the days before Caecilius was quaestor, had very considerable wealth and property. An admiral serving under Antonius wronged her by carrying off a number of her slave musicians, whom he said he required for service in the navy. She thereupon followed the regular practice of those Sicilians who belong to Venus, or who having belonged to her have since become free. She used the name of Venus to make the admiral afraid of committing sacrilege, and stated that she, and all that belonged to her, were the property of the goddess.100

98 Cic. Cluent. 43; translation by H. Grose Hodge from LCL 198 (1927). 99 Cf. also Moreau 1998. 100 Cic. Div in Caec. 55; translation by Leonard H. G. Greenwood from LCL 221 (1928).

42

Being a Public Slave

This passage yields two important insights about the Venerii: a) they belonged to a deity, namely Venus; and b) they could be manumitted. Therefore, a major difference between these slaves and those normally regarded as ‘public slaves’ is that the Venerii – and presumably the Martiales, too – were not owned by the Roman people or the townsfolk of a municipality, but by a deity. All their belongings were the property of the god or the goddess, even after manumission. In other words, the Venerii can be interpreted as a sort of ἱερόδουλοι – literally, ‘temple slaves’, from the Greek tradition.101 This category included slaves who were the property of a temple but not of the cultic personnel. It also included people who were donated to the temple as slaves. Finally, there were also slaves who achieved partial or complete freedom via transference to a deity. The latter was referred to as ‘sacred manumission’. Cicero provides useful information regarding the duties performed by the Venerii. In several passages, he states that Verres, the governor of Sicily, used them as attendants (apparitores) of tax-collectors or even as tax-farmers. Cicero compared the Venerii to, and explicitly designated them as, publicani (novum genus publicanorum).102 In several passages, Cicero outlines their shameful deeds: acts of violence, thefts and robberies.103 In general, Cicero’s attitude towards the Venerii is extremely critical, as they exemplified Verres’ dreadful administration in Sicily.104 With regard to the use of Venerii as tax-farmers, Cicero compares the Venerii in Sicily to the servi publici in Rome: Quid uero? A Tissensibus, perparva ac tenui civitate, sed aratoribus laboriosissimis frugalissimisque hominibus, nonne plus lucri nomine eripitur quam quantum omnino frumenti exararant? Ad quos tu decumanum Diognetum Venerium misisti, novum genus publicani. Cur hoc auctore non Romae quoque servi publici ad vectigalia accedunt? Now let us take the case of Tissa: a very small and poor community, though its people are honest men and industrious farmers. From them you took, as a so-called bonus, more than the whole amount of their harvest. The collector you sent to deal with them was Diognetus – a temple slave, a novelty in the tax-farming profession. With such support from Verres, why are the public slaves not taking up tax-farming here in Rome as well?105

Cicero’ question as to why public slaves were not involved in tax-farming in Rome was likely sarcastic, as no evidence suggests that public slaves performed these duties in Rome at that time. It probably seemed inconceivable that servi publici would be entrusted with tax-farming; public slaves would not have seemed suitable for carrying

101 102 103 104 105

Cf. also Eppers – Heinen 1984, 227–229; Reduzzi Merola 2017, 280. Cic. Verr. 2.3.50; 2.3.61; 2.3.65; 2.3.75; 2.3.86; 2.3.89; 2.3.92; 2.3.183. Cic. Verr. 2.3.92–93; 2.3.200. Cic. Verr. 2.3.143. Cf. also Cels 1972. Cic. Verr. 2.3.86.

Martiales and Venerii: Slaves of the Gods, Not of the People

43

out such an important and delicate task. By comparing Venerii with public slaves in Rome, Cicero seems to equate the two groups’ reliability, or lack thereof. As will be seen in Chapter 6, other literary sources indicate that public slaves were not held in particularly high regard. In trying attempting to describe a category of slaves with an ‘impersonal’ master like that of the Venerii, it is possible that Cicero could not find any suitable term of comparison other than public slaves. However, as discussed, the servi publici were slaves of the Roman people, whereas the Venerii, as ἱερόδουλοι, belonged to a deity. Public slaves were certainly subject to civil law and, as will be seen in Chapter 5, likely obtained full citizenship upon manumission. On the other hand, ἱερόδουλοι were sacred ‘things’ (res sacrae) and were therefore regulated by divine law (divinum ius).106 Although some Venerii, like Agonis, were probably set free, it is difficult to imagine that they could have become Roman citizens. It was not a coincidence that controversy arose in Larinum when Oppianicus claimed that the Martiales were both freedmen and Roman citizens (Oppianicus likely intervened in an attempt to make the Martiales his clients).107 Although Martiales could be manumitted, it is highly unlikely that they could obtain Roman citizenship. Consequently, the Martiales were not set free and continued to be excluded from the citizen body of Larinum. Ultimately, both the Martiales and the Venerii were alien to Roman law, and it was probably difficult, even for Cicero himself, to bring them into a Roman framework.108 Although Cicero drew a sort of analogy between Venerii and servi publici, we can safely conclude that neither Venerii nor Martiales could be considered ‘public’.

106 Gai. Inst. 2.2–4. 107 Cf. also Deniaux 1983; Moreau 1998. 108 Cf. also Reduzzi Merola 2017, 280.

2. Public Slaves Across Time A History of Roman Public Slavery 2.1 Public Slaves in Rome between the Late 6th and 4th Centuries BCE? According to a tradition preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, public slavery would have existed in Rome since its earliest times.1 When the legendary last king of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, acquired the collection of prophetic texts known as the Sibylline Books, he would have entrusted two men of distinction (ἐπιφανεῖς ἀνδρες) from the citizenry with the task of guarding these texts. He would also have appointed two public slaves (δημόσιοι δύο) to assist these distinguished men (no. 1). According to Dionysius, this arrangement remained even after the expulsion of the kings from Rome. Two public slaves would have continued to act as servants to the two public priests in charge of the Sibylline Books (duoviri sacris faciundis) created by the newly instituted Republican State. At some point, the priestly college was increased to 10, and later 15 (decemviri and quindecimviri sacris faciundis). Dionysius reports that it was even forbidden to inspect the oracles in the absence of the two public slaves. Dionysius spent many years in Rome in the Augustan period, and may have adapted the situation of his time to a more distant past. Christopher Pelling has suggested that the continuity between the regal period and the Republic in Dionysius’ historical discourse might reflect the Augustan ideology.2 The latter would have been obvious in the case of Dionysius discussing the quindecemviral college, of which Augustus was a member. This theory casts doubt on the authenticity of Dionysius’ belief that this priestly college originated with the last king. The traditional priesthoods may have developed quite soon after the fall of the monarchy, and the Republican nature of public slavery as an institution also points in this direction.3 If this were the case, the priests sacris faciundis may have had public slaves at their disposal since then. At any rate, these conflicting accounts call for caution; there is only evidence for public slaves assigned 1 2 3

Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 4.62.4–5. Pelling 2018, 218. On the issue of the problematic origins of the Roman religious institutions, which “reflected closely the ideas and institutions characteristics of the whole republican order”, see Beard et al. 1998, 54.

Public Slaves in Rome between the Late 6th and 4th Centuries BCE?

45

to these priests in Rome from the first century CE,4 and this practice continued until a later time: an epigraphic source from the third century CE attests to a publicus XV vir(um) s(acris) f(aciundis) (no. 67). Another reference to the existence of public slavery in early Rome can be found in the Roman History of Cassius Dio. A passage from the sixth book, attested by Zonaras’ epitome and two Tzetzes’ quotations, describes a triumphal procession that took place in 396 BCE to celebrate the victory of the Roman army – led by the general Marcus Furius Camillus – in the war against the Etruscan city of Veii. When describing the triumphant general mounting his chariot after these ceremonies, the text alludes to the presence of a public slave (no. 3): οἰκέτης […] δημόσιος ἐπ᾿αὐτοῦ παρωχεῖτο τοῦ ἅρματος, τὸν στέφανον τὸν τῶν λίθων τῶν χρυσοδέτων ὑπερανέχων αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλεγε πρὸς αὐτόν, “ὀπίσω βλέπε”. A public slave […] rode with the victor in the chariot itself, holding over him the crown of precious stones set in gold, and kept saying to him, “Look behind!”.5

The act of crowning the victorious general became an important aspect of the triumphal ceremony in the centuries that followed, and remained important during the Principate.6 It is worth noting that depictions of individuals crowning a triumphant commander, such as the one in the renowned ‘Tiberius Cup’ from Boscoreale, are the only certain iconographical evidence for public slaves in the Roman world.7 This matter will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. From a historical standpoint, the only issue arising at this point is whether the notion of a public slave crowning a triumphant general was introduced at Marcus Camillus’s time. One should note that Camillus’s triumph is also narrated by Livy and Plutarch, who focus exclusively on the use of the chariot drawn by white horses, not on the possible presence of a public slave; after all, no general prior to Marcus Camillus had ever acted so irreverently.8 Since the historical authenticity of accounts of Camillus’ triumph is questionable,9 one may also doubt the assertion that there was a public slave at his triumph. Moving to the late fourth century BCE, certain passages from Livy and Valerius Maximus (writing in the Augustan and Tiberian ages, respectively) record a mysteri-

4 5 6 7 8 9

See nos. 29, 67, 89, 96, 115. Cass. Dio 6 (Zonar. 7.21); cf. also Tzetz. epist. 107, p. 86; Tzetz. Chil. 13.51–52; translation by Earnest Cary from LCL 32 (1914). Beard 2007, 85–92. On this, see now Luciani 2019a, 44–45. Livy 5.23.5–6; Plut. Cam. 7.1–2; Cass. Dio 52.13.3. Cf. also Diod. Sic. 14.117.6. Beard 2007, 234–235. Cf. also Weinstock 1971, 71–75.

46

Public Slaves Across Time

ous episode involving public slaves that allegedly occurred at that time.10 In 312 BCE, the censor Appius Claudius Caecus surrendered to the res publica the control of the cult of Hercules at the so-called Ara Maxima, an altar in the Forum Boarium.11 The ritual had previously been performed by two noble clans: the Potitii, who were the ministers of the Hercules cult, and the Pinarii.12 Thereafter, Appius Claudius Caecus would have delegated it to two public slaves (no. 4). This evidence establishes a causal link between Appius Claudius Caecus’ decision and his blindness, as well as the extinction of the Potitii. This legendary episode attests to a reform that aimed to assimilate the cult of Hercules into the Roman State religion, managed by public officials.13 In the reconstituted cult of Hercules, public slaves may have had a less active role than the available sources suggest. They may have been attached as simple servants to a major magistrate, presumably the urban praetor (praetor urbanus), who had full charge of the cult.14 In the first century BCE, the urban praetor had a special connection with the cult of Hercules: Varro records that the praetor urbanus sacrificed a heifer to Hercules every year.15 Furthermore, a verse inscription on a marble altar from Rome mentions that the praetor urbanus Publius Catius Sabinus (consul in 216 CE) looked after the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima.16 This inscription makes explicit reference to the Potitii who managed the cult of Hercules in a remote past, which suggests that the myth surrounding the story of 312 BCE persisted until at least the early third century CE. The reference also implies that the praetor urbanus played an important role in the annual administration of the cult of Hercules, at least in the late second and third centuries CE.17 It is difficult to know whether the administration of the cult of Hercules was entrusted to the praetors upon the institution of their office in 367 BCE, or in 312 BCE. It is also difficult to say who was in charge of the cult prior to that date.18 It is even harder to determine whether public slaves took any role in this context since the late fourth century BCE. That servi publici were attached as servants to praetors in Rome at least 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Livy 1.7.14; 9.29.9–11; 9.34.17–19; Val. Max. 1.1.17. Cf. also Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.40.4–5; Festus, p. 240, 270 (ed. Lindsay); Lactant. Div. inst. 2.7.15; [Aur. Vict.] Orig. 8.5; [Aur. Vict.] De vir. ill. 34.1.2; Serv. Aen. 8.179 and 269; Macrob. Sat. 3.6.13. Cf. also Rüpke – Glock 2005, 878 no. 1172. On the possible interpretations of these two groups, see Carcopino 1942, 197–206; Palmer 1965. Bayet 1926, 248–274; Carcopino 1942, 205–206; Cassola 1962, 129; Biondo 1988; Humm 2005, 642– 643; Muccigrosso 2006, 203; Torelli 2006, 585; Rüpke 2012, 107. Halkin 1897, 52–53; Carcopino 1942, 205–206. Varro, Ling. 6.54. CIL VI, 313 = ILS 3402 = CLE 228 (third century CE): H̲ e̲ r̲ cules Invicte Catius hoc tuo don[um libens] / n̲ u̲ m̲ i̲ n̲ i̲ s̲ a̲ n̲ c̲ t̲ o̲ d̲ i̲ cavit praetor urbi̲ s̲ [- - -] / c̲ u̲ m̲ p̲ i̲ a̲ s̲ o̲ l̲ e̲ m̲ n̲ e̲ mente rite fecisse[t sacrum] / t̲ r̲ a̲ d̲ i̲ d̲ i̲ s̲ t̲ i̲ q̲ u̲ o̲ d̲ Potitis evandreo [saeculo] / a̲ d̲ m̲ i̲ n̲ i̲ s̲ t̲ r̲ a̲ n̲ d̲ u̲ m̲ quodannis hic ad a[ram maxim]am. See Várhelyi 2010, 97–99, with reference to other similar inscriptions. For a historical and topographical overview of the Ara Maxima, see Torelli 2006. Carcopino 1942, 205 and Palmer 1965, 306 have suggested that the urban praetor replaced the Pinarii from 312 BCE onwards.

Towards a Consolidation of the Institution

47

in the mid first century BCE is confirmed by a passage from Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Deeds and Sayings. The passage tells the story of Sentius Saturninus Vetulo, who usurped the insignia of the praetorship (including a retinue of public slaves) when he heard he had been included among those proscribed by the Triumvirs in 43 BCE.19 The way in which Dionysius of Halicarnassus recorded the episode of 312 BCE may also be useful in this respect: νῦν […] οὐκέτι τοῖς γένεσι τούτοις ἡ περὶ τὰς ἱερουργίας ἐπιμέλεια ἀνάκειται, ἀλλὰ παῖδες ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου ὠνητοὶ δρῶσιν αὐτάς. To-day […] the superintendence of the sacrifices no longer devolves on these families [= Potitii and Pinarii], but slaves purchased with the public money perform them.20

The adverb of contemporaneity (νῦν) and the expression used to indicate the role played by public slaves (no. 4) in the cult both alludes to sacrifices to Hercules (δράω αὐτάς [scil. ἱερουργίας]). They also seem to suggest that public slaves were involved in such religious activity by the end of the Republican period (when Dionysius wrote his account). One can also infer that public slaves assisted with very practical matters. This implies that their role was different from the oversight function (ἐπιμέλεια) that was previously assigned to the Potitii and Pinarii (and later given to the urban praetor). Taken as a whole, the evidence concerning the episode with Appius Claudius Caecus and the ‘nationalization’ of the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima suggests that a major branch of religious life was transferred from private to State control at some point in the late fourth century BCE. Since responsibility for the sacrifices was handed over the urban praetor, it seems plausible that some public slaves would have been tasked with assisting the magistrate during the performance of the rituals in Hercules’ honour. This is not surprising. There is ample evidence of public slaves involved in religious practical activities under the Principate.21 However, further evidence would undoubtedly be useful. 2.2 Towards a Consolidation of the Institution: Public Slaves in Rome under the Middle Republic Other more reliable references to public slaves can be found with regard to events of the late third century BCE, on the occasion of the Second Punic War. After the defeat of Cannae in 216 BCE, difficulties with recruiting new soldiers forced Rome to enlist slaves in the army. According to Livy, the Roman Senate ap19 20 21

Val. Max. 7.3.9. On this episode, see Pistellato 2015, 54–59. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.2. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.40.5; translation by Earnest Cary from LCL 319 (1937). See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.

48

Public Slaves Across Time

proved a proposal from Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (master of the horse serving under the dictator Marcus Junius Pera) that 8,000 young and able-bodied private slaves – who would demonstrate their willingness to serve in the army – should be purchased with money from the public treasury and used in war.22 Traditionally, such slaves were referred to as volones, “volonteers”. Valerius Maximus’ account of the same episode indicates that this matter was submitted to a popular election.23 In 215 BCE, the units of volones were assigned to Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, who had been elected consul that year.24 In 214 BCE, before the battle of Beneventum, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus promised that, with the consent of the other consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus and the entire Senate (which issued a decree), he would give freedom to those volones who would fight bravely.25 After the victorious battle, such slaves were indeed manumitted by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in a public ceremony: they became freedmen through an official process of manumission, which involved two public magistrates and was submitted to the Senate’s authority.26 The ceremony was followed by a great celebration, which was depicted in a fresco at the Temple of Liberty on the Aventine.27 Since such slave recruits: 1) were purchased from private individuals at public expense; 2) were used in the interests of the Roman people; and, finally, 3) could be manumitted, they can safely be regarded as public slaves. Livy asserts that Rome preferred to pay for these slaves and use them as soldiers, rather than redeeming prisoners of war at a lower price, for a simple reason: Rome did not want to provide Hannibal with money.28 Furthermore, the recruitment of the volones proved to be a convenient way of securing military loyalty to (and political support for) a commander like Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. Indeed, one could argue that the volones who had been under Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus’ command since 215 BCE – even during the winter breaks29 – and had received freedom and citizenship from him in 214 BCE, played a significant role in his re-election in 213 BCE.30 Livy acknowledges that the volones continued to serve in the army, and showed unwavering loyalty to Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus until he died in Lucania in 212 BCE.31 At this point, the group of freed volones dispersed as if they had been discharged by the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Livy 22.57.11; 22.61.1–2; 23.32.1; 23.35.5–6; 24.14–16. See also Flor. 1.23; 1.30; Festus, p. 511 (ed. Lindsay); Serv. Aen. 9.547; Macrob. Sat. 1.11.30–31. App. Hann. 7.27 refers to an immediate manumission of the 8,000 slaves. Val. Max. 7.6.1; his figure of 24,000 slaves instead of Livy’s 8,000 seems too exaggerated. Livy 23.32.1. Livy 24.14.3–9. Halkin 1897, 23–24; Toynbee 1965, 98; Castello 1989, 101, 106, 108. Livy 24.16.6–19. See also Stewart 2012, 128–129. Livy 22.57.12; 22.61.1–2. Livy 23.35.5–6. See also Rosenstein 2004, 215 n. 122. Cf. also Castello 1989, 115–116. See, however, Bleckmann 2011, 181, who excluded that “private armies and client soldiery” could have played a role in the political competition of the third century BCE. Livy 25.20.4. Cf. also Bellomo 2019, 160.

Towards a Consolidation of the Institution

49

death of their commander. Although they were chased and tracked down by Publius Cornelius Scipio, they were eventually disbanded without punishment.32 In 207 BCE, however, the volones were recalled and enrolled in the nineteenth and twentieth legions. They were presumably stationed in Etruria, firstly under the command of Gaius Terentius Varro, then of Marcus Livius Salinator.33 The two legions of volones were still under Salinator’s command in 205 and 204 BCE against Mago.34 If these volones were the same ones that were enrolled in 215 BCE,35 then they would have fought for around a decade – the first two years as (public) slaves, then as (public) freedmen – under the command of three of the most important and successful military leaders at that time: Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, Gaius Terentius Varro, and Marcus Livius Salinator. Roberta Stewart has suggested that the volones showed their deference to the command of the State rather than to a personal commander.36 Nevertheless, whether the volones of 207 BCE were the same as those of 215 BCE, their desertion in 212 BCE clearly demonstrates that they were tightly bound to the general who had proposed their manumission, rather than to the Senate (or, more abstractly, to the Roman State). As noted by Arnold J. Toynbee, after Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus’s death, the volones probably felt as if they had been released from their military oath.37 Therefore, a strong relationship with a single (and important) person such as a magistrate seems to have been very important for public slaves – like the volones – who had ‘impersonal’ masters.38 Analogously, having loyal public freedmen as clients must have been beneficial for a magistrate too. A few years later, after the conquest of the Spanish town of Nova Carthago in 210 BCE, the Roman policy happened to be the opposite of what was established after the defeat of Cannae. According to Polybius,39 Scipio reviewed the ca. 10,000 prisoners of war he had captured during the campaign and divided them into three groups: a) the citizens, who were freed with immediate effect; b) 2,000 local craftsmen, who were declared “public slaves of Rome” (δημόσιοι τῆς Ῥώμης) and employed as technical workers for the army, presumably as military engineers;40 and c) the rest of the

32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40

Livy 25.20.4; 25.22.2–4. Cf. also Toynbee 1965, 68; Lazenby 1978, 113. Livy 27.38.8–10; 28.10.11. Cf. also Lazenby 1978, 191, 296 n. 52; Castello 1989, 97–98; Stewart 2012, 127. Livy 28.46.13; 29.5.9; 29.13.4. Cf. also Stewart 2012, 128. See Toynbee 1965, 49, 68, 97, who thought that the volones enrolled in 207 BCE were in fact new recruits. Stewart 2012, 128. Cf. also Toynbee 1965, 98: “The volunteers looked to their leader to make their fortunes for them; […] they seem to have regarded themselves as being Gracchus’s personal freedmen and clients, not the Roman state’s, […] they felt and behaved as if they had been Gracchus’s private army”. On the oath of allegiance sworn by each newly enrolled soldier to the officer in charge, see Polyb. 6.21.1–2; 6.33.1. Such an important issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 5 and 6. Polyb. 10.17.9. Cf. also Walbank 1967, 216. Cf. also Livy 26.47.

50

Public Slaves Across Time

captives. From the latter group, he selected the strongest and youngest men to be deployed in the fleet, probably as “public slaves of Rome” too. If the artisans and the other men added to the ships’ crews would show goodwill and industry, Scipio would grant them freedom after the final victory over Carthage. The expression used by Polybius, δημόσιοι τῆς Ῥώμης, underlines the public status of prisoners of war and their belonging to the city of Rome. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the difference between them and the other prisoners of war was that besides being the property of the Roman State, they were specifically employed for common use – i. e., to support the military campaign against the Carthaginians – and not simply sold on the slave market as was usually the case.41 Moreover, like the volones in the Hannibalic War, they were in a position to be set free. Livy recounts this episode from 210 BCE in a similar way.42 He uses the expression publici populi Romani to describe the prisoners’ status, which is basically the Latin equivalent of δημόσιοι τῆς Ῥώμης. This episode illustrates a phenomenon that became common between the late third and the early second century BCE, when the military expansion of Roman hegemony affected not only the Western part of the Mediterranean, but also the Eastern part. As mentioned in Chapter 1,43 the reference to public slavery in opposition to private slavery in Plautus’ Captivi, whose plot concerns slavery and prisoners of war, not only attests to the well-known existence of public slaves in Greece (Elis and Aetolia), but also suggests that the concept was familiar to Romans at the time of the play’s composition, i. e., the early second century BCE.44 Widespread use of public slaves within the public administration is well attested in the mid Republic. According to Plutarch,45 when Cato the Elder, as praetor, received Sardinia as his province in 198 BCE, he proved himself much more frugal than his predecessors, who often charged the public treasury with the costs of their luxuries and large retinues of friends and assistants. Cato the Elder decided not to burden the aerarium with any unnecessary expenses; in particular, he confined himself to a single δημόσιος (no. 6), who carried his robe and the chalice for sacrifices. The status of this assistant is not explicitly stated, but the Greek adjective for “public” (used as a noun) is normally employed to designate a servus publicus, so one can infer that Plutarch was referring to a public slave. This would be the only source concerning public slaves attached to praetors as servants, but servi publici may commonly have been part of prae-

41 42 43 44 45

Walbank 1967, 216. See also Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.5. Livy 26.47. See Paragraph 1.5. Plaut. Capt. 334. On public slavery in ancient Greece, see Jacob 1928 and, more recently, Ismard 2015, also translated into English: Ismard 2017. Plut. Cat. Ma. 6.2. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.2.

At the Service of the Political Power: Public Slaves in Rome in the Late Republic

51

tors’ staff of assistants (θεραπεία).46 Cato also had three public slaves at his service (no. 7) when he was sent to Spain in 195/194 BCE as consul.47 In his account of an event that occurred in 169 BCE, Livy documents the presence of public slaves (servi publici) employed as auxiliary staff in the public archive (tabularium) at the Hall of Liberty (atrium Libertatis).48 The censors Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and Gaius Claudius Pulcher, prosecuted for the crime of treason (perduellio) by Publius Rutilius Rufus, ordered all public records to be sealed. The censors also ordered that the tabularium at the atrium Libertatis be closed and the servi publici working in it discharged until the judgement of the people upon them was pronounced. The verb dimitto (which Livy used to describe the censors’ discharge of the public slaves) suggests that the censors exercised direct authority over the public slaves. As will be seen in Chapter 3, servi publici attached to the censors as servants were attested in Rome during the early Empire too.49 Servi publici continued to be employed in public buildings in the next century. As will be discussed in due course, two inscriptions from Rome, dating to the mid first century BCE, document two publici ex basilica Opimia, i. e., public slaves employed in the Basilica Opimia.50 The Basilica Opimia was a public building that was erected in the Roman Forum by the consul Lucius Opimius in 121 BCE and served as a venue for trials and other official functions. The publici ex basilica Opimia may have been used as caretakers or as maintenance staff, and may have been employed since the construction of the basilica. 2.3 At the Service of the Political Power: Public Slaves in Rome in the Late Republic In the late Republican period, the number of public slaves further increased, and their increased prevalence may have been politically significant. In 82 BCE, Sulla – as dictator – produced a list of the men whom he considered enemies of the State. He confiscated all the property of these men, including 10,000 slaves: since these slaves were transferred into public ownership, Sulla made them servi publici. He then bestowed freedom and Roman citizenship upon these slaves. The newly created public freedmen took the nomen Cornelius after Sulla himself: according to Appian, Sulla was trying to secure a large group of clients who would always be

46 47 48 49 50

See also Halkin 1897, 73. Val. Max. 4.3.11. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.1. Livy 43.16.13. Cf. nos. 43, 135, 138. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.6. Cf. nos. 92, 93. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.3.1.

52

Public Slaves Across Time

ready to obey his commands.51 Some of the freed slaves may also have contributed to the proscriptions, and may have been rewarded with manumission for this reason.52 In 58 BCE, after being appointed quaestor pro praetore under a law of the tribune Clodius, Cato the Younger was sent to Cyprus to conquer the island and confiscate the property of its king Ptolemy, including the latter’s slaves.53 According to Cassius Dio, when the slaves brought by Cato from Cyprus arrived in Rome, and joined the ranks of the servi publici populi Romani, Clodius intended to give the slaves the agnomen of Clodiani, because he himself had sent Cato to Cyprus. Cato, however, opposed Clodius’ attempt, and some of his supporters even proposed to call them Porciani. Eventually, they received the more neuter agnomen of Cypriani.54 This episode suggests two important factors: first, Clodius was probably attempting to seize the fruits of Cato’s labour, thereby minimizing the importance of Cato’s role. Second, Clodius probably wanted to secure the support of some public slaves, if not direct control over them.55 Although Cassius Dio’s account is somewhat biased, as it is consistently favourable to Cato,56 it confirms the importance of the relationships between magistrates and public slaves. Public slaves must have been common in the mid-first century BCE Rome, and they may have found themselves working closely with the magistrates: various sources indicate that public slaves regularly attended aediles, consuls, and praetors. An excerpt from the twenty-first book of Varro’s Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum, transmitted by Aulus Gellius,57 shows that at the time Varro was writing (nunc), i. e., around the mid-first century BCE, servi publici also attended the aediles. According to Varro, aediles were literally surrounded by public slaves (stipati servis publicis), who not only protected them as bodyguards, but also cleared people from their path (submovere populum), as the lictors normally did.58 Public slaves who served consuls were likely entrusted with similar tasks. In two passages from the Philippics, Cicero makes derogatory comments about the public slaves (no.  11) who were ordered by Antony in his capacity as consul to flog Varius Cotyla (an aedile) during a banquet in 44 BCE.59 Giusto Traina60 has proposed that in this passage, Cicero is alluding to Antony’s reinterpretation of the Parthian habit of flogging the ‘King’s friend’, as mentioned in an excerpt from the fifth book of Posi51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

App. B Civ. 1.100. Cf. also Hinard 1985, 84; Santangelo 2007, 95–99. Thein 2013, 164–165. Cic. Dom. 20.52; Cic. Sest. 26.57; Plut. Cat. Min. 39.3. Cf. also Badian 1965. Cass. Dio 39.23.2. Cassius Dio refers to them by using the terms Κλωδίοι, Πορκίοι and Κύπριοι, but it is likely that such forms stood for Latin agnomina in -anus: cf. also Mommsen 18873, 321 n. 6; Halkin 1897, 32–33. Cf. also Fezzi 2010, 97. Calvelli 2020, 294–295. Gell. NA 13.13.4. Muñiz Coello 1989a, 136, 138–139, 145–146. Cic. Phil. 8.24; 13.26. Traina 2005, 89–90.

At the Service of the Political Power: Public Slaves in Rome in the Late Republic

53

donius’ Histories, which we know from Athenaeus.61 Cicero was clearly attempting to damage Antony’s reputation among the senatorial audience; however, the passage suggests that public slaves were put at a consul’s disposal. As for public slaves attending upon (as well as escorting and protecting) praetors, one might recall the servi publici who were part of the praeturae insignia usurped by Sentius Saturninus Vetulo in 43 BCE. Sentius Saturninus Vetulo undertook this usurpation to escape capture after he was included on the Triumvirs’ proscription lists.62 In Republican times, however, public slaves were not only employed as attendants of magistrates: they also performed technical duties. An excerpt from the liber singularis de officio praefecti vigilum, attributed to the jurist Paulus (second/third century CE) and collected in the Digest, attests that in the times of the ancestors (apud vetustiores), before the Augustan period, a team of public slaves (familia publica) was stationed around the gates and city walls, where they could be called out in case of fire (no. 5).63 According to Paulus, these public slaves were usually under the command of three officials entrusted with the task of guarding against fires during the night (incendiis arcendis triumviri). Occasionally, they may also have been under the supervision of the aediles and the tribunes of the plebs. This arrangement must have been ineffective, given the coexistence of teams of private slaves (privatae familiae) for putting out fires (paid or working without any remuneration).64 As we will see in the next section, Augustus changed the way of managing firefighting on several occasions. As for religious duties, we have already discussed sources that suggest an early employment of public slaves as servants to the priestly college in charge of the Sibylline Books or as assistants to the urban praetor in the cult of Hercules.65 There is no other evidence of servi publici as part of the staff attached to public priests later on during the Republic. Nevertheless, it is likely that some public slaves were regularly at sacerdotes publici’s disposal in the Republican period. A number of inscriptions dating to the first three centuries of the Empire mention servi publici who were attached as servants to the most ancient public priesthoods. As we shall see in the next section, many public priesthoods were a result of the Augustan restoration of ancestral religious traditions. However, priest’s use of public slaves may still have been a common practice during the Late Republic.

61 62 63 64 65

FGrHist II, 87, F 5. Val. Max. 7.3.9. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. Dig. 1.15.1 (Paul. l. S. de off. praef. vig.). Cf. also Dalla Rosa 2018, 61–62. See Paragraph 2.1.

54

Public Slaves Across Time

2.4 Back to the Republican Origins: Public Slaves in Rome under Augustus Even with the increasing size and influence of Imperial slaves, servi publici did not disappear after the end of the Republic. According to Cassius Dio, in 22 BCE, when Augustus decided to strengthen the existing firefighting service, he entrusted the aediles with the responsibility of putting out fires and appointed 600 slaves (no. 13) as their assistants (ἑξακοσίοι βοηθοί δούλοι).66 The status of these servants was not explicitly stated, but their prevalence and activity in the public interest suggest that they were all public slaves.67 In practice, Augustus took care to reinforce the existing familia publica, a group of public slaves that dated back to the Republican times. This was mentioned by the jurist Paulus.68 In 7 BCE, after dividing the city of Rome into 14 administrative regions, Augustus transferred the control of the slave force to the vicomagistri.69 This arrangement remained until 6 CE, when Augustus instituted the new firefighting force, known as the vigiles. The vigiles consisted of seven cohorts, mostly freedmen soldiers, and each commanded by a tribune under the authority of a praefectus vigilum of equestrian rank.70 In general, Augustus’ creation of a new bureaucratic structure encouraged the use of servi publici in Rome. By 12 BCE, a few years before the team of public slaves was assigned to the vicomagistri, Augustus had already gifted to the State a force of 240 slaves. These slaves had belonged to his recently deceased associate and son-in-law Agrippa, and were used to maintain aqueducts, reservoirs, and basins in the city of Rome.71 The group of public slaves was known as the familia publica aquaria (no. 14), a title recorded by Frontinus.72 The following year, in 11 BCE, the Senate approved Augustus’ proposal for the appointment of new officials to oversee the administration of the public water network – namely, the curatores aquarum.73 The familia publica aquaria would be under the command of the newly established water commissioners. Under the provisions of the same senatorial decree, three public slaves (no. 15), along with other freeborn attendants, were also assigned to each of the curatores aquarum, and were entrusted with administrative tasks.74 This sector had previously been a private enterprise managed by a few noble individuals, including Agrippa. The new measures completely transformed the management of water supply in Rome; the latter became part of the State’s remit. 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Cass. Dio 54.2.4. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 86; Dalla Rosa 2018, 62 n. 42. See Paragraph 2.3 above, and Chapter 3, Paragraphs 3.1.1.3 and 3.1.2.1. Cass. Dio 55.8.7. Cass. Dio 55.26.4–5. Frontin. Aq. 2.98. Frontin. Aq. 2.116; 118. Cf. also Bruun 1991, 190–192. Frontin. Aq. 2.100. See also Bruun 1991, 193–194; Rodgers 2004, 269–270.

Back to the Republican Origins: Public Slaves in Rome under Augustus

55

This situation was partly revisited by the emperor Claudius when he completed the construction of two new aqueducts between 47 and 52 CE. Claudius created a cohort of 460 Imperial slaves to support the familia publica aquaria in the maintenance of aqueducts.75 The senatorial decree of 11 BCE, transmitted by Frontinus, also indicates the existence of three public slaves attached as servants to the food commissioners (no. 15) at that time.76 This board of two ex-praetors was introduced by Augustus in 22 BCE to relieve the aediles from the responsibility of distributing grain to the plebs and organizing the corn supply more efficiently. The board was increased by two additional individuals of praetorian rank in 18 BCE.77 Public slaves may have been attached as servants to food commissioners since the office’s inception. When Augustus introduced the military treasury in 6 CE to reserve resources to pay soldiers, he established that three ex-praetors should manage it for three years and assigned them a retinue as if they were normal magistrates.78 According to Cassius Dio,79 Augustus attached two lictors as servants to each ex-praetor, along with any further assistance as was fitting (ἡ ἄλλη ὑπηρεσία ἥ προσηκούση). Public slaves were likely included with this group of attendants, and probably continued to be used for centuries. Indeed, an inscription from Rome, dating to the early third century CE, attests one Vitalis Cornelianus (no. 139) who was a publicus pedisequ[us] pr(aefecti) aerari militaris, i. e., a public slave who escorted the prefect of the military treasury on foot.80 At that time, the prefects of the military treasury were not attended by lictors (νῦν γὰρ […] καὶ χωρὶς ῥαβδούχων περιίασιν), as Cassius Dio confirms. They were assisted only by public slaves. Augustus must also have played a role in introducing servi publici into the administration of the public library in the Porticus of Octavia. Seven inscriptions from Rome, all dating roughly to the early first century CE, record six public slaves who were employed in both the Latin and Greek sections of the library.81 Two of them, Philoxenus Iulianus (no. 114) and Montanus Iulianus (no. 95: not explicitly referred to as publicus, but most likely a public slave), had agnomina deriving from the gentilicium Iulius, the same as the princeps and the members of his family. This suggests that both men may have been slaves of Augustus, before becoming property of the State. It is not entirely clear whether the construction of the complex of the Porticus of Octavia took place immediately after 33 BCE from the spoils of the war against the Dalmatians, as Cassius Dio records,82 or later, as other sources seem to suggest.83 Furthermore, it is also 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Frontin. Aq. 2.116. Frontin. Aq. 2.100. Cf. also Rickman 1980, 180, 189. Suet. Aug. 37; Cass. Dio 54.17.1. Cf. also Rickman 1980, 62. Corbier 1974, 664–669. Cass. Dio 55.25.2–3. Cf. also TLL X.1, s. v. pedisequus, coll. 978–979. See nos. 79, 86, 95, 101, 114, 130. Cass. Dio 49.43.8. Vitr. De arch. 3.2.5; Ov. Ars am. 1.69–70; Livy, Per. 140; Plut. Marc. 30; Festus, p. 188 (ed. Lindsay).

56

Public Slaves Across Time

uncertain whether the construction should be credited to Octavian/Augustus, to Octavia, or both, as a sort of joint venture. T. Keith Dix and George W. Houston placed the completion of the complex between 23 and 11 BCE, suggesting that the desire to give Rome a public library and the subsequent design of one should be credited to Octavia, while efforts to secure funding for the construction should be credited to Augustus.84 It is remarkable that, unlike the other ‘public’ library built by Octavian in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine (next to his own house) between 36 and 28 BCE, which was managed by his own slaves, the staff of the library in the Porticus of Octavia consisted exclusively of servi publici.85 In his above-mentioned account, Cassius Dio explains that the Porticus Octaviae and the library were funded from the spoils of the war against the Dalmatians in 33 BCE.86 If this information is correct,87 the fact that the construction of the building was funded with booty from a military conquest by the Roman army effectively made the library itself the property of the Roman people.88 This might also suggest that the library in the Porticus Octaviae had a more public or civic (“städtisch”, to quote Mommsen) status than the library at the temple of Apollo.89 It is unknown whether the slaves who worked in the library in the Porticus Octaviae had been selected from among servi publici, or whether Octavia90 – or better, Augustus – had donated or sold their own slaves at some point. An alternative explanation is that the library became Octavia’s property after its construction and that Augustus inherited it (together with all the slaves who worked in it) when Octavia died in 11 BCE. If this were the case, one might presume that Augustus gifted the entire library and its staff to the State at some point after Octavia’s death, as he did when he inherited Agrippa’s cohort of 240 slaves used for water management. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence for either theory. What is certain is that Augustus promoted the use of public slaves for the administration of one of the major libraries in Rome. He tightly controlled the management of the library in the Porticus of Octavia. He personally authorized Gaius Melissus, a freedman of Maecenas, to arrange both sections of the library.91 Some inscriptional evidence also points to strong links between public slaves employed in the library at the Porticus of Octavia and certain members of the familia Caesaris. For instance, the cremated remains of five servi publici employed in the

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Dix – Houston 2006, 685–686. See also Houston 2014, 222 n. 20. Houston 2002, 156–158; Houston 2014, 222–223. Cass. Dio 49.43.8. Cf. also Suet. Aug. 29, who records that he carried out some works in the name of others, including his sister. The information is accepted by Viscogliosi 1999, 141: “Dedicato a nome di Octavia, sorellastra di Augusto […], il complesso era stato finanziato in realtà dallo stesso princeps […] con il bottino preso ai Dalmati nel 33 a. C.”. See also Houston 2002, 157 n. 40. Mommsen 18873, 330 n. 1. Halkin 1897, 100. Suet. Gram. et rhet. 21.

A Relic of the Republic in the Imperial World: Public Slaves in Rome during the Empire

57

library at the Porticus of Octavia (nos. 79, 86, 95, 101, 130) were laid in a columbarium at Vigna Codini near Porta Latina, where the tombs of many slaves and freedmen of Octavia were located.92 As another example, the ashes of Onomaste, a female slave or partner of a public slave employed in the Greek section of the library in the Porticus of Octavia called Laryx (no. 86), were placed in the same niche with the patcher (sarcinatrix) Athenais, who was a female slave of Antonia Minor, the younger daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia.93 A fire destroyed the library at the Porticus of Octavia in 80 CE, and considerable effort on the part of Domitian was required to rebuild the entire complex and restore the collection of books.94 There is no surviving evidence of public slaves employed in the library from this point onwards, probably because the status of the library changed after the reconstruction, when it became the personal property of Domitian.95 Augustus’ critical role in increasing the use of public slaves in Rome was not limited to civil administration. As he revived the ancestral religious institutions and cult places that had been forgotten or neglected over time, Augustus took care to restore not only the priesthoods, but also the staff at their disposal – public slaves among them. As will be seen in Chapter 3, various inscriptions from Rome, dating from the first to the third centuries CE, attest to servi publici who had been attached as servants to the most important Roman public priests. 2.5 A Relic of the Republic in the Imperial World: Public Slaves in Rome during the Empire The available evidence, mostly inscriptions, shows that public slaves continued to be employed as assistants to magistrates and priests or as technical workers well after Augustus’ reign. In terms of public slaves attached as servants to the main magistrates, three inscriptions from Rome, dating to the first century CE, attest to public slaves who were appointed as assistants to the censors (nos. 43, 135, 138).96 Since Augustus restored the censorship after several decades of intermission,97 the decision to assign public slaves to the censors can also be credited to him. As the censorship office was discontinued during Domitian’s reign, the practice of assigning public slaves to censors ceased by the end of the first century CE.

92 93 94 95 96 97

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 100; Manacorda 1999, 259. See no. 86, Source 2. Cf. also Kokkinos 1992, 59, 61, 175 no. B 9; Hemelrijk 1999, 55, 257 n. 170. Suet. Dom. 20; Cass. Dio 66.24.1–2. Cf. also Dix – Houston 2006, 686–688. Halkin 1897, 100–101; Houston 2002, 158. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.6. Suet. Aug. 37.

58

Public Slaves Across Time

Only one epigraphic source, dating to the mid first century CE, has been identified that mentions a former public slave attached as servant to the tribunes. The inscription records Melipthongus Obultronianus (no. 45) who was a publicus a subsellis tribunorum. Since he took the praenomen Tiberius and the gentilicium Claudius upon manumission, the officer who proposed and executed his manumission can be identified with an emperor (Claudius or Nero) in his capacity as magistrate. This implies that servi publici could also be assigned to emperors when they assumed the capacity of tribuni.98 The consuls also had public slaves at their disposal during the Empire. Plutarch gives information about public slaves (no. 19) who, in 68 CE, were employed as messengers to the consuls.99 These slaves helped the consuls carry the decrees of the Senate to the new emperor Galba and to transmit the diplomas with their official seal to provincial towns. A passage from the so-called Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium (recorded protocols of the Arval Brethren, which were inscribed annually on marble slabs at the Temple of Dea Dia at the Magliana near Rome) indicates that a public slave who had previously been attached as a servant to priests was transferred to the quaestors in 155 CE (no.  42).100 This implies that the custom of employing public slaves as assistants to quaestors persisted in the mid-second century CE. It may still have been common for public slaves to accompany magistrates to the Senate in the late Roman Empire. As will be discussed in Chapter 3,101 there are possible traces of this scenario in a passage from the Life of the Three Gordians in the Historia Augusta. However, extreme caution is always necessary when dealing with such a problematic source. Some question the historical authenticity of a secret senatorial decree confirming the appointments of Gordian I and II as emperors in a session with no clerks or public slaves (no. 22). These doubts are valid; however, it is possible that assistants of magistrates, including public slaves, might have been present during any Senate meeting, even in the mid third century CE. As we saw in the previous section, the fact that public slaves were still escorting officials at that time is confirmed by an early third century CE inscription referring to Vitalis Cornelianus (no. 139), a public slave who escorted the prefect of the military treasury on foot. The available Imperial sources that mention public slaves attached as servants to magistrates, while sufficient to show that the practice of using servi publici was not discontinued under the Principate, are still scarce. However, there is considerable evidence for public slaves who attended upon all kinds of public priests in Rome during the Empire. As will be explored in Chapter 3, public slaves attached to the main priesthoods, such as the pontifices, the augures, the quindecimviri sacris faciundis, the 98 99 100 101

See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.4. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.1. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.5. See Paragraph 3.1.4.1.

A Historical Overview of Public Slavery in the Italian and Provincial Cities

59

septemviri epulonum, the curiones, the fetiales, the sodales Titii, the Fratres Arvales, and the sodales of the Imperial cult, are well attested by inscriptional evidence dating not only to the first and the second centuries CE, but also to the mid third century CE.102 The most significant evidence that public slaves played an active role in religious rites in Rome from the early first century CE up to the mid third century CE is the abovementioned Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium.103 With regard to the religious sphere, it is worth recalling that servi publici in the mid first century were often employed as caretakers of temples.104 Although the status of Rufus, the treasurer of the pontiffs (pontificalis arcarius) who is mentioned in a letter from Symmachus dating to 380 CE, is not explicitly stated, he may have been one of the last public slaves who attended on priests.105 Even if Roman paganism did not die out altogether in the fourth century CE, the formal apparatus of the public cults (administered by the various priestly colleges) had faded by that time.106 As for public slaves employed as technical workers, the passage from Frontinus’ On Aqueducts (discussed previously) shows that the cohort of public slaves assigned to maintain aqueducts under Augustus kept this role until at least the end of the first century CE: indeed, this was the time when Frontinus was a curator aquarum and wrote his work.107 Some inscriptional evidence suggests that certain servi publici were still employed on waterworks in the second (and perhaps even the third) century CE.108 Finally, public slaves ab opera publica who maintained public buildings and spaces, possibly under the supervision of the curatores operum publicorum, are attested by two inscriptions from Rome, dating to the second and third centuries CE.109 2.6 A Historical Overview of Public Slavery in the Italian and Provincial Cities As will be seen in greater detail in Chapter 4, the evidence suggests that public slaves in the Italian and provincial communities were employed in virtually every sector of public administration from the first century BCE until the Late Empire. Lenski has pointed to various sources showing that servi publici continued to be acquired and employed in both Eastern and Western cities until the late fifth century CE and even in the sixth century CE. Lenski argues that the decline of public slavery began in the sixth 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

See Chapter 3, Paragraphs 3.2.1–4. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.3. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.6. Symm. Ep. 1.68. Cameron 2011, 163–172. Frontin. Aq. 2.116. See Paragraph 2.4 above. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.3.3. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.2.4.

60

Public Slaves Across Time

and the seventh centuries CE, as cities were increasingly able to force freeborn individuals to perform civic duties. This rendered public slaves almost unnecessary.110 Lenski’s conclusion is well supported by the evidence. He provides a convincing account of the role of public slavery in Late Antiquity and its subsequent decline. One thing that remains unclear, however, is the origins of public slavery in cities other than Rome. The lack of evidence from the earliest times makes it extremely difficult to trace the inception of the use of public slaves in Italian towns. Most ancient sources that indicate the presence of servi publici in colonies and municipia come after the early first century BCE, although public slaves must have been introduced in the administrations of Italian cities well before that time. Minturnae is one of the few communities in Italy to have epigraphical evidence that refers to public slaves in the Republican times. Two inscriptions, dated to the first half of the first century BCE, mentions two servi publici who were present in the city: Menophilus public(us) s(ervus) (no. 207) and Mena publicus s(ervus) (no. 206). The first public slave is recorded in one of the twenty-nine lists of magistri, usually worshippers of different deities, which were engraved on limestone pillars. These pillars were brought to light in the podium of a temple in 1932.111 The second public slave was mentioned in a similar list of magistri carved on a stone, also from Minturnae, whose text was unfortunately lost. The text was only transmitted by a letter from Francesco Daniele to Francesco Saverio Gualtieri, dated to 1787. The inscription was discovered and lost in that same year, but was presumably found in the same site at Minturnae as the other twenty-nine.112 The two inscriptions strongly suggest that in the first half of the first century BCE, the townsfolk of the colony of Minturnae possessed their own slaves, who must have been employed for common use. A parallel can be drawn between these inscriptions and the episode involving the attempted execution of Marius at Minturnae in 88 BCE. The episode is recorded in several literary sources whose accounts do not coincide. According to a passage from the Periochae of Livy’s work,113 the executioner sent to kill Marius was a slave from Gallia (servus natione Gallus). Valerius Maximus and Velleius agreed about the presence of a German (or Cimbrian) public slave (servus publicus natione Germanus and servus publicus natione Cimber, respectively).114 Plutarch confirms the Cimbrian origin of the executioner but not his status, which would have been that of a horseman (ἱππεὺς δὲ Γαλάτης τὸ γένος ἢ Κίμβρος).115 Finally, while Appian refers to him only as a man from Gaul (Γαλάτην ἄνδρα),116 the anonymous author of the De viris illustribus (On illustrious men) and Orosius both make reference to the 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

Lenski 2006. See also Binsfeld 2021. Johnson 1933, 1–7 (circumstances of discovery) and 123–125 (dating of the inscriptions). Pagano 1988, 819–823. Livy, Per. 77. Val. Max. 2.10.6; Vell. Pat. 2.19. Plut. Mar. 39.1–2. App. B Civ 1.61.

A Historical Overview of Public Slavery in the Italian and Provincial Cities

61

executioner using the same term (percussor), but do not indicate his status. The former only adds information about his Gallic origin.117 These sources allude to the possibility that this slave was a prisoner of the Cimbrian war (113–101 BCE), who may have been captured by Marius during the campaign and then become the property of the colony of Minturnae. All the sources also seem to agree that, when the executioner realized that he was about to kill the great commander who had defeated his people, he ran away. The historical authenticity of the entire episode is dubious, as the story may have just been used to conceal the impossibility of Minturnae’s local elite punishing Marius for political reasons.118 However, the points where the stories converge indicate that it was possible for a public slave to be employed as an executioner in a colony like Minturnae in 88 BCE. This further demonstrates the existence of public slaves in Italian colonies in the early first century BCE.119 Another early source attesting to public slaves in Roman cities is a dedication to the Genius of the ordo decurionum, Fors Fortuna, and the Lares (presumably the public ones). This dedication was made by a public slave involved in the financial administration, whose name is unfortunately lost (no.  411), at Tifernum Mataurense in the mid first century BCE. The inscription is compelling, because it indicates the presence of both a local council and a public slave in a community of Roman citizens in central Italy a few decades after the municipalization of Italy in 89 BCE, and after the Social War.120 Also noteworthy on this point is the municipal law engraved on the bronze tables from Heraclea in Lucania, which referred to the administration of Italian municipia. The law dates to either the Caesarian or the Sullan age.121 One of the provisions suggests that certain places in the town had to be assigned to public slaves by local censors for habitation or use: loca serveis publiceis ab cens(oribus) habitandei utendei caussa adtributa sunt (no. 330). This provision not only attests to the presence of public slaves in the Italian municipalities by the first century BCE, but also shows that public slavery was a legally regulated institution. The lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis, the charter that regulated the Caesarian colony of Urso in Baetica and that was engraved on several bronze tables, also made reference to public slaves. The charter decreed that the highest magistrates, the duumvirs, were to be assisted by a group of freeborn apparitores (two lictors, an accensus, two scribae, two viatores, a librarius, a praeco, a haruspex and a tibicen, i. e., a trumpet player). It also decreed that the aediles were to be accompanied by a scribe, a praeco, a haruspex,

117 118 119 120 121

[Aur. Vict.] De vir. ill. 67.4–5 (percussorem Gallum); Oros. 5.19.7 (percussorem). Santangelo 2016, 84–85. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 177; Weiss 2004, 18, 114. Cf. also Catani 2004. For the problems related to the date and the nature of the text, see Crawford 1996, 358–362 (Caesarian date); Sisani 2016, 29–47 (Sullan date).

62

Public Slaves Across Time

a tibicen and four public slaves cum limo cincto, i. e., with a belt with slanting purple stripes called limus (or limum).122 Apart from referencing a special category of public slaves who were attached as servants to local magistrates, which will be discussed in Chapter 4,123 the provision confirms that in the Caesarian colonies of the second half of the first century BCE, the use of public slaves was not only a matter of common practice, but was also required by law for the highest magistrates. If the practice of issuing official written laws (leges datae) for colonies already existed in the third century BCE, these charters would likely have been similar to one another.124 The presence of public slaves at Minturnae during the first half of the first century BCE (mentioned at the beginning of this section) suggests that the lex data of that colony, which was founded in 296 BCE, would have required public slaves to attend on local magistrates. Public slaves may therefore have been employed in the most ancient colonies in Italy since at least the third century BCE, if not earlier. Weiss dated the introduction of public slaves in Italian cities to 338 BCE, when – after the dissolution of the Latin League – the first so-called Latin colonies (coloniae Latinae) were created.125 Although impossible to prove, this theory is attractive. Public slavery, which was established in Rome to manage the city more effectively, may well have been replicated in other cities founded by the Roman government  – especially when each of them acquired self-governing status and needed a full set of institutions.

122 123 124 125

Lex Urs. 62, lines 15–18; cf. Crawford 1996, 393–457 no. 25. See Paragraph 4.2.1. Sherwin-White 19732, 82–84; Gargola 1995, 80; Bispham 2007, 210 with n. 23. Weiss 2004, 184.

3. Serving the State Public Slaves and Freedmen in the City of Rome1 Introduction One of the three aspects that distinguished public slaves from other slaves was their employment for common use on behalf of public authorities.2 In Rome, servi publici populi Romani acted on behalf of the Senate under the direct supervision of magistrates and public officials or priests. Apart from a few instances of public slaves enrolled in the army in exceptional circumstances following the Hannibalic War (analysed in Chapter 2),3 public slaves were generally not soldiers.4 The available literary and inscriptional sources suggest other possibilities for the activities of public slaves in Rome. Public slaves could be: − assigned to magistrates as personal assistants or technical workers under their direct supervision; − attached as servants to public priests or employed as aeditui in temples; or − appointed as caretakers of (or employed in) public buildings, such as archives, basilicas, and libraries. Each of these possibilities will be examined based on the relevant primary sources. In the municipium of Irni in Baetica, upon request from the duumvirs, the majority of the decurions would pass a decree on the business assigned to each public slave. This will be seen in Chapter 4.5 Conversely, there is no evidence for the procedure for appointing servi publici to a task in Rome. Therefore, one can only assume that in Rome,

1 2 3 4 5

Since there is no evidence for female public slaves and public freedwomen in Rome (see Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.5), it is possible to use the male noun ‘freedmen’. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.7. See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2. Pace Silver 2016: apart from a brief reference to the volones of 215 BCE, the evidence discussed by Morris Silver has no bearing whatsoever on proper public slaves (in this respect, see the specifics of public slaves examined in Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.7). Cf. Paragraph 4.1.1.

64

Serving the State

it was for the senators (after a consul had consulted them) to discuss which business should be assigned to each public slave, put it to a vote, and issue a decree accordingly. 3.1 At the Service of the Offices As we saw in Chapter 2,6 only a few ancient sources contain references to publici assisting consuls, praetors and aediles during the Republic. The inscriptions from the Imperial period that mention public slaves attached as servants to other magistrates, such as tribunes, quaestors, and censors, are also a few and far between. The asymmetry between this paucity of evidence and the great many literary and inscriptional sources that attest to publici who served public priests and priestly colleges (e. g., pontiffs or Arval Brethren) or were employed in the sacred sphere (e. g., as caretakers of temples), is particularly striking. However, to infer from this asymmetry that the number of public slaves attached to magistrates was much lower than that of those attached to priests would be premature and overly simplistic. As Mommsen noted, the discrepancy could be a consequence of the fact that magistrates were in charge for a year, whereas priests were appointed for life.7 One should also consider the presence of other attendants of public officials: during their year-long office, magistrates could benefit from the support of a range of freeborn or freed civil servants (apparitores), whereas priests, during their lifelong sacred ministry, had only a few attendants (calatores) at most. As a result, public slaves might have been less essential for magistrates than for priests, which could explain the quantitative difference in sources. But another factor must also be considered. Our knowledge of the public slaves attached to priests is heavily dependent upon extraordinary pieces of evidence like the proceedings of the Arval Brethren or the fasti of the sodales Augustales, which provide extremely detailed information on the publici who served these priesthoods. Evidence of this magnitude for public slaves attached to magistrates is not available. Halkin argued that public slaves attached to magistrates may have been employed throughout their lives to perform menial tasks and routine activities for various officeholders. This would not have allowed many public slaves to specialize in an area or skill worth mentioning in their funerary – and hence private – inscriptions.8 Notwithstanding the latter, one should not forget that serving the quaestors was probably considered more prestigious than serving the Arval Brethren. In 155 CE (December 11th), [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42) left his post as servant of the Fratres Arvales, as was promoted to the office of copying documents for the quaestors (promotus ad tabu-

6 7 8

See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.3. Mommsen 18873, 325–326. Halkin 1897, 71–72.

At the Service of the Offices

65

las quaestorias transscribendas).9 From this, one can infer that public slaves who assisted the magistrates were presumably held in higher regard than those who attended upon priests. In any case, public slaves attached to magistrates may have been far more numerous than the available sources seem to suggest. As will be seen in the next section, it was not only consuls, praetors, and aediles who could benefit from the assistance of public slaves. Other officials such as tribunes of the plebs, quaestors, and censors also had servi publici as assistants. 3.1.1 Serving the Traditional Republican Magistrates 3.1.1.1 Public Slaves Attached to Consuls The two consuls certainly benefitted from the assistance of public slaves both under the Republic and in the Imperial age. An excerpt from Cassius Dio’s Roman History (transmitted by the Byzantine scholarship) provides information about Marcus Furius Camillus’ triumph after his victorious campaign against Veii in 396 BCE. The excerpt suggests that the custom of at least one public slave accompanying a consul could have dated back to the fourth century BCE.10 According to the source, a public slave (οἰκέτης δημόσιος) (no. 3) would have stood behind the consul Camillus in the triumphal chariot. The public slave would have held a crown of precious stones set in gold over the consul and repeatedly said to him, “Look behind!”. As already noted,11 the historical authenticity of this description is doubtful. The presence of the public slave in Camillus’ triumphal chariot may well be anachronistic. The image of the slave crowning the victorious general and whispering a message in his ears, to warn about future uncertainties and the risks of the general becoming complacent after his victory, became a topos in the literary accounts and classical depictions of the Roman triumph.12 For instance, this scene is recognizable in the so-called ‘Tiberius Cup’ (Fig. 3), a silver scyphus discovered in a villa at Boscoreale, near Pompeii, and dating to the end of the Tiberian age.13 Tiberius seems to be depicted in his capacity as consul for the second time when, in 7 BCE, he entered Rome on a triumphal quadriga, celebrating his first triumph after his successful campaigns in Germany.14 Behind Tiberius, a young 9 10 11 12 13 14

See also Paragraph 3.2.3. Cass. Dio 6 (Zonar. 7.21; Tzetz. epist. 107, p. 86; Tzetz. Chil. 13.51–52). See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. See Beard 2007, 85–92. Baratte 1991, 24–39; Fortunati 2008, 124–125. Tiberius received the highest military honour on two occasions before becoming emperor: in 7 BCE, after the Germanic wars, he entered Rome in an ovation and riding in a chariot, displaying the triumphalia ornamenta (Suet. Tib. 9); in 12 CE, after the campaign in Dalmatia and Pannonia, he celebrated an actual triumph (Suet. Tib. 20).

66

Serving the State

Fig. 3 Silver scyphus also known as ‘Tiberius Cup’: detail of the public slave who crowns Tiberius during his triumph – Boscoreale, early first c. CE (Paris, Musée du Louvre; photo: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre / Hervé Lewandowski).

man wearing a tunic with sleeves girded across with a kind of belt is placing a victory crown over his head. This young man seems to have been a public slave attached to Tiberius in his capacity as consul; the young man wore the limus/-m, the typical attire of the servi publici who assisted the highest magistrates.15 Cassius Dio’s account on Marcus Furius Camillus’ triumph should be approached with caution. Other ancient authors, though, seem to provide more reliable information about public slaves who served the consuls at an early stage of the Republic. In a passage of his Memorable Doings and Sayings, Valerius Maximus praises Cato the Elder as a champion of frugality, stressing that he chose to be accompanied by only three (public) slaves (no. 7) when he went to Spain in 195/194 BCE as consul.16 We can deduce that the tres servi mentioned by Valerius Maximus were publici, because this passage was included in the section On Abstinence and Continence (De abstinentia et continentia), alongside a list of magistrates who proved to be particularly moderate and did not burden the public treasury with unnecessary expenses. Since servi publici were

15 16

Luciani 2019a, 38–47. See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.2.1. Val. Max. 4.3.11. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2.

At the Service of the Offices

67

paid by the public pursue, the choice of having an escort of only three (public) slaves was likely perceived as a cost-effective option.17 In the Life of Cato the Elder, Plutarch comments that Cato had taken a very similar approach a few years earlier, in 198 BCE, when he was made praetor and received Sardinia as his province. Plutarch writes that Cato went around with a single δημόσιος (no. 6), which reduced the costs of his office.18 Later periods, Cicero accounted the deplorable orders that the public slaves who were assisting Antony in his capacity as consul in 44 BCE were forced to obey. These orders included flogging the aedile Lucius Varius Cotyla during a banquet, for the sake of sheer entertainment.19 Cicero’s objectivity in describing this episode is questionable, because it suited his desire to discredit Antony.20 Nevertheless, it seems clear that Antony as a consul could count on public slaves (no. 11) to comply with his requests. When Plutarch refers to the public slaves (οἰκέται δημοσίοι) (no. 19) who had been entrusted by the consuls (οἱ ὕπατοι) with carrying the decrees (τά δόγματα) of the Senate to the newly proclaimed emperor Galba in 68 CE, he is referring to public slaves who served the consuls. These public slaves had been given diplomas (τά διπλώματα) sealed with the official seal of the consuls, so that they would be given priority in the system of State communication (cursus publicus).21 From these sources, one can infer that the Roman consuls relied upon the assistance of a cohort of public slaves, who normally escorted them while they performed their official duties in Rome or in the provinces. Both the number and nature of the tasks assigned to the servi publici of the consules were probably decided by the Senate in accordance with what each consul wanted. The consuls likely had more public slaves than the three chosen by Cato the Elder in 194–195 BCE. Like the lictors, public slaves attached to consuls often acted as bodyguards with whips, as was the case with Mark Antony’s publici. However, they might have also been employed for other tasks – as clerical assistants or messengers, for instance, as was the case in 68 CE. 3.1.1.2 Public Slaves Attached to Praetors Like consuls, Roman praetors could also have public slaves at their service. Recall the passage from Plutarch’s Life of Cato the Elder, mentioned in the previous section, which showed how Cato, in his capacity as praetor in Sardinia in 198 BCE, chose to have only one public slave (δημόσιος) who carried his robe and chalice for sacrifices, so as

17 18 19 20 21

Cf. also Eder 1980, 60–61. Plut. Cat. Ma. 6.2. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2, and Paragraph 3.1.1.2 below. Cic. Phil. 8.24; 13.26. Cf. also Manuwald 2007, 996. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.3. Plut. Galb. 8, 5. Cf. also Kolb 2001, 99.

68

Serving the State

not to burden the public treasury with unncessary costs.22 The δημόσιος (no. 6) seems to have been entrusted with assisting Cato during the religious ceremonies the latter performed as a praetor. A passage from Valerius Maximus about an episode that occurred during the late Republic confirms that praetors were assisted by servi publici. However, the duties appear to be very different. In 43 BCE, after hearing that his name had been included on the proscriptions of the triumvirs Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus, Sentius Saturninus Vetulo fled Rome towards Puteoli, and then departed for Sicily. He was able to run away because he had appropriated the insignia of the praetorship and surrounded himself with an escort of individuals disguised as lictors (lictores), attendants (apparitores) and public slaves (servi publici) (no. 12). These groups walked in front of him and removed anyone who crossed his path, as if he were a real praetor.23 Though anecdotal, this account suggests that – like the public slaves assigned to consuls – the servi publici assigned to praetors also performed the duties of bodyguards. This was especially true during the Late Republic, when political life became unstable and violent. That the role of public slaves attached as servants to praetors was similar to the role of servi publici who assisted the consuls is also suggested by these verses from the tenth Satire of Juvenal: Quid si vidisset praetorem curribus altis / extantem et medii sublimem pulvere circi / in tunica Iovis et pictae Sarrana ferentem / ex umeris aulaea togae magnaeque coronae / tantum orbem, quanto cervix non sufficit ulla? / Quippe tenet sudans hanc publicus et, sibi consul / ne placeat, curru servus portatur eodem. What if [Democritus] had seen our praetor standing conspicuously up there in his tall chariot, in the thick of the Circus dust, wearing the tunic of Jupiter, with Tyrian hangings of an embroidered toga falling from his shoulders and a huge crown so big around that no neck is strong enough for it? In fact, a public slave holds it, sweating profusely, and – so the consul [the praeses] doesn’t get too pleased with himself – he rides in the same vehicle.24

Here, Juvenal recalls the traditional topos of the public slave standing in the chariot behind the triumphant magistrate25 by turning it into a joke: during a procession at the games (pompa circensis), a public slave, sweating profusely, rides in the same vehicle as the magistrate who presided over the games (no. 21). On the magistrate’s head is a huge crown. The comic effect of this depiction lies in the fact that the magistrate was in fact a praetor, not a consul; Juvenal specifies that this was a pompa circensis, not

22 23 24 25

Plut. Cat. Ma. 6.2. See also Paragraph 3.1.1.1 above. Val. Max. 7.3.9. See also Chapter 2, Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3. Juv. 10.36–42; translation by Latham 2016, 152. On this see Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1 and Paragraph 3.1.1.1 above.

At the Service of the Offices

69

a pompa triumphalis.26 The fact that praetors inaugurated the games over which they presided with a ceremony consisting of acts normally performed during a triumph allowed Juvenal to make such an elaborate parody.27 However, the presence of a public slave in a pompa circensis along with the magistrate who organized the games may not have been Juvenal’s pure invention. Finally, under the supervision of the praetor urbanus, public slaves may also have been involved in the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima. According to a tradition handed down by Livy and Valerius Maximus28 (discussed previously),29 Appius Claudius Caecus transferred the responsibility for the cult from two noble families, the Potitii and the Pinarii, to the praetor urbanus and public slaves in 312 BCE. As we saw, a passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus seems to confirm that, in the late first century BCE at least, public slaves were still involved in the cult of Hercules.30 Apart from these literary sources, however, there is no other evidence for public slaves assisting the praetor urbanus when he performed rituals at the Ara Maxima. This theory thus remains speculative, at least for now. 3.1.1.3 Public Slaves Attached to Aediles Like the servi publici attached as servants to consuls, the public slaves who assisted the aediles also seem to have acted as bodyguards. Aulus Gellius uses an excerpt from the twenty-first book of Varro’s Antiquities of Human and Divine Things, quoted in the Attic Nights, to demonstrate that private citizens had the right to call magistrates, including quaestors and aediles, into court. In the passage, Varro mentions the case of Marcus Laevinus, a curule aedile in 229 or 185 BCE,31 who was sued before a praetor by a privatus. Varro also complains that in his day (nunc), i. e., in the mid first century BCE, aediles were prevented from being arrested not only because they were surrounded by public slaves (stipati servis publicis) (no. 10), but also because those slaves dispersed the people surrounding these magistrates.32 Some passages from Cassius Dio’s Roman History suggest that servi publici attached as servants to aediles also performed other duties, such as guarding against fires. This was the case for the 600 slaves (designated by Cassius Dio as δοῦλοι with no other specification, but most likely public slaves), whom Augustus appointed as assistants to the curule aediles. Augustus tasked the curule aediles with putting out of fires in 22 BCE as a reac26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Campana 2004, 114. See Latham 2016, in part. 152–159. Livy 1.7.14; 9.29.9–11; 9.34.17–19; Val. Max. 1.1.17. See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.40.5. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. Broughton 1951, 228, 372. Gell. NA 13.13.4. Cf. also Daguet-Gagey 2015, 230.

70

Serving the State

tion against the initiative of the aedile Egnatius Rufus, who employed his own slaves for firefighting.33 This group of 600 (public) slaves (no. 13) was probably an expansion of the team of public slaves (familia publica) from an earlier time, who were stationed around the gates and city walls (no. 5) and could take action if a fire occurred.34 This force of public slaves was then attached to the vicomagistri (no. 16) in 7 BCE, and together they were put in charge of supervising the streets and fighting fires.35 This was part of a wider Augustan urban reform that created fourteen regiones as the administrative units in the city.36 Each region was likely equipped with a group of public slaves (familia publica) entrusted with the task of fighting fires, under the supervision of the vicomagistri. Traces of this pattern can be seen in a first century CE inscription of Barnaeus, a member of the familia public(a) reg(ionis) VIII (no. 38).37 In 6 CE, this structure appears to have been replaced by the newly instituted professional group of firefighters (vigiles).38 This suggests that the inscription mentioning Barnaeus predates that change.39 Finally, the numerous public slaves employed as aeditui in the temples (on whom we will focus later),40 may have been supervised by the aediles, as these magistrates were in charge of sacred buildings. A passage from Varro’s On Agriculture seems to support this idea.41 3.1.1.4 Public Slaves Attached to Tribunes of the Plebs The tribunes of the plebs were among the main protagonists of the political life and legislative activity of the Republic. However, the only available evidence attesting to public slaves attached to tribunes of the plebs comes from the Imperial age and Late Antiquity. A passage from On Powers (also known as The Magistracies of the Roman State), written by the Byzantine antiquarian writer John Lydus (or the Lydian) in the sixth century CE, suggests that the first two tribunes of the plebs at the institution of the office in 494 BCE, Gaius Licinius and Lucius Albinius, had some public slaves in attendance (δημόσιοι οἰκέται πρός ὑπηρεσίαν) (no.  2).42 However, the origins of the tribunate of the plebs are uncertain. Furthermore, the first book of On Powers is not 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Cass. Dio 54.2.4. Cf. also Daguet-Gagey 2015, 231; Dalla Rosa 2018, 62 n. 42. See also Paragraph 3.1.2.1 below, and Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.4. Dig. 1.15.1 (Paul. l. s. de off. praef. vig.). Cf. also Daguet-Gagey 2015, 426 n.  284; Dalla Rosa 2018, 61–62. See also Paragraph 3.1.2.1 below, and Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.3. Cass. Dio 55.8.7. Cf. also Daguet-Gagey 2015, 231; Flower 2017, 272; Dalla Rosa 2018, 62. Plin. HN 3.66; Suet. Aug. 30.1. Cf. also Flower 2017, 272–283. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 87; Eder 1980, 168 n. 40. On the vigiles, see Sablayrolles 1996. Cf. also Ashby 1907, 35. See Paragraph 3.2.6 below. Varro, Rust. 1.2. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 70. Lydus, Mag. 1.44. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 75; Bandy 1983, 66–67; Bandy 2013, 129.

At the Service of the Offices

71

without error:43 for instance, Lydus’ comment that the public slaves were called vernaculi (βερνάκλοι) because they were home-bred slaves (οἰκογενεῖς οἰκέται) is a unique attestation.44 This statement also contradicts many other sources, which suggest that no servi publici were born in Rome as public slaves (vernae publici), except for those who were possibly born from a union between a public slave and a free woman under the provisions of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum (between Claudius and Hadrian’s reigns).45 Moreover, the tribunate was not assimilated to an official public magistracy until at least the Lex Hortensia of c. 287 BCE, which makes it very unlikely that tribunes would have had public slaves in attendance (as did the other magistrates) before the third century BCE. Eder suggested that the attachment of servi publici to the tribunes took place at the time of the Hannibalic War.46 A passage from the thirty-eighth book of Livy’s History of Rome supports the idea that, at least in the second century BCE, tribunes could have benefitted from the assistance of public slaves.47 In 187 BCE, after the tribunes had accused Scipio Africanus of corruption, the latter was summoned to appear before the tribunes and the people. After approaching the rostra, Scipio spoke in his own defence and rejected the accusation. He recalled his past military achievements and encouraged the citizens to go to the Capitol to pay respect to the gods, in order to ask for leaders like him. From the rostra Scipio then climbed to the Capitol, and a large crowd followed him, including the clerks (scribae) and messengers (viatores) who had come with the tribunes. Livy adds that only the retinue of slaves (servilis comitatus) and the herald (praeco) remained with the tribuni. Although there is no further reference to the status of the servilis comitatus, it may have included public slaves who acted as bodyguards of the tribunes and as their assistants during the sessions of the popular assemblies and the Senate.48 It is impossible to infer the exact number of servi publici who might have formed the comitatus. A former public slave who was attached to the tribunes under the Principate, when these magistrates had de facto been deprived of their powers, seems to have performed similar duties: the function of Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus (no. 45), who is mentioned as a publicus a subsellis tribunorum in his mid-first century CE epitaph,49 was to attend to the tribunes, and in particular to oversee their official seating (subsellia tribunorum).50 One may interpret the duty of Ti(berius) Claudius Melip-

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

On this see Maas 1992, 71–73. Cf. also Bandy 1983, xxxiv–xxxv. Cf. Dubuisson – Schamp 2006, 54 n. 155. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.5, and Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.4. Eder 1980, 65. Livy 38.51.12. Cf. also Eder 1980, 65. CIL VI, 2340 = ILS 1973. On the meaning of the term subsellium, generally a wooden multi-seat bench without arm- or backrest see Mols 1999, 54. On the location of the subsellia tribunorum under the Republican and the Augustan age see Coarelli 1985, 53–59.

72

Serving the State

thongus Obultronianus (no. 45) as physically guarding the seats used by the tribunes in the Curia,51 or merely acting as an assistant to the magistrates.52 Both interpretations are plausible, and they are not mutually exclusive. We can infer that the area reserved for the seats of the tribunes was a well-defined architectural structure, even during the Principate.53 According to one of the onomastic practices commonly used for public freedmen in Rome,54 Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus (no. 45) received the praenomen Tiberius and the nomen Claudius from the magistrate who set him free, identifiable as an emperor (Claudius or Nero) in his capacity as consul. His original single name (Melipthongus), of Greek origin,55 became his cognomen. He also kept the agnomen (Obultronianus) that derived from the gentilicium (Obultronius) of his former master.56 Since his son Primitivos (sic), who ordered the funerary monument for him, wanted his father’s role as publicus a subsellis tribunorum to be recorded, Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus likely kept the same function he had as a slave even after he was manumitted. This was a common practice for liberti publici in Italian and provincial cities. One final possible – though speculative – example of a public slave whose tasks may have been related to the tribunes is mentioned in a lost inscription from Rome: − [- - -]tt[- - -]iss(- - -)? publicus a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus) (no. 161).

Mommsen interpreted this man as a publicus, whose duty it was to guard the curule seat (sella curulis) used by Augustus in his capacity as tribune when administering the law. The slave in question would also have been in charge of the seats of his advisors and all the other tools necessary for the administration of justice.57 This interpretation, accepted by Halkin,58 was based both on a passage from Suetonius’ Life of Nero, which said that the seats (subsellia) in courtrooms were provided free of charge by the public treasury (i. e., the court costs were at the State’s expenses),59 and on the above-mentioned inscription from Rome mentioning Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus publicus a subsellis tribunorum (no. 45). Despite the use of the term sedes instead 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

58 59

Eder 1980, 65 n. 30. Halkin 1897, 76 with n. 1. Coarelli 1985, 57. Varro, Ling. 8.82–83. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.1.1. Solin 20032, 769. Schulze 1904, 201, 205, 345; Kajanto 1965, 151. Cf. CIL VI, 2341: “Collato titulo qui praecedit crediderim huic servo publico custodiam datam esse sellae curulis, in qua sedens Augustus publice iudicabat, item sellarum consiliariorum eius et instrumenti reliqui ad eam rem pertinentis. […] Iudicatio autem cum in foro fere perageretur, non mirum est curam hanc non Caesaris, sed populi servo datam esse. Th. M.”. Halkin 1897, 76 with n. 1. Suet. Nero 17: ut litigatores pro patrociniis certam iustamque mercedem, pro subsellis nullam omnino darent, praebente aerario gratuita.

At the Service of the Offices

73

of subsellium, Mommsen’s hypothesis is persuasive, and may lead us to acknowledge one more public slave attached as servant to a tribune. However, we should also consider other interpretations. Aloys Winterling, for instance, identified the publicus a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus) as a supervisor of the Imperial furniture.60 JensArne Dickmann, however, suggested that the public slave in question was a kind of bodyguard who stood behind the seats of the emperor.61 Dickmann’s interpretation would be especially convincing if the emperor were acting in his capacity as public magistrate. Winterling’s theory is less attractive because it seems unlikely that a public slave would have been employed in the emperor’s private sphere, such as his domus (a slave chosen from the Imperial private household would certainly have been more appropriate for that purpose). A third hypothesis is also to be considered: since the term sedes was often used in inscriptions as a synonym for “sacred place”, the public slave a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus) (no. 161) may also have been a sort of aedituus of temples or shrines dedicated to Augustus.62 Caution is thus in order when dealing with this source. Notwithstanding the issues associated with all the sources discussed above, one could argue that public slaves were also attached as servants to the tribunes. This practice probably did not begin before the third century BCE; it likely developed only from the second century BCE onwards. Public slaves attached to the tribunes probably acted as assistants to these magistrates in their daily tasks, and also as bodyguards. In the last century of the Republic, when the tribunes played a crucial role in the political life, the private slaves or freedmen of the tribunes may well have been better bodyguards for their masters than the public slaves attached to them as assistants. This was true for Tiberius Gracchus’ freedmen, who were ordered by their patron (in his capacity as tribune) to drag his rival Octavius from the rostra in 133 BCE. This episode was recorded by Plutarch with some disapproval, because Tiberius Gracchus employed his own freedmen as officers (ὑπηρέται).63 Another example might be the tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher, who was normally escorted by a cohort of his own slaves. Even on the last day of his life in 52 BCE, when he was murdered by a member of the armed retinue of his political opponent Titus Annius Milo, Clodius had his own slaves as bodyguards.64 As the inscription of Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus makes clear, public slaves must have been attached as servants to the tribunes well after the end of the Republic. The fact that a tribune – or the emperor acting as a tribune – could benefit from the assistance of a publicus a subsellis in the mid first century CE is highly significant: it demonstrates that although the tribunate was divested of its main func-

60 61 62 63 64

Winterling 1999, 99 with n. 84. Dickmann 1999, 283 n. 62. For a further discussion see Paragraph 3.2.6 below. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 12.5. Cic. Att. 4.3.4; Cic. Mil. 10.29.

74

Serving the State

tions after the end of the Republic, the tribunate’s apparatus  – including its public slaves – had been generally preserved. 3.1.1.5 Public Slaves Attached to Quaestors Information about public slaves attached to the quaestors is only provided by a passage from the proceedings of the Arval Brethren for the year 155 CE, December 11th. On that day, the deputy chief member of the priestly college (promagister) M(arcus) Fulvius Apronianus appointed the public slave Epictetus Cuspianus (no. 54) as a publicus attached as a servant to the fratres Arvales. Epictetus Cuspianus was appointed as a substitute for [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42), since the latter had been promoted to the office of copying documents for the quaestors (promotus ad tabulas quaestorias transscribendas). This apparently simple detail is in fact a mine of information. Apart from the obvious conclusions that public slaves could be attached as servants to quaestors and that public slaves performed duties as copyists of public records, we can also draw a number of other inferences. First, [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42), in his capacity as publicus ad fratres Arvales, had been able to build up a store of knowledge. This made him suitable to assist the quaestors, which also meant that his duties during his service to the quaestors were somewhat similar to the tasks to which he was already accustomed. Second, some replacement of public slaves was occasionally necessary, and public slaves were sometimes reassigned to other posts. Finally, being attached to quaestors was perceived – at least by a promagister of the Arval Brethren – as a sort of promotion for a public slave who had been a servant to the members of that priestly college. These points will be discussed more in detail in the next sections and chapters.65 What is most relevant at this point is the fact that, in the mid second century CE, quaestors could benefit from the assistance of public slaves, who were entrusted with the task of copying public records and – possibly – of keeping them in the archives. This practice may have also been common in the Republican age, although no other evidence suggests that public slaves were attached as servants to quaestors.66 3.1.1.6 Public Slaves Attached to Censors A passage from Livy informs us about some public slaves who, in the mid second century BCE, worked in the public archive at Rome (tabularium) under the supervision

65 66

See Paragraph 3.2.3 below. Cf. also Eder 1980, 66–67.

At the Service of the Offices

75

of the censors.67 In 169 BCE, the censor Gaius Claudius Pulcher, a colleague of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (the father of the Gracchi), was accused of high treason (perduellio) by the tribune Publius Rutilius.68 This conflict followed the bitter political struggle that had arisen after the two censors deprived many knights of their horses and used severe tactics to handle the letting of their tax-gathering contracts. Gaius Claudius Pulcher did not mind being judged by the people. However, before the trial began, he and his colleague Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus mounted the Hall of Liberty (Atrium Libertatis), where the public archive sat. After sealing all the documents, they closed the archive and sent away the public slaves who worked there (no.  8). The two censors wanted to suspend all public business until the people had passed judgment upon Gaius Claudius Pulcher. Eventually, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus intervened: he was able to change peoples’ minds by swearing that if his colleague were condemned, he would accompany him into exile. Gaius Claudius Pulcher gained enough votes to escape punishment. It is impossible to deduce from Livy’s account whether servi publici were usually attached as servants to the censors in their capacity as magistrates, or whether they were simply employed as caretakers of the public archive. Apart from being in charge of the upkeep of the building, it seems that public slaves were sometimes in charge of records and accounts for which the censors were officially responsible. These records might have included the lists of citizens and their assets (drawn up during the census); the list of members of the Roman Senate (the so-called lectio senatus); the inventory of the State’s movable and immovable property (censoriae tabulae or books); and the register of the contracts farmed out by the censors on behalf of the State (locationes censoriae).69 If the public slaves recorded in Livy’s account were actually public slaves attached as servants to the censors in their magisterial capacity, it is possible that their duties were similar to those of the publici who assisted the quaestors.70 Besides caring for the archive building and looking after the above-mentioned records and accounts, public slaves may have played an active role in compiling and/or revising those documents.71 At any rate, it is clear that the public slaves discharged from the tabularium in 169 BCE were under the supervision of the two censors. The lack of any other evidence from the Republican period means that we cannot determine conclusively whether the censors benefitted from the assistance of public slaves who worked in the public archive since the office was instituted in 443 BCE.72 This possibility cannot be ruled out.73 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Livy 43.16.13. On the two censors and the tribune, see Broughton 1951, 423–424, 425. Suolahti 1963, 25–73. See Paragraph 3.1.1.5 above. Cf. also Hartmann 2020, 45. Livy 4.8. Cf. also Eder 1980, 69.

76

Serving the State

When Augustus revived the censorship, which had fallen into disuse,74 and instituted a new census office (i. e., the officium a censibus), which collected and housed all the census information from various territories of the Empire,75 the Republican practice of allocating public slaves for the census seems to have resumed. Three inscriptions dating to the first (or even early first) century CE may be related to the censorship, as each of them mentions a public slave whose occupation dealt with census: − Cerdo Aemilianus publicus cens(oris vel -orum vel -ualis) (no. 43); − Threptus public(us) ab (sic) censu (no. 135); − Victor publicus Fabianus a censibus p(opuli) R(omani) (no. 138).

It is likely that the above-listed public slaves performed duties similar to those of the servi publici who were sent away by Gaius Claudius Pulcher and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in 169 BCE. Their focus must have been on the documents regarding the census. The censorship – including the public slaves attached as servants to the holders of the office – was eventually discontinued after Domitian, who assumed the title of censor perpetuus, i. e., “censor for life”. This made the censorship “no more than a sham”,76 and effectively ended one of the most traditional Roman magistracies.77 If the officium a censibus was indeed created by Augustus, and if the three public slaves listed above worked in that remit, it would be remarkable – albeit not surprising  – that Augustus decided to employ publicly owned slaves rather than his own slaves and/or freedmen as assistants to the censors. As we will see below, Augustus made analogous choices in several other sectors. 3.1.2 At the Service of the Augustan Offices Our focus so far has been on the public slaves who assisted traditional magistrates in Rome. We have already noted that not only were servi publici attached as servants to these officials under the Republic, as one would expect, but that they also continued to exist with the same functions during the Principate. This may have been a direct consequence of the Augustan reform of the Roman State. When Augustus restored the independence and prestige of the various Republican offices, some of which had fallen into disuse during the Late Republic, he did

74 75 76 77

Suet. Aug. 37. For the hypothesis that the officium a censibus was instituted ex novo by Augustus, see Demougin 2001, 627–631. Eck 2000, 216–217. On the end of the public slaves attached as servants to the censors after Domitian see also Halkin 1897, 74 n. 1.

At the Service of the Offices

77

not suspend the traditional practice of placing publicly owned slaves at the disposal of their holders. In the Augustan political and administrative programme, it was essential to demonstrate continuity with Republican practices.78 When Augustus instituted new officials for the management of some specific public services, he decided that they should be attended by some servi publici. This was the case for the firefighting action and fire prevention (initially assigned to curule aediles, then to the newly created vicomagistri); the grain distribution and the aqueduct system (allocated to the curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi and to the curatores aquarum respectively); the payment of salaries for soldiers (assigned to the praefecti aerarii militaris); and the charge of public buildings (assigned to the curatores operum publicorum).79 3.1.2.1 Public Slaves in Firefighting Service The first sector of public service to which the Augustan reforms assigned the use of public slaves was fire protection. This development was the consequence of an initiative in 22 BCE by the aedile Egnatius Rufus. When the latter took upon himself the burden of extinguishing fires, a duty not traditionally assigned to the aediles, he arranged a cohort of his own slaves to assist him.80 Thanks to the popular favour he received in return for this initiative, Egnatius Rufus was able to secure election to the praetorship immediately after his aedileship (albeit unlawfully, as he broke the rule of the two-year interval between offices). After this episode, Augustus followed Egnatius Rufus’ example and, in 22 BCE, officially assigned the firefighting service to the curule aediles.81 However, since he disapproved of personal ambitious enterprises like Egnatius Rufus’, Augustus decided that when the curule aediles performed their firefighting duties, they should have a team of 600 public slaves (no. 13) as assistants, rather than a cohort of their own slaves. Augustus simply restored – and expanded – the group of public slaves (familia publica) who had been employed for firefighting in the Republican period.82 Later, in 7 BCE, when Augustus divided the city of Rome into 14 regiones and created the vicomagistri, supervision of the cohort of public slaves (no. 16) was transferred from the curule aediles to the vicomagistri.83 The force of public slaves was probably split into subgroups, called familiae publicae and distributed throughout the regions. 78 79 80 81 82 83

Cf. also Dalla Rosa 2018, 58–59. Suet. Aug. 37. Cf. also Eck 1992. Vell. Pat. 2.92; Cass. Dio. 53.2.4–6. Cf. also Paragraph 3.2.3 below. Cass. Dio 54.2.4. Dig. 1.15.1 (Paul. l. s. de off. praef. vig.). Cf. also Dalla Rosa 2018, 61–62. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.4. Plin. HN 3.66; Suet. Aug. 30.1; Cass. Dio 55.8.7. Cf. also Flower 2017, 272–283; Dalla Rosa 2018, 62. See also Paragraph 3.2.3 below.

78

Serving the State

The inscription of Barnaeus (no. 38), a member of the familia public(a) reg(ionis) VIII, seems to suggest as much.84 However, this arrangement was short-lived. In 6 CE, the force of public slaves was eventually dismantled and replaced by the corps of vigiles (firefighters and watchmen), which consisted of 7,000 freedmen.85 3.1.2.2 Public Slaves Assisting the curatores (or praefecti) frumenti dandi and the curatores aquarum The other two sectors of the public service in which Augustus made changes that led to the employment of servi publici were grain distribution and water management. The available evidence provides much more information about public slaves involved in water management, but it also allows us to draw some inferences about public slaves and grain distribution. Under the Republic, the duty of distributing grain to the people was normally performed by the aediles. In 22 BCE, the same year in which Augustus assigned firefighting to the curule aediles and assigned them a team of 600 public slaves (no. 13) for the purpose, the inhabitants of Rome suffered famine as a result of a flood of the Tiber and a pestilence raged through Italy.86 In response, Augustus – in his capacity as extraordinary commissioner for the grain supply (curator annonae) – ordered that two men from those who had previously served as praetors should be chosen annually from that point forward, to attend to the grain distribution. These newly instituted officials, whose number was later increased to four in 18 BCE,87 were mostly known as curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi ex senatus consulto. The office eventually became a proper magistracy, and continued to exist until the third century CE.88 The officials were accompanied by a retinue of apparitores and public slaves when they discharged their duties both inside and outside Rome. This can be inferred from a passage of the treatise On Aqueducts, written by Frontinus in 97–98 CE, which describes the role of the water commissioner (curator aquarum).89 The water commissioner was another office created ex novo by the Senate in 11 BCE at the behest of Augustus, in order to oversee and enhance the City’s water supply. When referring to the insignia and duties of the curatores aquarum, Frontinus (who held that office himself) quoted the relevant section of

84 85 86 87 88 89

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 87; Eder 1980, 168 n. 40. On the vigiles, see Sablayrolles 1996. Cass. Dio 54.1–4. Cf. also RG 5.2; Suet. Aug. 37. Cass. Dio 54.17.1. Cf. also Eck 1992, 238. Rickman 1980, 62, 180, 193–195. The Augustan inscriptions mentioning a frumenti curator ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) (CIL VI, 1460 = ILS 887) or a cur(ator) fru(menti) (CIL VI, 1480 = ILS 907) probably dates to a period in which the formal title had not been fixed yet. Cf. also Rodgers 2004, 272. Frontin. Aq. 2.100.

At the Service of the Offices

79

the text of the senatus consultum that had officially established the office.90 With regard to the insignia, which rendered the curatores aquarum quasi-magistrates,91 the Roman Senate decreed that the curatores aquarum should be attended by the same number of apparitores (lictores, scribae, librarii, accensi and praecones), technical assistants (architecti), and public slaves (servi publici – three, to be exact) (no. 15), as were the curatores (or praefecti) frumenti dandi.92 The water commissioners were accompanied by this retinue of apparitores, technical assistants and public slaves both inside and outside Rome – except for the lictors, who were present only when they travelled outside the City. The senatus consultum quoted by Frontinus also provides information about the yearly food allowance (cibaria annua) in the form of money (pecunia) that was given to the three servi publici attached as servants to the curatores aquarum (no. 15). These cibaria annua were equal to those of the public slaves assigned to the curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi. Although the office was established by the Senate, the curatores aquarum were directly appointed by Augustus, and later by subsequent emperors. Frontinus’ frequent comparisons of the curatores aquarum with the curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi demonstrate how the creation of the latter in 22 BCE set a precedent for the office of the curatores aquarum established around a decade later, in 11 BCE.93 The allocation and treatment of public slaves are further proof of that. Although the exact location of the stations of the curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi and of the curatores aquarum in Rome is unknown, they were likely very close to one another. Grain distribution took place at the porticus Minucia (sometimes called frumentaria), located near the sacred area at Largo di Torre Argentina.94 Several arguments support the hypothesis that the curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi had their office in that immediate vicinity, probably behind Temples B and C.95 The location of

90 91 92

93 94 95

Cf. also Eck 1992, 238. Frontin. Aq. 2.99. Punctuation in this passage is unsure, as the main commentators have already noted. Contrary to what Pierre Grimal (Grimal 19612, 48, 92) supposed, Robert H. Rodgers suggested that the three servi publici are not to be identified as the architectus, scriba and librarius mentioned immediately after (Rodgers 2004, 269–270), and his idea seems convincing. Rodgers, though, agreed with Grimal on another point: one should not isolate the first categories (lictores, servi publici, and architecti) from the others (scribae, librarii, accensi, and praecones). This hypothesis is also attractive: since they were all part of the same retinue, which was identical to that of the praefecti frumenti dandi, it seems reasonable to interpret it as one single list; contra Ashby 1935, 17; Evans 1994, 41; and Del Chicca 2004, 87, 398, who though concedes that “restano aperte altre possibilità”. Cf. also Rodgers 2004, 270. Zevi 1993. See, above all, Coarelli 2019, 195–314, in part. 286. Though, it seems implausible to assume a relation between the curatores or praefecti frumenti dandi and the public slave Alcimiades publicus Minicianus (no. 27), whose job is unknown: the agnomen of the latter, i. e., Minucianus, clearly derived from the gentilicium Minucius of his former master before he became a publicus, rather than from the place in which he performed his duties, i. e., the porticus Minucia. For such a hypothesis, see Coarelli 2019, 170; contra Hirschfeld 1870, 66–67.

80

Serving the State

the seat of the cura aquarum and the question of whether this place was actually called statio aquarum have instead been long debated.96 Coarelli’s hypothesis, which locates the statio aquarum next to the temple of Juturna at Largo di Torre Argentina (= Temple A), seems convincing. However, the second century CE inscription of Epagathus servus public(us) ad Iuturna(e scil. aedem) or a Diuturna(e scil. aede) (no. 53) does not necessarily support Coarelli’s hypothesis. The public slave may have been a caretaker of the temple of Juturna, not a publicus attached to the curator aquarum.97 The public slave Hevodus (no. 77), who is referred to as a servus publicus stationis aquaru(m) (with no reference to the temple of Juturna) in a late first century CE inscription from Rome, is a better example of one of the three public slaves attached as servants to the curator aquarum mentioned by Frontinus. Hevodus (no. 77) probably performed clerical duties in the building of the cura aquarum (the statio) under the direct supervision of the curator himself.98 Unfortunately, however, Hevodus’ inscription says nothing about the location of the statio aquarum. 3.1.2.3 Public Slaves and the Praefects of the Military Treasury Augustus’ tendency to attach public slaves as servants to newly instituted officials is further confirmed by the case of the praefects of the military treasury (praefecti aerarii militaris). A third century CE inscription, presumably from Rome (though its exact origin is unknown), mentions a servus publicus named Vitalis Cornelianus (no. 139) who is designated as a publicus pedisequus praefecti aerarii militaris, or a public slave who escorted the prefect of the military treasury.99 Augustus instituted the praefecti aerarii militaris in 6 CE, after he created the aerarium militaris, the treasury that paid pensions to veterans.100 Three praefects, chosen from the former praetors, held the office for three years. Their main duty was to supervise the military treasury. A passage from Cassius Dio’s Roman History provides specific information about the retinue that Augustus assigned to the praefecti aerarii militaris: ὁ Αὔγουστος […] τρισὶ τῶν ἐστρατηγηκότων τοῖς λαχοῦσιν ἐπὶ τρία ἔτη διοικεῖν προσέταξε, ῥαβδούχοις τ’ἀνὰ δύο καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ ὑπηρεσίᾳ τῇ προσηκούσῃ χρωμένοις. Καὶ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ At the Lacus Iuturnae: Platner – Ashby 1929, 313; Richardson 1992, 231. Beside the temple of Juturna at Largo di Torre Argentina (= Temple A): Coarelli 1981, 42–45; Coarelli 1996, 162; Coarelli 1997, 244–247; Coarelli 2019, 161–193. For a critical analysis of these two hypotheses, see Ziolkowski 1986, 626–627; Bruun 1989, 139–141; Burgers 1999, 348; Bruun 2007, 151–152. 97 See also Paragraph 3.2.6 below. 98 Cf. also Coarelli 2019, 17, 19. 99 His funerary stele was set up by ˹F˺ortunatus Severianus publicus XVvir(um) s(acris) f(aciundis) (no. 67). On the term pedisequus, see TLL X.1, s. v. pedisequus, coll. 978–979. 100 Corbier 1974, 347, 664–665; Eck 1992, 239. 96

At the Service of the Offices

81

πλείω ἔτη κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἐγένετο··νῦν γὰρ καὶ αἱροῦνται πρὸς τοῦ ἀεὶ αὐτοκράτορος καὶ χωρὶς ῥαβδούχων περιίασιν. Augustus […] commanded that three of the ex-praetors, to be chosen by lot, should administer it for three years, employing two lictors apiece and such further assistance as was fitting. This method was followed with the successive incumbents of the office for many years; but at present they are chosen by the emperor and they go about without lictors.101

Besides having two lictors in attendance, each praefectus aerarii militaris could also count on any other suitable assistants (τῇ ἄλλῃ ὑπηρεσίᾳ τῇ προσηκούσῃ). Cassius Dio also adds that, at the time he wrote the Roman History, i. e., the first half of the third century CE, the praefecti aerarii militaris were no longer accompanied by lictors. The inscription mentioning Vitalis Cornelianus (no. 139) supports the idea that public slaves were included in the group of assistants of the praefecti aerarii militaris. The inscription also suggests that in the third century CE, the retinue that attended praefecti aerarii militaris consisted of only public slaves.102 3.1.2.4 Public Slaves and the curatores operum publicorum The so-called curatores operum publicorum are a final example of officials who may have received public slaves as attendants since the time when they were created ex novo by Augustus. Suetonius clearly states that the supervision of public buildings (cura operum publicorum) was another administrative function that Augustus devised to enable more people to take part in the public administration.103 There is, however, no evidence regarding the date of the institution of the cura. Moreover, the available sources indicate that the designation for these curatores changed over time. This suggests that their duties were not confined to the cura operum publicorum, which was probably just the core of their sphere of activity.104 Indeed, three groups of inscriptions from Rome, which mention two boards of consular curatores locorum publicorum iudicandorum who were in charge between 15 and 23 CE, seem to relate to officials with the cura operum publicorum.105 Therefore, these officials’ tasks were not limited to the supervision of public 101 102 103 104

105

Cass. Dio 55.25.2–3; translation by E. Cary, Loeb Classical Library. Cf. also Luciani 2019c, 296. Suet. Aug. 37. Eck 1992, 240: “Sueton benutzt in dem oben zitierten Passus nicht die vollständige Amtsbezeichnung mit allen Einzelheiten, sondern den Bestandteil der Titulatur, der zu seiner Zeit und auch später offensichtlich als der zentrale Kern der Amtstätigkeit angesehen wurde: cura operum publicorum”. CIL VI, 1266 = ILS 5939; CIL VI, 1267a-b; CIL VI, 31573 = ILS 5940; CIL VI, 31574 = ILS 5941; AE 1907, 213 = CIL VI, 37037 CIL VI, 40883.

82

Serving the State

buildings; their tasks may have also involved the appropriation of public spaces for private purposes.106 Later on, the officials’ title was further modified to curatores aedium sacrarum et operum locorumque publicorum. This suggests a wider scope of responsibility for temples, and public buildings and spaces.107 There is no explicit evidence for public slaves attached as servants to these officials. However, Halkin assumed that two public slaves, designated in two inscriptions from Rome as ab opera publica, i. e., Oratus pub(licus) Fabianus ab opera publica (no. 105), and Euvodus (sic) publicus Rublianus ab opera publica (no. 59), were in fact assistants to the curatores operum publicorum.108 As in the case of Suetonius, their title would have referred to the core of their activity. If Halkin’s hypothesis is correct,109 this would be another instance of an office instituted under Augustus that received some public slaves as assistants (similar to what is attested for the curatores aquarum).110 Moreover, since the above-mentioned public slaves are attested by two inscriptions dating to the late first/early second centuries CE and to the late second/early third centuries CE respectively, we can infer that this practice persisted throughout the Principate.111 3.1.3 At the Service of the Imperial Offices 3.1.3.1 Public Slaves and the praefecti reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani The offices created by Augustus remained in place for centuries, as did the public slaves who attended upon them. The Augustan practice of assigning public slaves as assistants to newly created officials must have set a strong precedent. The emperor Claudius followed Augustus’ example in 42 CE, when he established a board of three former praetors and entrusted them with the task of collecting debts that were owed to the State. When he provided

106 107 108 109 110 111

Pistellato 2018, 68. Eck 1992, 240; Daguet-Gagey 1997, 34–35. Halkin 1897, 76. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.5. Cf. also Eder 1980, 168 n. 40; Daguet-Gagey 1997, 36 with n. 104. Daguet-Gagey 1997, 37 n. 106. Cf. also AE 1910, 114 = ILS 9029 = CIL VI, 37175 (late first/early second c. AD): Dis Man(ibus). / Callimacho, / vilico / saeptoru(m) / oper(arum vel -um) pub(licarum vel -licorum) / agr(ariarum vel -orum). Eder suggested that Callimachus (no. 40) was a public slave in charge either of taking care of the saepta, i. e., the voting enclosures in the Campus Martius (Eder 1980, 91), or of collecting money from the lease of public premises (Eder 1980, 168 n. 40; cf. also Fassbender 2005, 378 no. 812). Similarly, Jean-Jacques Aubert considered him as a public slave (though with some doubts) in charge of the saepta (Aubert 1994, 174 n. 197), although he also mentioned him as an agricola (Aubert 1994, 452 no. B100). Conversely, Anne Daguet-Gagey viewed Callimachus as an Imperial slave linked to the cura operum (Daguet-Gagey 1997, 37 with n. 116, 237 with n. 149).

At the Service of the Offices

83

information about Claudius’ creation of this office, Cassius Dio did not reveal the exact names of these officials. He refers to them only as three individuals among the ex-praetors (τρεῖς ἄνδρας τῶν ἐστρατηγηκότων).112 The officials’ exact designation is revealed by the honorific inscription that was set up for one of the first ex-praetors appointed to this board, i. e., C(aius) Caetronius C(ai) f(ilius) Cam(ilia) Miccio, by some traders with Roman citizenship at Bracara Augusta (Tarraconensis) in the early Claudian age.113 According to the ascending cursus honorum mentioned in the inscription, his last office was that of praefectus reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani, which he probably held in 42–43 CE, after being a praefectus aerarii militaris. Information about the official designation of the charge, i. e., praefectus reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani, is particularly valuable, as it provides a link between the epigraphical attestation of a public slave and a holder of this office. A cinerary urn dating to the Claudian age, which was found in Rome at Vigna Casali in 1775 and is now lost, mentions a certain Narcissus publ(icus) Cilnianus a reliqui(i)s p(opuli) R(omani) (no. 98). His job title is clearly related to the task of collecting debts owed to the Roman people. As a public slave, he may have been under the supervision of the praefecti reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani: when Cassius Dio speaks of these officials, he adds that Claudius granted them lictors as well as other assistance (τήν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν).114 Since Cassius Dio used the same expression when describing the praefecti aerarii militaris, we can assume that public slaves were understood to be included in this collective term (no. 17).115 3.1.4 At the Service of Political Debate 3.1.4.1 Public Slaves in the Senate Most of the servi publici discussed thus far would have been present during all the meetings of the Senate along with the public officers they served, especially when bills and decrees (senatus consulta) were discussed and voted. Since many magistrates were present at every senatorial session, the number of public slaves and other apparitors who took part in the proceedings must have been substantial, not only under the Re-

112 113

114 115

Cass. Dio 60.10.4. CIL II, 2423 = AE 1966, 186; cf. AE 1967, 222 (Claudian age): C(aio) Ca{et}ronio C(ai) [f(ilio)] / Cam(ilia) Miccioni tri(buno)  / pl(ebis) pr(aetori) legato Aug(usti) [Hisp(aniae)]  / c[ite]rioris leg(ato) Aug(usti) legi[o]/ni[s] II A[ugu]st(ae) proco(n)[s(uli)] / pr[ovin]ci(ae) B[ae]ticae / p[raef(ecto) aerar(ii)] mil[i]/t[aris prae]fecto reliquo/rum exigendorum popul[i] / Romani / cives Romani qui nego/tiantur Bracaraugust[ae]. Cf. Corbier 1974, 64–67 no. 19. Cass. Dio 60.10.4. Cf. also Corbier 1974, 64 n. 2; Eder 1980, 168 n. 40; Simonis 2017, 114 n. 281.

84

Serving the State

public but also during the Principate. However, their minor role in the proceedings seems to have made them unworthy of mention in the sources. Only one – very problematic – source provides a clue about the presence of servi publici during sessions of the Senate (no. 22): the Life of the three Gordians of the Historia Augusta.116 According to the purported author of this biography, Iulius Capitolinus, when Gordian I and his son, Gordian II, were declared emperors in Africa in 238 CE, their claim was also recognized by the Senate. The recognition was conveyed through a senatus consultum tacitum, i. e., a secret decree discussed and passed in a session at which not even clerks or public slaves or any officers of the census were present (ita ut non scribae, non servi publici, non censuales illis actibus interessent). The secrecy was supposed to prevent anyone from betraying the senators. All this information was supposedly taken from Junius Cordus, a biographer who has been authoritatively interpreted as “a probably non-existent source”.117 Moreover, no other instance of a similar senatus consultum tacitum is known in Roman history.118 In general, the description of this secret decree seems doubtful, if not completely false. However, the opposite scenario – a Senate meeting at which public slaves and any other sort of apparitores were present – may have been a common occurrence. 3.2 At the Service of Religion 3.2.1 Serving the Priestly Colleges 3.2.1.1 Public Slaves and Pontiffs The college of pontiffs (collegium pontificum), who were led by the pontifex maximus, was the most distinguished priestly body in Rome.119 Besides the pontiffs (pontifices) and the pontifex maximus, the college included other priests: the rex sacrorum, or sacrificulus; three major flamines (flamines maiores) dealing with the cult of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus respectively (Dialis, Martialis, Quirinalis); and three assistant pontiffs (pontifices minores). The Vestal Virgins and twelve lesser flamines (flamines minores) were also associated with the college, although they were not ‘full’ members. The origin of the collegium pontificum goes back to the earliest times of Rome. According to Festus, the late second century CE grammarian who made an epitome of the treatise On the Meaning of the Words written by Verrius Flaccus in the early first century CE, the rex sacrorum or sacrificulus assumed the religious responsibilities of the 116 117 118 119

Capitol. Gord. 12. Momigliano 1975, 107. Magie 1924, 402 n. 1. On the priestly college of the pontiffs, see Van Haeperen 2002.

At the Service of Religion

85

kings, and was the highest ranked priest. He was followed by the three major flamines and the pontifex maximus, who was only in the fifth place.120 The pontifex maximus came to prominence over time and eventually became the supreme priest in Rome. In 12 BCE, Augustus himself was appointed pontifex maximus. This confirms not only the immense authority of the supreme pontiff, but also the authority of the priestly college he led. The collegium pontificum was entrusted with the task of regulating the State religion and supervising the activities of other priesthoods. This group of priests dealt with a wide range of religious issues, especially in terms of divine and civil law. For instance, they established the appropriate expiatory rites for exceptional circumstances (epidemic diseases, earthquakes, lightening, etc.), consecrated temples or objects publicly dedicated to deities, managed the religious calendar of feasts,121 and administered the law concerning funerals and burial places.122 When they were consulted, the pontiffs issued public decrees with their decisions on a particular matter or replies to certain requests. The pontiffs always acted in conjunction with public magistrates, the Senate, and – during the Empire – the emperor himself. Records of their acts (commentarii), together with the Annales Maximi that were annually compiled by the pontifex maximus, may have been kept in the State archive.123 Pontiffs benefitted from the service of public slaves when performing all of their activities. Although there is no specific evidence for public slaves attached as servants to pontiffs in the Republican age, the pontifical college would likely have benefitted from the service of public slaves since the earliest times of Republic. In any case, the available sources that attest to public slaves who assisted the public pontiffs (pontifices) are almost exclusively inscriptions dating to the first two centuries of the Empire: − − − − −

Antiochus publicus p(opuli) R(omani) Aemilianus pontificalis (no. 31); Felix publicus Asinianus pontific(um vel -alis) (no. 61); Hermes Caesennianus publicus pontificum (no. 75); [- - -] Cesinianus publicus pontifi[cum vel -calis] (no. 151); Anonymous publicus (scil. pontificum vel pontificalis) (no. 166).

Notice that one of these public slaves is referred to as a publicus pontificalis, while another is called a publicus pontificum. In the other three cases, the abbreviated character of the formulas or the fragmentary nature of the monument make it impossible to ascertain which version was most commonly used.

120 121 122 123

Festus, p. 198–200 (ed. Lindsay). Macrob. Sat. 1.15.9–13. Cic. Leg. 2.45–57; Cass. Dio 48.53.4–6. On the Annales Maximi and the issues related to their use as a source for Roman historians, see Rawson 1971, 167–169; Frier 1979, 179–183; Drews 1988; Rüpke 1993, 172–178.

86

Serving the State

The anonymous publicus (no. 166) provides information about the activities performed by public slaves who assisted the pontiffs. He was mentioned in an inscription on a marble slab found in Rome, along the via Flaminia (Fig. 4). The epigraphic text records a case from 155 CE involving the pontiff D(ecimus) Velius Fidus and the deputyhead (promagister) of the pontifical college P(ublius) Iuventius Celsus.124 Velius Fidus Iubentio Celso col/legae suo salutem (scil. dicit). Desideri fra/ter, Arri Alphii, Arriae Fadillae Domi/ni n(ostri) Imp(eratoris) Antonini Aug(usti) matris liberti, / libellum tibi misi, cogniti mihi ex / longo tempore primae iubentutis (sic). / Etiam miratus, cum ab aedibus es/sem, quot eo lo(co) se contulisset, a quo / didici causa se requitionis (sic) set (sic) et re/ ligionis magnope(re) a domino n(ostro) Imp(eratore) / impetrasse. Ita, ne qua mora videa/ tur ei per nos fieri, libellum subscrip/tum per eu(n)dem pụblicum (scil. servum) sine mora / mihi remittas; opto tẹ salv˹um˺ et fe˹li˺cem es(se). / Exe(m)plu(m) libelli dati: / Cum ante hos dies coiugem (sic) et filium ami/serim e[t], pressus necessitate, corpora eorum / fictili sarcofago (sic) commendaverim, doni/qu`e´ is locụs, quem emeram aedificaretur vi/a Flaminia inter miliar(ia) II e[t] III ẹuntibus a/b Urbe parte laeva, custodia monumenti / Fla(viae) Thumeles, ma˹u˺solae(o) M(arci) Sili Orcili: / rogo, domin(e), permittas mihi in eodem lo/co in marmoreo sarcofago (sic), quem mihi mo/do comp[a]ravi, ea corpora colligere, ut cuan/done (sic) ego esse desier(o), pariter cum eis ponar.  / ˹D˺ecretum: fieri placet. Iubentius Celsus  / promagister subscripsi. III Nonas No(v)emb(res) / Antio Pol(l)ione et Opimiano Ko(n)s(ulibus) ordina˹ri˺is / ˹S˺evero et Sabiniano co(n)s(ulibus).125 Velius Fidus to his colleague Iuventius Celsus, greetings. Brother Desiderius [= signum, i. e., detached nickname, of Iuventius Celsus],126 I sent you the petition of Arrius Alphius, freedman of Arria Fadilla, mother of our Lord the emperor Antoninus Augustus, a longstanding acquaintance of mine, since my early childhood. Since I was surprised, as I was away from the temples, that he had come to that place, I heard from him that he had his request granted by our Lord the emperor in a matter of repose, but also of religion. So, in order that it would not appear that any delay was caused by us, let send me back the petition signed without delay by means of the same public slave. I pray for your wellbeing and happiness.

124 For D(ecimus) Velius Fidus, see Hüttl 1933, 157 no. 5, 235–236; Hüttl 1936, 66, 166–167; PIR2 V 225; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1358 no. 3444. For P(ublius) Iuventius Celsus, see Hüttl 1933, 235–236; Hüttl 1936, 66, 166–167; PIR2 I 881; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1087 no. 2146. 125 CIL VI, 2120 = ILS 8380. See also Appendix 1, no. 139. 126 For the interpretation of Desiderius (l. 2) as a signum of Iuventius Celsus, see Laubry 2007, 182; Salomies 2014, 502. Contra CIL VI, 2120 and Terme 2012, 552 (C. Ricci).

At the Service of Religion

87

Fig. 4 Marble slab that mentions the Anonymous publicus (scil. pontificum vel pontificalis) (no. 166) – Rome, 155 CE (Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Terme di Diocleziano; inv. 72478; photo: su concessione del Ministero della Cultura – Museo Nazionale Romano; foto n. 541759). Sample of the petition: Since I have prematurely lost (my) wife and son and, forced by the circumstance, committed their corpses to a clay sarcophagus, until the place I have bought will be built along the via Flaminia between the second and third miles, to the left of those who go out from the

88

Serving the State

City, near the protective space around the monument of Flavia Thumeles and the mausoleum of Marcus Silius Orcilius: I pray you, Lord, to allow me to collect those corpses in that place into a marble sarcophagus, which I have bought for myself alone, so that I may be put together with them, when I will pass away. Verdict: it was decreed that this was to be done. Iuventius Celsus, deputy-head, signed. On the third day before the Nones of November [= November, 3rd], under the ordinary consulship of Antius Pollio and Opimianus, and the consulship of Severus and Sabinianus [= 155 CE].127

Arrius Alphius, freedman of Arria Fadilla (mother to the emperor Antoninus Pius), had submitted to the emperor an application to encase the corpses of his partner and son, which were temporarily kept in a clay coffin, in a marble sarcophagus to be placed in his funerary area along the via Flaminia.128 Arrius Alphius’ request was then forwarded, probably by the emperor himself, to the college of the pontiffs, because moving corpses from one tomb to another fell within the jurisdiction of the college of the pontiffs.129 The pontiff D(ecimus) Velius Fidus then sent this request to the deputy-head, P(ublius) Iuventius Celsus, so that it could be discussed and approved. It is worth noting the manner in which D(ecimus) Velius Fidus, i. e., the superior pontiff, passed the case to his inferior: since the case concerned his close friend, it was a personal recommendation.130 This clearly shows the emperor’s relation to the issue. Probably on the same day, P(ublius) Iuventius Celsus sent D(ecimus) Velius Fidus the signed petition and the approval with a public slave, whose name is not recorded on the stone (no. 166). The expression per eu(n)dem publicum (scil. servum) suggests that the public slave selected to return the signed libellus was the same one who had delivered it. This was probably due to confidentiality concerns rather than the trustworthiness of that specific public slave, whose name was not even worth mentioning. From this inscriptional evidence we can infer that public slaves attached as servants to pontifices performed clerical and administrative duties, which included acting as messengers. One other source provides information regarding possible duties performed by the public slaves who assisted the pontiffs. Quintus Aurelius Symmachus wrote a letter to his brother Titianus in 380 CE, in which he references a pontificalis arcarius named Rufus of unknown status.131 Rufus was responsible for managing the properties of the pontifical college in Africa.132 Halkin and Lenski viewed Rufus as a public slave, although

127 128 129 130 131 132

My translation. For the location of the funerary monument, see Baccini Leotardi 2004; Ricci 2008. Beard 1990, 37–38; Eck 1996, 261; Laubry 2007, 170. Cotton 1981, 21. Symm. Ep. 1.68. Salzman – Roberts 2011, 137.

At the Service of Religion

89

this interpretation is far from certain.133 However, if Halkin and Lenski are correct, we can infer that public slaves were also entrusted with the task of managing the financial assets of the pontifical college. In light of the lack of other evidence, we can only theorize that public slaves attached as servants to the pontiffs may have also performed other administrative tasks, such as transcribing documents or carrying out religious rituals.134 With regard to their possible role as practical assistants during sacrifices, the only evidence points to the offering of a white heifer to the Bona Dea Agrestis Felicu(la?) made by the publicus pontific(um vel -alis) Felix Asinianus (no. 61). However, as the text of this inscription makes clear, this was not a public act, but rather a private ex-voto for Felix Asinianus to thank the goddess that he had recovered his eyesight.135 We can therefore only assume that public slaves may have been of assistance to pontiffs during public religious acts, as the available evidence suggests that their role was mostly clerical. 3.2.1.2 Public Slaves and Augurs The college of the augurs (augures) was one of the most ancient Roman priesthoods: it probably originated in the earliest times, with a consolidation phase that coincided with the period of Etruscan domination over Rome. Augurs played a major role in Roman religion – under both the Republic and the Principate – until the late fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion. There were originally three augurs, of which the king himself was one. According to tradition, Tarquin increased the number of augurs to six, but there were four in the third century BCE. College membership increased to fifteen under Sulla, then sixteen under Caesar, and the sixteenmember tradition remained until the fourth century CE. Augurs interpreted natural signs (auspicia) as expressions of either favourable or unfavourable opinions from the gods about which public enterprises should be undertaken.136 The augurs had public slaves at their disposal when performing specific rites. Similar to the case with the publici pontificum or pontificales, the available evidence for the public slaves who assisted the augurs (augures) consists exclusively of inscriptional sources from the early Empire. However, since the college of the augures was one of the most ancient and important priesthoods of Republican Rome,137 public slaves were likely attached to augurs well before the institution of the Principate.138 Our inscriptional

133 134 135 136 137 138

Halkin 1897, 56; Eder 1980, 42; Lenski 2006, 338. For a number of supposed activities of the publici pontificum vel -ales, see Eder 1980, 43–45. Cf. also Brouwer 1989, 53–54 no. 44. On the Roman augurate, see Linderski 1986 (with extensive bibliography). Beard 1990, 34–40. Cf. also Eder 1980, 45.

90

Serving the State

Fig. 5 One of the two inscriptions that mention Helius Afinianus publicus augurum (no. 73): marble cinerary urn – Rome, first c. CE (Berlin, CIL-Archiv; inv. 16986; photo: Manfred G. Schmidt).

evidence, which dates to between the early first and second centuries CE, attests to four of them: − − − −

Abascantus publicus aug(urum) (no. 23); Felix publicus Palfurianus augur(um) (no. 64); Helius Afinianus publicus augurum (no. 73) (Fig. 5); Menander Caecilianus p(ublicus) augur(um) (no. 90).

Abascantus (no. 23) seems to have been mentioned in another inscription (found in the same site, Porta Maggiore) as a public slave attached as a servant to the sodales Flaviales. If this identification is correct, and since he is mentioned as a publicus soda-

At the Service of Religion

91

lium Flavialium in the inscription that he dedicated,139 but as a publicus augurum in the other inscription (which was dedicated to him),140 Abascantus (no. 23) may have been transferred from one priestly college to the other. One might interpret the passage from the sodales Flaviales to the augurs as a sort of ‘career advancement’ for a public slave. This suggests that there was a certain mobility among public slaves to move from one priesthood to another. As will be seen in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, when it comes to public slaves attached as servants to the Arval Brethren and to the sodales of the Imperial cult, a great deal of evidence indicates that certain public slaves left their positions serving priestly colleges to work in other services. As for the activity of the public slaves attached as servants to the augurs, the absence of specific references makes it impossible to ascertain whether they served as assistants during the ritual practices,141 or rather performed clerical duties for the administration of the college itself.142 3.2.1.3 Public Slaves and the quindecimviri sacris faciundis According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, after Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the legendary last king of Rome, acquired the Sibylline Books, he gave control of the sacred texts to two distinguished citizens. These citizens benefitted from the assistance of two public slaves (no. 1).143 The king’s choice to assign public slaves to the citizens might be explained by the fact that the Sibylline Books were written in Greek, so slaves of Greek origin could have helped the citizens understand the texts.144 According to Dionysius, the two δημόσιοι were also responsible for monitoring the behaviour of the two distinguished citizens who guarded the Books: one of these two public slaves reported to the king that one of the men, Marcus Atilius, had been unfaithful. Marcus Atilius was subsequently punished for parricide; he was sewn up in a leather bag and thrown into the sea. Dionysius informs us that even after the Roman monarchy was overthrown, the Sibylline Books continued to be guarded by eminent priests, who were assisted by public slaves (δημόσιοι).145

CIL VI, 33084 = ILS 4987 (from Porta Maggiore; late first/early second c. AD): D(is) M(anibus). / Epigoni, publ(ico)  / sodalium  / Flavialium,  / Crescens et  / Abascantus  / collegae eius  / b(ene) m(erenti). 140 CIL VI, 37177 = AE 1912, 222 (from Porta Maggiore; late first/early second c. AD): Dis Manib(us). / Abascanto / publico aug(urum) / Zosimus / Silian(us) public(us) / sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) et / Accaea Rhodine / patrono optimo / fecerunt. 141 Halkin 1897, 56. 142 Eder 1980, 45. 143 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 4.62.4. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. 144 Zonar. 7.11. Cf. also Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1618. 145 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 4.62.5. See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. 139

92

Serving the State

This is the traditional account of the foundation of the duoviri sacris faciundis, a college of two priests “for the performance of sacred rites”. The college increased to ten members in 367 BCE and to fifteen under Sulla (decemviri and quindecimviri sacris faciundis). These priests were entrusted by the Senate with the task of consulting the Sibylline Books in times of intense difficulty or danger.146 As was explained in Chapter 2, Dionysius’ version of this story might be affected by his ideological concerns.147 Also, when referring to Tarquinius Superbus, Dionysius may have miscalculated the point at which public slavery was introduced in the Roman world, which – as we have seen – probably was not before the establishment of the Republican government.148 Nevertheless, it is possible that since the earliest times of the Republic, public slaves participated in an important sphere of religious activities, working for one of the most ancient and important Roman priesthoods. The Republican arrangement of duoviri, decemviri and finally quindecimviri sacris faciundis – assisted by public slaves – remained largely unchanged until fairly late in the Imperial period. Five funerary inscriptions from Rome, dating to the first three centuries of the Empire, mention five public slaves who were tasked with assisting the quindecimviri sacris faciundis: − − − − −

Andronicus publicus Fulvianus XVviralis (no. 29); ˹F˺ortunatus Severianus publicus XV vir(um) s(acris) f(aciundis) (no. 67); Magnus Publicianus publicus XVvir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis) (no. 89); Myrinus Domitianus publicus a commentari(i)s XVvir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis) (no. 96); Phyramus (= Pyramus) publicus quin(decim)vir(alis) (no. 115).149

The post of Myrinus Domitianus (no. 96) was clearly recorded in his funerary inscription: he was an a commentariis, i. e., a registrar or an archivist in charge of the official documents of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis.150 We have no other extant information about the specific tasks of the public slaves who attended upon the quindecimviri sacris faciundis. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether all the slaves who attended the quindecimviri sacris faciundis had a function similar to that of the a commentariis, or whether this function only belonged to 146 Linderski 2006. 147 See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. On the political meaning of the Dionysius’ historical work, see especially Gabba 1991, 190–216. 148 Cf. also Eder 1980, 138–139. 149 A certain Zenon, who is recorded as a public slave attached as servant to the quindecimviri sacris faciundis by Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1386 no. 3584, is not a slave, in reality: his fragmentary inscription, kept in Rome but of unknown provenance (CIL VI, 2314), can be restored by a fragmentary inscription from Nomentum (CIL XIV, 4002), which reveals that the complete nomenclature of Zenon was P(ublius) Pacil[ius - - -] Zenon Laetus. It is possible that he was a certain P(ublius) Pacilius P(ubli) f(ilius) Pa[l(atina)] Zenon Laet[us] attested by another inscription from Nomentum (AE 1975, 145). 150 On the function of the a commentariis, see Weaver 1972, 241; Haensch 1995.

At the Service of Religion

93

those, like Myrinus Domitianus (no. 96), whose title was actually that of a commentariis. The latter possibility seems more likely. It is equally uncertain whether the publici quindecimvirales sacris faciundis, or at least the a commentariis among them, were entrusted with the task of copying or transcribing parts of the Sibylline texts or other documents.151 A passage from Cassius Dio’s Roman History seems to suggest that – per a decision from Augustus – the Sibylline verses could only be copied by the priests with their own hands, to ensure that no one else could read them.152 However, it would not be surprising if all public slaves who attended the quindecimviri sacris faciundis, or at least the a commentariis among them, were required to transcribe official documents, which would have included consulting the sacred texts.153 After all, the public slaves a commentariis or commentarienses who were assigned to the Arval Brethren certainly seem to have performed such duties. The role of public slaves within the college of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis should be seen as essential, especially if one trusts the already mentioned passage from Dionysius, where he records that no one was allowed to inspect the oracles in the absence of public slaves.154 3.2.1.4 Public Slaves and the septemviri epulonum The college of the septemviri epulonum was the latest addition to the four major colleges of Roman priests (pontifices, augures, quindecimviri sacris faciundis, and then septemviri epulonum). It originated in 196 BCE, when the college consisted of three plebeian members. The number was then increased to seven and, apart from when Caesar added three more members,155 remained at seven members from Augustus onwards. Septemviri epulonum were responsible for the organization of the epulum Iovis, a public banquet sacred to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, which took place during the games (ludi Romani) and was attended by Roman authorities and the people as a whole. In addition to the epulum Iovis, the septemviri epulonum supervised other religious feasts, and also performed certain clerical and administrative tasks. Public slaves assisted them with these tasks. As is the case with the publici augurum, evidence for public slaves who attended the septemviri epulones comes only from a few funerary inscriptions, all dating to the Imperial period. Five epitaphs mention six publici septemvirorum epulonum: 151 152 153 154 155

Halkin 1897, 57 was inclined to believe that this activity was exclusively performed by the a commentariis. Cass. Dio 54.17.2. Cf. also Eder 1980, 46–47, who argued that the publici quindecimvirales sacris faciundis played a fundamental role in copying and transcribing the official documents of the priestly college. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 4.62.5. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1. Cass. Dio 43.51.9.

94

Serving the State

− − − − − −

Apolaustus Claudianu[s publ(icus)] VIIvirum epulon(um) (no. 32); Apolaustus Modian[us] publ(icus) VIIvir(um) epulon(um) (no. 33); Herodes Volusianus public(us) septemvir(um) (no. 76); Pamphilus Caesianus publicus VIIvir(um) (no. 106); Plutio(n) publ(icus) VIIvir(um) e[pulonum] (no. 116); [- - -]lianus Flavianus a comment[ariis - - - sa]cerdotî VIIvirum epulonu[m] (no. 143).

A passage from Cicero’s speech On the Response of the Haruspices (De haruspicum responsis) may be useful in deducing some of the tasks that could have been performed by public slaves who attended the septemviri epulonum. Addressing Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, a consul and epulo in 56 BCE,156 Cicero specifies that the latter was responsible for all the processional chariots and cars, the preliminary chant, the games, the libations and the banquets in his capacity as epulo.157 Public slaves probably played a practical role in the preparation of these ritual performances.158 However, the case of [- - -]lianus Flavianus (no. 143), who is referred to as an a commentariis of the priesthood (sacerdotium) of the septemviri epulonum, suggests that some public slaves may have been required to perform clerical and administrative duties. This public slave probably held a post very similar to Myrinus Domitianus (no. 96), the above-mentioned a commentariis of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis, or to Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) and Arescon Manilianus (no. 35), who were public slaves a commentariis or commentarienses assigned to the Arval Brethren. Therefore, we can infer that [- - -]lianus Flavianus (no. 143) was a registrar or an archivist in charge of the official documents of the college of the septemviri epulonum, who may have been with the task of transcribing certain official texts. If we combine this evidence with the abovementioned passage from Cicero’s De Haruspicum Responsis, we can also infer that one of the tasks assigned to the a commentariis of the septemviri epulonum may have been that of reporting to the pontiffs any omission during the sacred ceremonies. Ultimately, the explicit mention of the role of [- - -]lianus Flavianus (no. 143) as an a commentariis seems to mark a difference between him and the other publici septemvirorum epulonum, whose specific positions were not recorded in their inscriptions.

156 157

158

Broughton 1952, 207, 214; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 917 no. 1350. Cic. har. resp. 10.21: Te appello, Lentule, – tui sacerdotii sunt tensae, curricula, praecentio, ludi, libationes epulaeque ludorum, – vosque, pontifices, ad quos epulones Iovis optimi maximi, si quid est praetermissum aut commissum, adferunt, quorum de sententia illa eadem renovata atque instaurata celebrantur; “I appeal to you, Lentulus, for to your sacred office belong the processional chariots and cars, the preliminary chant, the games, and the libations and banquets attached thereto, and to you, pontiffs, to whom all faults of ceremonial omission and commission are reported by the sacred stewards of Jupiter Best and Greatest, and upon whose judgement those ceremonies are recommenced and repeated”. Translation by Nevile H. Watts from LCL 158 (1923). Cf. also Eder 1980, 48.

At the Service of Religion

95

The other publici septemvirorum probably performed more menial jobs, either within religious rituals, or in the practical administration of the college. 3.2.2 Serving Other Priestly Colleges 3.2.2.1 Public Slaves and the curiones The curiones were priests in charge of the public rites for the thirty curiae that existed in Rome, from which they derived their name. The curiae were the earliest subdivisions of the Roman people; the members of each curia met in an assembly place to discuss political and religious issues. Members also performed public sacrifices collectively and organised common celebrations during holy feasts. Curiones were responsible for supervising all these ritual occasions.159 The highest priest among the curiones was the curio maximus.160 A few inscriptions, dating to the first and second century CE, attest to public slaves who assisted the curiones or, more specifically, the curio maximus: − − − − −

Alexander Iulianus publicus curionis maximi (no. 28); Felix Cornelianus publicus curionalis (no. 63); Fortunatus publicus Sulpicianus curionalis (no. 68); Rede(m)ptus publicus Severian[us] cur[io]nalis (no. 124); [- - -]ius Crassianus [pub]licus curionalis (no. 144).

The tasks of these public slaves are unfortunately unknown, but they may have helped perform rituals and organise sacred banquets.161 The case of Alexander Iulianus (no. 28) who assisted the highest priest among the curiones, the curio maximus, is significant, as it is the only example of a priest who had public slaves exclusively at his service. Arguably, the curio maximus had specific tasks that called for the support of one – or more than one – public slave, who was specifically appointed as his exclusive assistant. 3.2.2.2 Public Slaves and the fetiales Another ancient priesthood that benefitted from the assistance of public slaves was the college of the fetials (fetiales).162 This priesthood consisted of 20 members, who were involved in international negotiations, such as treaties or declarations of war. They 159 160 161 162

Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.23.1–2; 2.64.1. Festus, p. 113 (ed. Lindsay). Cf. also Halkin 1897, 54–55; Eder 1980, 56. On the fetiales, see Rich 2011; Santangelo 2014.

96

Serving the State

oversaw these negotiations in religious terms. Some scholars have suggested that the priesthood fell into neglect during the late Republic and was restored by Octavian in 32 BCE.163 However, other scholars believe that both the fetiales and their rituals persisted with relative stability.164 The function of these priests may have simply changed over time; the evidence that their college ceased to exist and was restored by Octavian is unattested.165 One funerary inscription, which dates to the late first or the early second century CE and mentions two publici septemvirum epulon(um)  – Apolaustus Claudianu[s publ(icus)] VIIvirum epulon(um) (no.  32) and Apolaustus Modian[us] publ(icus) VIIvir(um) epulon(um) (no. 33) – also records a public slave who assisted the fetiales: − Iustus Gavianus publ(icus) fet[ial(ium)] (no. 83).

Due to a lack of evidence, it is impossible to ascertain the tasks of the public slaves attached as servants to fetials. One can assume that they helped these priests in ritual performances and in clerical activities. 3.2.2.3 Public Slaves and the sodales Titii According to Tacitus, the sodales Titii formed an ancient religious brotherhood. The brotherhood may have been founded by Titus Tatius – the king of the Sabines who reigned jointly with Romulus after the foundation of Rome – to safeguard the Sabine rites, or by Romulus to promote the cult of Titus Tatius himself.166 Varro, however, linked the sodales Titii with the practice of taking the auspicia, by suggesting a different – and less probable – etymology: the priests may have derived their name from the twittering (titiantes) birds they watched during their augural observations.167 Despite its supposed antiquity, there is no evidence for the sodales Titii under the Republic, which suggests that the brotherhood fell into disuse quite at some point. However, Augustus restored the sodales Titii, probably with the aim of building a link between himself and Romulus.168 The fact that the brotherhood had been dedicated to the king Titus Tatius by Romulus and then revived by Augustus probably suggested to Tiberius how he should organise the sodales Augustales that he instituted in 14 CE to promote the worship of the Deified Augustus. According to Tacitus, the sodales Au-

163 164 165 166 167 168

Ogilvie 1965; Rawson 1973. Lewis 1955; Broughton 1987; Santangelo 2008. Wiedemann 1986; Zollschan 2011; Salerno 2018. Tac. Hist. 2.95; Tac. Ann. 1.54. Varro, Ling. 5.85. See also Montero 2014. Scheid 2005, 181.

At the Service of Religion

97

gustales, the religious brotherhood dedicated to the Julian clan, were modelled on the college of the sodales Titii.169 Only one inscription dating to the second century CE attests to a public slave attached as a servant to the sodales Titii: − Graphicus publicus Maecianus sodalium Titium (no. 72).

We have no clear evidence regarding either the tasks of the sodales Titii or the public slaves who assisted them. However, it is remarkable that a religious brotherhood, which fell into neglect during the Republic and was revived by Augustus, was provided with public slaves as assistants: once again, public slaves, like the priests they assisted, were part of a broader programme that aimed to reintroduce institutions from the Republican past. 3.2.3 Serving the Goddess Dia: Public Slaves and the Arval Brethren Another priestly college that benefitted from the service of public slaves was the Arval Brethren (Fratres Arvales). This college consisted of twelve members chosen from the senatorial order, and was headed by a magister who was assisted by a flamen. The origin of this priesthood supposedly dates to the most ancient times of Roman history. It is unclear, however, whether the Arval Brethren’s religious activity petered out at some point in the late Republic; in any case, the college was certainly reinvigorated by Augustus and seems to have survived until the age of Diocletian.170 Every year, on the occasion of the festival of goddess Dia, which occurred for three days in May, the Arval Brethren performed fertility rites both in Rome and in their sacred grove at the fifth mile of the Via Campana. They also set up marble stones there, and engraved their annual proceedings on them. Fragments of these marble slabs were found at this site around the mid-19th century: they contain a total of 96 surviving records of the Arval Brethren’s annual proceedings from between 14 and 241 CE. These epigraphic texts, known as Acta Fratrum Arvalium, or better, Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium, provide important insights into the history and composition of the priesthood over time.171 The Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium are also a valuable source of information on the public slaves attached as servants to this priestly college, their involvement in the rites and the clerical activities they performed. Not only does this extraordinary body of inscriptional evidence attest to a number of anonymous publici assigned to the Arval

169 Tac. Hist. 2.95. 170 Beard 1985; Scheid 1990b. 171 Scheid 1990a; Scheid 1998.

98

Serving the State

Brethren, who were normally involved with the public ceremonies; it also records the names of thirteen of them, and provide specific details on their recruitment, replacement, and possible duties. The public slaves attached as servants to the Arval Brethren who are not named were simply recorded in the proceedings as publici who performed different acts during both the three-day festival of the goddess Dia and on other ritual occasions (no. 163). The public slaves are mentioned by the following expressions (or very similar ones), which recur over the entire span of time covered by the Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium (the first to the third century CE): − “Some children of senators, whose father and mother were still alive, wearing a ricinium and a praetexta (pueri patrimi et matrimi senatorum filii riciniati et praetextati) brought corn (fruges) to the altar with the public slaves”: this act was performed on the first day of the festival of goddess Dia, either on May 17th, 25th or 27th;172 − “Some children of senators, whose father and mother were still alive, wearing a ricinium and a praetexta (pueri patrimi et matrimi senatorum filii riciniati et praetextati) brought the consecrated corn (fruges libatas) to the altar attended by the personal attendants (calatores) and the public slaves”: this act was performed on the third day of the festival of goddess Dia, on May 20th, 28th, or 30th;173 − “An expiatory rite (a piaculum, which generally included the offering of a sow, an ewe lamb, sacrificial flat breads and cakes) was performed in the sacred grove of the goddess Dia through a personal attendant and the public slaves (per calatorem et publicos)” (Fig. 6), the reasons being: either “because an iron writing tool had been brought in and out the sacred grove”, or “because one or more trees had fallen (or a branch had fallen from a tree) on account of their age or a storm”.174

The surviving proceedings of the Arval Brethren from the second and third centuries CE provide much more detailed information than those from to the late first century BCE and the first century CE.175 Some fragments from the early third century CE give

172 173 174

175

See no. 163 (84 CE, May 27th; 90 CE, May 25th; 105 CE, May 17th; 117 CE, unknown day; 118 CE, May 27th; 120 CE, May 27th; 124 CE, May 27th; 145 CE, May 17th; 155 CE, May 17th; 183 CE, May 17th; 186 CE, May 27th; 218 CE, May 27th; 240 CE, May 27th; 241 CE, May 17th); my translation. See no. 163 (90 CE, May 28th; 105 CE, May 20th; 118 CE, May 30th; 120 CE, May 30th; 155 CE, May 20th; 157 CE, May 27th; 183 CE, May 20th; 180–192 CE, May 30th; 213 CE, May 20th; 218 CE, May 30th; 219 CE, May 20th); my translation. See no. 163 (72 CE, April/May; 81 CE, January 15th, March 29th, May 1st and 13th; 87 CE, April 15th, September 10th; 89 CE, April 12th; 90 CE, April 24th; 91 CE, April 29th, unknown day, and November 5th; 92 CE, April 25th; 101 CE, April 25th, and two unknown days; 105 CE, unknown day; 118 CE, March 6th; 119 CE, twice in April/May; 121 CE, March 26th, May 2nd or 11th; 129 CE, February 22nd, March 19th; 155 CE, May 30th; 156 CE, March 7th and 14th; 161–180 CE, March/April?, May 3rd; 184 CE, unknown day, May 18th; 214 CE, twice on two unknown days; 219 CE, unknown day; 221 CE, May 9th; 225 CE, April 19th, May 5th; 241 CE, unknown day); my translation. Beard 1985, 131–133.

At the Service of Religion

99

Fig. 6 Marble slab with a fragment of the proceedings of the Arval Brethren that mentions some anonymous publici fratrum Arvalium (no. 163, Source 1) – Rome, 72 CE (Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies, The Ohio State University).

a very detailed account of the acts performed by public slaves during the three-day festival of the goddess Dia: − “then the flamen and promagister, bringing before the door silver goblets with vessels full of wine and incense boxes, performed a libation with incense and wine, and they stayed in front of the door, and two priests went down to fetch the corn with the public slaves and, returning, they gave it with their right hand and received it with their left, then they exchanged it between one another and handed it over to the public slaves”: this is attested for 218 CE, May 29th, i. e., the second day of the festival of the goddess Dia;176 − “then (after having entered the shrine) they (i. e., two priests) sat down on the marble seats and shared the loaves decorated with laurel, distributed by the public slaves”: this

176

See no. 163; translation adapted from Beard 1985, 160.

100

Serving the State

is attested for 218 and 219 CE, May 19th and 29th respectively, i. e., the second days of the festival of the goddess Dia in those years;177 − “after the dance, when the signal was given, the public slaves entered (the shrine) and collected the books”: this is attested for 218 and 219 CE, May 29th and 19th respectively, i. e., the second days of the festival of the goddess Dia in those years;178 − “the promagister, the flamen, the public slaves and two priests received the jars and, opening the doors, they threw a meal for the Mother of the Lares down the hillside”: this is attested for 237 CE and 240 CE, May 19th and 29th respectively, i. e., the second days of the festival of the goddess Dia in those years.179

This body of evidence clearly demonstrates that public slaves were assisting the Arval Brethren during the whole three-day festival of the goddess Dia in May, and performed a specific set of actions according to a prescribed order. These public slaves were also involved in the performance of the acts of expiation that took place twice a year, when iron tools for engraving the proceedings on the marble slabs were brought into and out of the sacred grove or in the event that one or more trees (or parts of them) fell because of their age or as the result of a storm. The public slaves seem to have acted as mere assistants,180 often alongside the personal attendants of the individual Arval Brethren, the calatores. The latter were usually chosen from the freedmen of each priest or of the freeborn pueri patrimi et matrimi senatorum filii riciniati et praetextati (the sons of individuals of senatorial rank).181 The 13 publici ad fratres Arvales, who were named in the Commentarii fratrum Arvalium, are (in chronological order): − Narcissus Annianus (no. 97): he replaced Nymphus Numisianus (no. 99) in 87 CE; − Nymphus Numisianus (no. 99): he was replaced by Narcissus Annianus (no. 97) in 87 CE; − [E]arinus vel [M]arinus (no.  52): he replaced Saturninus Venuleia[nus] (no.  127) in 101 CE; − Saturninus Venuleia[nus] (no. 127): he was replaced by [E]arinus vel [M]arinus (no. 52) in 101 CE;

177 178

See no. 163; translation adapted from Beard 1985, 160. See no. 163; translation adapted from Beard 1985, 160. Cf. also no. 165 (237 CE?, May 19th?; 240), where the individuals receiving the books are designated as officiales, who are likely to be intended as publici. For the use of the term officiales for public slaves see Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.2.2. 179 See no. 163; my translation. 180 Cf. also Eder 1980, 51, whereas Halkin 1897, 65–66 seemed to suggest that public slaves had a central (and even independent) role in the expiatory rites (piacula); an idea similar to Halkin’s is put forward by Beard 1985, 119, who suggested that publici, like the calatores, sometimes performed minor sacrifices on behalf of the brotherhood. 181 Horster 2007, 331–332.

At the Service of Religion

101

− Iustus Bruttianus (no.  82): he replaced Gemellus Memmianus (no.  70) in 118 CE (between August 14th and 30th), in accordance with a letter of appointment from the emperor Hadrian; − Gemellus Memmianus (no. 70): he was replaced by Iustus Bruttianus (no. 82) in 118 CE; − Eutyches (no. 56): he was surely assigned to Arval Brethren during the reign of Hadrian (134 CE?); − Epictetus Cuspianus (no.  54): he replaced [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no.  42) in 155 CE (December 11th), in accordance with a letter of appointment from the promagister M(arcus) Fulvius Apronianus; − [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42): he was replaced by Epictetus Cuspianus (no. 54) in 155 CE (December 11th), as he was promoted to the office of copying documents for the quaestors; − Primus Cornelianus a comm(entariis)/comm(entariensis) (no.  120): he was surely assigned to Arval Brethren between 213 and 221 CE; − Anonymous (no. 164): he replaced [- - -] Domitianus (no. 141) in 221 CE (the exact date is unknown), in accordance with a letter of appointment from the emperor Elagabalus; − [- - -] Domitianus (no. 141): he was replaced by an anonymous public slave (no. 164) in 221 CE; − Arescon Manilianus comm(entariensis) (no. 35): he was certainly assigned to the Arval Brethren in 241 CE.

This detailed information about the names of the public slaves attached as servants to the Arval Brethren and their dates of service is a useful means by which to test the theory that public slaves attached as servants to priestly colleges were generally former slaves of members of the relevant priesthoods, who had given them as a gift to the State (or directly to the priestly college), when they were appointed as public priests.182 We have only one instance of a credible connection between the agnomen of a public slave attached as servant to the Fratres Arvales and the nomen of an Arval priest in office at the same time: the agnomen of Arescon Manilianus (no. 35), who served the Arval Brethren as a public slave commentariensis in 240 and 241 CE, can be linked to the nomen of a certain P(ublius) Manilius Aemilius Pius, an Arval priest in the same period.183 Another, though less persuasive, example is the connection between [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42), who is recorded in the proceedings for the year 155 CE (he left his post as an assistant to the Arval Brethren when he was promoted to the service to the quaestors on December 11st), and a certain Q(uintus) Cornelius [- - -], one of the young boys employed in the religious rites of the Arval Brethren (camillus) in the mid 150s CE

182 183

On this theory, with a particular focus on the public slaves assigned to the sodales Augustales Claudiales, see Granino Cecere 2018, 191–192; cf. also Paragraph 3.2.4 below. Cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1128 no. 2336.

102

Serving the State

who took part in the festival of the goddess Dia on 155 CE, May 17th.184 A further investigation into the agnomina of the remaining publici fratrum Arvalium and the nomina of all the attested Arval Brethren does not reveal any other possible connection.185 What can be inferred from all this evidence is that certain public slaves could find themselves attached as servants to the same priestly college into which their former masters had been co-opted. However, this practice was probably not very common. The public slaves’ agnomina provide useful information about the widespread tendency of the members of the most prominent families to sell or gift their own slaves to the State, which in turn reveals which families supplied the State with the most public slaves.186 Even in the event that a public slave was actually given as a gift (and not sold) to the State, which unfortunately is almost impossible to ascertain, the slave’s agnomen may have served to imply the generosity of the former master.187 However, nothing more can be inferred from the agnomina. Agnomina do not provide any information about the control that some individuals may have exercised over their former slaves, who had become publici in the meantime, or about any sort of recommendations made by former masters regarding the tasks that should be entrusted to the slaves, once the latter became public slaves. This type of control or recommendation from a former master would be unlikely, since senators and/or magistrates (and the emperor during the Principate) were usually the only people who decided the sectors in which public slaves would work, as well as their tasks, based on their skills. Former masters would hardly have had a say on such matters. It has been confirmed that public slaves assigned to the Arval Brethren, and in general to all the priestly colleges, ‘were attached as servants not to any individual, but to the priesthood as a whole’.188 It is unlikely – and not sufficiently proven – that a priest would have given his own slave as a gift to the State in order to have him at his disposal during his religious office. Occasionally, it may have just happened that a former master, on being appointed to a priesthood, found his former slave attached as a publicus to his priesthood. Nothing more. Apart from such onomastic considerations, the passages from the Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium that record the 13 above-listed publici also prove very useful in reconstructing not only the process of public slaves’ appointment as servants to the Arval Brethren, but also their relief: most of the passages refer to public slaves who were appointed to replace others who had left.189 The language throughout the proceedings of the Arval Brethren is rather formulaic, and references to the appointment of new 184 Rüpke – Glock 2005, 907 no. 1306. 185 Full lists of Arval Brethren and public slaves attached as servants to them are available in Rüpke – Glock 2005, 576–579, 633–634. 186 See Paragraph 3.2.4 below. 187 For this hypothesis, see Granino Cecere 2018, 191–192. 188 Beard 1985, 119. 189 An analogous situation is also attested in the case of the publici mentioned in the fasti of the sodales Augustalium Claudialium: see Paragraph 3.2.4 below.

At the Service of Religion

103

public slaves to replace others are also rather standard. After the consular date, the name of the incoming public slave in the nominative is either preceded or followed by the expressions adlectus or allectus est (and in one case substitu(tu)s est) and loco or in locum plus the name of the outgoing slave in the genitive. This format was followed in a letter of appointment (ex litteris) of the promagister or the emperor, and is clearly mentioned for Iustus Bruttianus (no. 82) and Gemellus Memmianus (no. 70), Epictetus Cuspianus (no. 54) and [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42). The format also applies to a public slave whose name is now lost (no. 164), who replaced [- - -] Domitianus (no. 141). For [E]arinus or [M]arinus (no. 52), who was attached as servant to the Arval Brethren in 101 CE, the proceedings include an excerpt from a letter of Trajan. In the letter, the emperor seems to express a desire to make a voluntary contribution at his own expense (impensa mea), perhaps in order to cover the costs for the food allowance of the new public slave.190 Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the inscription makes it impossible to interpret this passage. Replacement occurred not only when a public slave died, but also when a publicus was transferred to a different public service. For instance, [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42) was replaced by Epictetus Cuspianus (no. 54) in 155 CE (December, 11th), in accordance with a letter of appointment from the promagister M(arcus) Fulvius Apronianus (Fig. 7). The replacement occurred because [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42) was promoted to the office of copying documents for the quaestors (promotus ad tabulas quaestorias transscribendas).191 The advancement of [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42) suggests that he had skills and experience that made him well qualified to be attached to the quaestors as a copyist, and he may have performed similar

Fig. 7 Marble slab with a fragment of the proceedings of the Arval Brethren that mentions the replacement of [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42) by Epictetus Cuspianus (no. 54) – Rome, 155 CE (Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies, The Ohio State University).

190 Scheid 1998, 183. 191 A possibly analogous situation results from a passage of the fasti of the sodales Augustales Claudiales, in which a public slave previously attached to this priestly college was replaced because he started a different service (no. 168): see Paragraph 3.2.4 below.

104

Serving the State

tasks during his service to the Arval Brethren. This case is also important because it demonstrates that the public slaves attached as servants to the fratres Arvales not only performed ritual acts during the festival of the goddess Dia and on other occasions, but they also carried out clerical duties, such as maintaining the records of the priesthood. Other significant examples of publici ad fratres Arvales involved in clerical activities are Primus Cornelianus (no. 120), who was assigned to the fratres Arvalium between 213 and 221 CE, and Arescon Manilianus (no. 35), who was on duty in 241 CE. These public slaves were designated as a comm(entariis) or comm(entarienses). Details about the tasks of Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) as an a comm(entariis) or comm(entariensis) are provided by a passage from the Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium for the year 218 CE, which recorded the co-opting of the emperor Elagabalus onto the priesthood of the Arval Brethren. Two other fragmentary sections of the proceedings for the year 213 CE, have also been restored, both of which describe sacrifices offered by the Fratres Arvales to Jupiter for the safety of the emperor Caracalla: Detulit Primus Corne[l]ị[anus pub]ḷ(icus) [a c]ọṃm(entariis) fratr(um) Arv(alium), i. e., “Primus Cornelianus, the public slave a commentariis of the Arval Brethren wrote (this document)/kept (this written record)”. The verb defero implies that the public slave in question kept official minutes or records of the meetings of the Arval Brethren. This must have been the main duty of the public slaves a commentariis or commentarienses assigned to the Arval Brethren.192 The texts surviving on these marble slabs are likely more or less verbatim accounts of the records taken by the public slaves a commentariis or commentarienses; for this reason, John Scheid suggested that the proceedings of the Arval Brethren should be called Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium rather than Acta Fratrum Arvalium.193 Public slaves attached as a commentariis or commentarienses to the Arval Brethren were responsible for keeping the official records of the priesthoods. They assumed the role of registrars or copyists, similar not only to other public slaves a commentariis assigned to public priests, such as Myrinus Domitianus publicus a commentari(i)s XVvir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis) (no. 96) and [- - -]lianus Flavianus a comment[ariis - - - sa]cerdotî VIIvirum epulonu[m] (no. 143), but also to Imperial slaves within the familia Caesaris,194 and other staff in the army.195 However, it is difficult to ascertain whether these public slaves were required to act as archivists, which would have made them responsible for storing official records in a specific place, or whether they performed other clerical and administrative duties such as carrying documents and delivering messages, as was the case for an anonymous public slave attached to the pontifices (no. 166). Scheid has suggested that one of the tasks of Primus Cornelianus may have been to send a copy of

192 193 194 195

Cf. also Henzen 1874, 157; Halkin 1897, 62; TLL V.1, s. v. defero, col. 316.35–36; Scheid 1998, 301–302. Scheid 1990b, 56; Scheid 1998, 301. Cf. also Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1492. Weaver 1972, 241. See Haensch 1995, who provides an invaluable overview of the role of the a commentariis and commentaries in different sectors.

At the Service of Religion

105

the official records to the public archives of Rome, to formally record the co-option of the emperor Elagabalus into the priesthood of the Arval Brethren.196 At any rate, the public slaves attached as a commentariis or commentarienses to the Arval Brethren were not only tasked with keeping the official records: other passages from the surviving Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium suggested that both Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) and Arescon Manilianus (no. 35) were also involved in ritual activities. Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) is recorded in the proceedings for the years 219 CE and 221 CE, as performing an expiatory rite (piaculum) with other anonymous publici because an iron writing tool had been brought into and out the sacred grove (no. 163). Primus Cornelianus is mentioned in the Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium for 219 CE, May 20th, as he announced the names of all the Arval Brethren after the central gate of the sanctuary of goddess Dia had been opened and the crowns offered to her were carried inside. The latter activity was also performed by Arescon Manilianus (no. 35) in 241 CE, when he announced the names of the emperor Gordian III and the other members of the priestly college to confirm their presence at the festival. Apart from the instances of Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) and Arescon Manilianus (no. 35), there is no other evidence of public slaves designated as a commentariis or commentarienses. However, this does not mean that such a type of public slave was uncommon: there was probably typically at least one public slave assigned to the Arval Brethren to maintain public records, as the above-mentioned case of [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42) seems to suggest. What seems more exceptional is that Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) and Arescon Manilianus (no. 35) were not only involved in administrative activities, as one would expect for two public slaves a commentariis or commentarienses, but also in the rituals themselves. Indeed, in other priestly colleges there seems to have been a distinction between public slaves with clerical duties (a commentariis) and those with no other specification (nude dicti). The latter were probably entrusted with humbler and more practical tasks within both the religious rituals and the daily life of the priesthood. This distinction seems to have existed in the colleges of the pontifices and the quindecimviri sacris faciundis,197 and may have also applied to the public slaves assigned to the Arval Brethren. Perhaps the fact that two public slaves a commentariis or commentarienses were involved in the rituals should be interpreted as a sign that the number of public slaves assigned to the Arval Brethren was reduced during a period of economic crisis like the first half of the third century CE, when Primus Cornelianus (no. 120) and Arescon Manilianus (no. 35) lived. However, there is not enough evidence to answer with any certainty on this point. It is technically possible that public slaves with clerical duties in other periods were also counted among the publici with no other specification (nude dicti) who were involved in the rituals.

196 Scheid 1998, 301. 197 See Paragraphs 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.3 above.

106

Serving the State

Our very detailed knowledge of the Arval Brethren depends to a large extent on the Commentarii, which focuses on the Principate. On the contrary, almost no evidence is available for the Republican age. Except for a passage from Varro’s work On the Latin Language, which proposes a possible etymology of the name of the Fratres Arvales,198 no other reference to the Arval Brethren has been identified. This lack of evidence restrains our knowledge of the use of public slaves attached as servants to this priestly college during the Republic. However, it is reasonable to suppose that when Augustus revived the ancient priestly college of the Arval Brethren, he also restored the ancient Republican system of attaching public slaves as servants to these priests.199 3.2.4 Serving the Deified Emperors: Public Slaves and the Priests of the Imperial Cult The sodales Augustales were instituted by Tiberius in 14 CE, and were modelled on the Republican sodales Titii, which had been restored by Augustus.200 The sodales Augustales brotherhood consisted of 21 priests, whose main task was to practise the worship of the Deified Augustus (Divus Augustus). The brotherhood of the sodales Augustales soon ranked highest in the priestly hierarchy, at the same level as the other four major priesthoods (pontifices, augures, quindecimviri sacris faciundis, septemviri epulonum).201 The sodales Augustales were selected by a draw of lots among individuals of high rank, and four members of the Imperial family – Tiberius, Drusus, Claudius, and Germanicus – became members. Three magistri held the highest position within the brotherhood and were responsible for performing rites at the temple of Augustus in the Roman Forum and in the shrine of the Julii at Bovillae, where the sodales Augustales had their meeting-centre.202 During the Principate, several other brotherhoods were instituted with the aim of promoting the cult of other defied emperors. These brotherhoods followed the same model as the sodales Augustales, i. e., the sodales Augustales Claudiales for the worship of Claudius, the sodales Flaviales and Titiales for the worship of Vespasian and Titus respectively, and the sodales Hadrianales and Antoniniani for the worship of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.203 There is inscriptional evidence of public slaves who assisted the members of each of these brotherhoods. A few publici sodalium Augustalium, Flavialium, Hadrianalium and

198 199 200 201 202 203

Varro, Ling. 5.85. Cf. also Eder 1980, 49. Tac. Hist. 2.95. See also Paragraph 3.2.2.3 above. Tac. Ann. 3.64.3–6; Cass. Dio 58.12.5. Rüpke – Santangelo 2017, 22, 26. Várhelyi 2010, 73–77.

At the Service of Religion

107

Antoninianorum are attested by a handful of inscriptions, whether in the public slaves’ own epitaphs or in funerary monuments they set up for their relatives. By contrast, a considerable number of public slaves attached to the sodales Augustales Claudiales are attested by some fragments that recorded the fasti of these priests, which were found at Bovillae in 1825 and 1926. These lists recorded the names of the sodales Augustales Claudiales who had been co-opted into the priesthood over time, the names of the magistri who were appointed on a yearly basis and ran the priesthood, and the names of the public slaves (publici) who assisted the priests.204 A list of all the names of the public slaves attached as servants to the priests of the Imperial cult, as attested by all the above-mentioned inscriptional evidence, is provided below. a) Publici sodalium Augustalium: − Agatho publ(icus) Silianus a sacris sodal(ium) Augustal(ium) (no. 26); − Honoratus publicus sod(alium) Aug(ustalium) (no. 78). b) Publici sodalium Augustalium Claudialium: − Apoll[- - -] (no. 34); − Armeni[- - -] (no. 36): he was replaced by a publicus sodalium Claudialium, whose name is lost (no. 167); − Au[- - -] (no. 37); − Came[rinus?] (no. 41); − Chresimus Licinianus (no. 44): he was replaced by Quartio Gavianus (no. 123); − [E]utyches (no. 57); − Eutychianus Cupre[ssenianus] (no. 58): he replaced Quartio Gavianus (no. 123); − [Fe]lix Clodianus (no. 62): he replaced Ones[imus] (no. 103); − [I]talicus C[- - -] (no. 81); − Lucidus Vett[- - -] (no. 87). − Men[- - -] (no. 94); − Ones[imus] (no. 103): he was replaced by [Fe]lix Clodianus (no. 62); − Po[- - -] (no. 117); − Primigenius (no. 119); − Quartio Gavianus (no. 123): he replaced Chresimus Licinianus (no. 44); he then left the post (cedens) and was replaced by Eutychianus Cupre[ssenianus] (no. 58); − [- - -]+um Claudian[us] (no. 149): he replaced [- - -]+++ius? (no. 145); − [- - -]+++ius? (no. 145): he was replaced by [- - -]+um Claudianus (no. 149); − [- - -]rus Paul[inus?] (no. 147); − [- - -]s Gabini[anus?] (no. 148); − [- - -] Antonianus (no.  150): he replaced [- - -]anus who had left the post (cedens) (no. 158);

204 On these fragments, see Granino Cecere 2018, 186–201.

108 − − − − − − − − − − − −

Serving the State

[- - -] Cornelianus (no. 152); [- - -]tonianus (no. 153); [- - -]enianus (no. 154); [- - -]inianus (no. 155); [- - -]nianus (no. 156); [- - -]sianu[s] (no. 157): he replaced a publicus sodalium Claudialium who had left the post (cedens), whose name is lost (no. 169); [- - -]anus (no. 158): he was replaced by [- - -] Antonianus (no. 150); [- - -]nus (no. 159); [- - -]os[- - -] (no. 160): he replaced a publicus sodalium Claudialium who had left the post (cedens), whose name is lost (no. 168); Anonymous 1 (no. 167): he replaced Armeni[- - -] (no. 36); Anonymous 2 (no. 168): he left the post to take a new one (cedens propter initum …) and was replaced by [- - -]os[- - -]? (no. 160); Anonymous 3 (no. 169): he was replaced by [- - -]sianu[s] (no. 157).

Publici sodalium Flavialium: Abascantus (no. 23): he was a collega of Crescens (no. 47) and Epigonus (no. 55); Crescens (no. 47): he was a collega of Abascantus (no. 23) and Epigonus (no. 55); Epigonus publ(icus) sodalium Flavialium (no. 55): he was a collega of Abascantus (no. 23) and Crescens (no. 47); − Zosimus Silian(us) public(us) sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) (no. 140). c) − − −

d) Publici sodalium Hadrianalium?: − Italicus Cassianus publ(icus) ex sacerdotio Hadrianali (no. 80). e) Publici sodalium Antoninianorum: − Onesi[mus] Iulianus publicus ex sacer[dot(io)] Aureliano Antoniano (sic) Veriano (no. 104).

A few instances of onomastic and chronological congruity between the nomina of some sodales Augustales and/or Augustales Claudiales, such as Q(uintus) Clodius Marcellinus and Q(uintus) Licinius Modestinus, and the agnomina of some publici sodalium Augustalium Claudialium, such as [Fe]lix Clodianus (no. 62) and Chresimus Licinianus (no. 44), have led Maria Grazia Granino Cecere to suggest that these public slaves were bestowed on the priesthood by the sodales.205 Similarly, she proposed that public slaves who bore agnomina such as Silianus (no.  26), Gavianus (no.  123), Cupre[ssenianus] (no.  58) and Vett[- - -] (no.  87)  – interpreted as Vett[ulenianus]  – demonstrate that some prominent individuals with related nomina, who lived in the same period as the above-mentioned public slaves (i. e., Lucius Silius Decianus, consul suffectus in 94 CE;

205 Granino Cecere 2018, 193.

At the Service of Religion

109

Marcus Gavius Squilla Gallicanus, consul in 127 CE, or his homonymous son, consul in 150 CE; Cupressenius Gallus, consul in 147 CE; and Marcus Vettulenus Civica Barbarus, consul in 157 CE), would have been sodales Augustales and/or Augustales Claudiales at some point. Although there is no evidence for their co-option, these prominent individuals would have given their own slaves as gifts to the public priesthood.206 Following this line of reasoning, one might be tempted to assume that [- - -] Antonianus (no. 150) was a former slave of M(arcus) Antonius [- - -]anus, who was a sodalis Augustalis Claudialis from 210 CE,207 or M(arcus) Antonius Felix, who was co-opted into the same priesthood in 225 CE.208 However, all these hypotheses are completely conjectural and difficult to prove. The available evidence is too scanty, not only for the sodales Augustales Claudiales, but also for other priesthoods, such as the Fratres Arvales.209 Some priests may have actually given their slaves as a gift to the priesthood into which they were co-opted, but this phenomenon would not have been universal. As discussed in Paragraph 3.2.3, there was simply a general tendency for some members of the most prominent families to bestow (if not sell) their own slaves to the Roman people, i. e., the State. It may have happened that an elite member, on being appointed a sodalis, found his former slave attached as a publicus to the priesthood. However, this simply could have happened by hazard. Relying on the agnomina of some publici assigned to priests to conclude that the public slaves’ former masters must have been priests themselves is not advisable. The evidence regarding the public slaves attached as servants to the sodales of the Imperial cult and especially the fragments of the fasti of the sodales Augustales Claudiales from Bovillae are important for other reasons. They provide invaluable insights into the configuration and arrangement of the group of public slaves who served these priests, especially between the second and the third centuries CE. First, more than 30 individuals are mentioned in this evidence, which implies that the priestly college had a large cohort of public slaves. Second, the evidence sometimes references the replacement for some servi publici by others, which suggests a sort of rotation of personnel. Replacements of slaves are normally described according to a standard formula, which uses the name of the newly-appointed public slave in the nominative, followed by the words in locum plus the name of the outgoing public slave in the genitive, which is then followed by the genitive of the present participle of the verb cedo (cedentis).210

206 207 208 209 210

Granino Cecere 2018, 192. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 766 no. 652. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 767 no. 658. See also Paragraph 3.2.3 above. Cf. CIL VI, 1990 = CIL XIV, 2401 (Bovillae, late second/early third c. AD?): - - - - - - / [- - - in loc] um [- - -] / [- - -] Antonia[nus?] / [- - -]ani cedentis [- - -] / [- - -in lo]cum / - - - - - -.

110

Serving the State

The case of Quartio Gavianus (no. 123) is unique:211 in a fragment, at a distance of three lines, he is first recorded as a substitute for Chresimus Licinianus (no. 44) and then as an outgoing slave (cedens), who was replaced by Eutychianus Cupre[ssenianus] (no. 58). In another example,212 the standard formula [- - - ced]entis is followed by the words propter ini[tum? - - -]. This suggests that the public slave, whose name in the genitive was lost in the previous gap (no. 168), was replaced, since he had entered a different service. This slaves’ details are unfortunately lost in the lacuna. A significant parallel can be drawn between this case and that of [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no.  42), a public slave attached as a servant to the Arval Brethren who was replaced by Epictetus Cuspianus publicus (no. 54), after being ‘promoted’ to assist the quaestors. Finally, if the identification of Abascantus (no. 23) – a public slave mentioned in an inscription from the late first or early second century CE from Porta Maggiore as a publicus sodalium Flavialium, with the homonymous publicus augurum mentioned in a contemporary inscription from the same site – is correct,213 he would be a further instance of a servus publicus passing from one priesthood to another. Again, this passage was probably intended as a sort of ‘career advancement’. We can assume that this type of replacement occurred not only when a public slave died while in office, but also when a publicus was moved to a different post. In this regard, being attached as a servant to the augur was probably considered a higher position than being at the service of the sodales Flaviales. Despite all the details that may be inferred from these sources about the nomenclature, composition, mobility, and vitality of the publici attached as servants to the sodales of the Imperial cult, especially in the course of the second century CE, the surviving evidence does not provide any information about the tasks of these publici. One can assume that, similar to other publici attached to the priests, they were employed in both ritual and administrative activities. 3.2.5 Public Slaves and the Cult: The Uncertain Cases We have already discussed the case of the public slaves who were supposedly involved with the worship of Hercules (no. 4), presumably as assistants to the praetor urbanus.214 In this section, we will explore other uncertain cases of public slaves who may have been involved in the religious sphere. 211

Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no.  12; cf. Rüpke  – Glock 2005, 1243 no.  2866 (from Bovillae; second c. AD): - - - - - - / [- - -]N[- - -] / [Qu]artio Gavia[nus] / in locum Chresimi Liciniani / [Eu]tychianus Cupre[ssenianus] / in locum Quartionis Gaviani ce[dentis] / Lucidus Vett[- - -] / - - - - - -. 212 Cf. CIL VI, 1999 = CIL XIV, 2402 (Bovillae, late second/early third c. AD?): - - - - - - / [- - -]os[- - -] / [- - - ced]entis propter ini[tum? - - -] / [- - -]enian[- - -] / - - - - - -. 213 See Paragraph 3.2.1.2 above, and Appendix no. 1. 214 See Paragraph 3.1.1.2 above, and Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1.

At the Service of Religion

111

Two inscriptions from Rome attest to public slaves who are mentioned only as attendants upon religious activities and ministers. The absence of any other more specific references prevents us from ascertaining their specific cult and the priesthood:215 − [G]laucus publicus a sacris (no. 71); − Lalus publicus sacerdotialis (no. 85).

Two other potential instances of members of the familia publica involved in public cultic practices should be acknowledged, although scholarly interpretations of them are not conclusive. The first one is a lost funerary inscription from Rome mentioning Ti(berius) Claudius Velox, who is recorded as a hymnologus primus M(atris) D(eum) I(daeae) e[t] Atti[n]is publicus (no. 642). He was a musician,216 or rather a singer and composer,217 who wrote and sang hymns to Magna Mater. The adjective primus suggests that Ti(berius) Claudius Velox was either the first person to hold the position of hymnologus of Magna Mater and Attis, or the first in a potential hierarchy of cult musicians.218 The adjective publicus is also significant, as it seems to indicate that his function was related to the public ceremonies of Magna Mater.219 His nomenclature is similar to that of Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus (no. 45), who was a publicus a subsellis tribunorum: analogously, Ti(berius) Claudius Velox may have taken his praenomen and nomen from the magistrate who had set him free. The magistrate could have been an emperor (Claudius or Nero) in his capacity as public magistrate. The same may apply to the second instance to be mentioned, i. e., that of Ti(berius) Claudius Glyptus, attested by his epitaph from Rome, who was a hymnologus de campo Caelemontano (no. 641) and may have also been related to the cult of Magna Mater.220 This may provide further argument in support of the identification of these two individuals as former public slaves; as we will see in Chapter 4, the available evidence suggests that public slaves and freedmen had a special link to the cult of Magna Mater.221 However, neither their nomenclature nor their function – notwithstanding the adjective publicus for Ti(berius) Claudius Velox (no. 642) – provide absolute proof of their status of former public slaves. The two inscriptions are lost, and their date to the first century CE, which would accord with the eventuality of public slaves manumitted

215 216 217

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 68; Eder 1980, 167. Bruun 1996, 221. Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo 1976, 39; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 894 no. 1246 (who date the inscription to the second/third c. CE); Caruso 2008, 1426; Pavolini 2015, 367–369, 373. 218 Cf. also Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 201. 219 Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo 1976, 41; Pavolini 2015, 368–369, 373; Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 201. 220 Cf. Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo 1976, 39, 42; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 881 no. 1190 (who date the inscription to the second/third c. CE); Pavolini 2015, 367–373. 221 See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.3.3.

112

Serving the State

in the Claudian or Neronian periods, has only been supposed.222 Moreover, we should not forget that the two hymnologi may have been Imperial freedmen.223 3.2.6 In Charge of the Temples: Public Slaves as aeditui or a sacrario Some inscriptional and literary evidence from Rome attests to public slaves who were in charge of temples or shrines. While they were certainly employed as caretakers of the relevant buildings, they were probably also responsible for the sacred objects and documents that were kept in the temples.224 Public slaves employed as caretakers of temples can be identified in epigraphic and literary sources, in which they are usually labelled aeditui (with the name of the temple or shrine in the genitive), or by the preposition a or ab combined with the name of the sacred place in the ablative (and the term aedituus sometimes not even explicitly stated). The following cases illustrate this pattern: − Philippus Rustian(us) publicus ab (sic) sacrario divi Augusti (no. 112); − Successus publ(icus) Valerianus aedi(tuus) a sacrario divi Aug(usti) (no. 132); − Anonymous publicus aedituus aedis Vestae, whose name is unknown (no. 20).

Both Successus Valerianus (no. 132), who is mentioned as a publicus aedi(tuus) a sacrario divi Aug(usti) in two funerary inscriptions from the mid first century CE, and Philippus Rustian(us) (no. 112), who is recorded as a publicus ab sacrario divi Augusti in an epitaph dating from between 43 and 66 CE (Fig. 8),225 were in charge of the sacrarium of the deified Augustus. This sacred building may well have been the shrine decreed by the Senate and built by Livia and Tiberius at Augustus’s birthplace (near the Capita Bubula) after his death, as described by Pliny, Suetonius and Cassius Dio.226 The location of the sacrarium divi Augusti is one of the most controversial issues in scholarly debates about the topography of ancient Rome, especially because the issue is closely intertwined with the problems of the exact site of the templum divi Augusti on the Palatine hill and the supposed identity of the two buildings.227 Filippo Coarelli228 has suggested that

222 Cf. Vermaseren 1977, 79–80 nos. 298–299; contra Rüpke – Glock 2005, 881 no. 1190, 894 no. 1246, who dates both inscriptions to the second/third c. AD. 223 For this hypothesis, see Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo 1976, 41; Becher 1991, 65 with n. 75. 224 On the role of the aeditui in the Roman world, see Ménard 2006, 236–243; on the sacraria, i. e., temples in which sacred objects were kept, see Van Doren 1958, 74. 225 His partner was a freedwoman of Claudia Antonia, the first-born daughter of the emperor Claudius: PIR2 A 886. 226 Plin. HN 12.94; Suet. Aug. 5; Cass. Dio 56.46.3. 227 Torelli 1993, 144. For the hypothesis that the sacrarium divi Augusti and the templum divi Augusti are in fact the same building, see Fishwick 1992, 246–247; Cecamore 2002, 161–185. 228 Coarelli 2012, 87–101.

At the Service of Religion

113

Fig. 8 Marble slab that mentions Philippus Rustian(us) publicus ab (sic) sacrario divi Augusti (no. 112) – Rome, 43–66 CE (Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies, The Ohio State University).

the sacrarium divi Augusti may have been the small temple that was excavated rather recently near the Curiae veteres and the Meta Sudans.229 This small temple was restored by Claudius after a fire, a fact suggested by the fragmentary inscription engraved on its architrave.230 If this hypothesis is correct, the shrine of the deified Augustus would have been a different building from the larger templum divi Augusti on the Palatine, whose construction was initiated by Tiberius and completed by Caligula.231 Further support for this theory can be found when comparing the mid-first century CE inscriptions mentioning Successus Valerianus (no. 132) and Philippus Rustian(us) (no. 112) as aeditui a sacrario divi Augusti and the mid-first century CE epitaph of Augustus’ freedman C(aius) Iulius Bathyllus, who is recorded as an aedituus of the templum divi Augusti et divae Augustae quod est in Palatium (sic).232 The fact that two different building designations – the sacrarium divi Augusti and the templum divi Augusti et divae Augustae

229 230 231 232

Panella 2006a; Panella 2006b. CIL VI, 40417 = AE 1997, 128. Tac. Ann. 6.45; Suet. Tib. 47; Cass. Dio 57.10.2. CIL VI, 4222 (mid-first c. AD): Dis Maníbus. / [C(aius) Iulius] Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Bathyllus, aeditús templi divi Aug(usti) / [e]t divae Augustae quod est in Palatium (sic), / inmunis et honoratus. Cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 699 no. 255.

114

Serving the State

quod est in Palatium (sic) – and two different statuses of the building caretakers – two public slaves and one Imperial freedman – are attested from the same period – i. e., the Claudian age – seems to suggest that these were two different temples. When the deification of Livia was completed in 42 CE, Claudius may have added her cult to the temple of the deified Augustus on the Palatine, which then became the templum divi Augusti et divae Augustae quod est in Palatium (sic) recorded by the above-mentioned inscription. As a result, Claudius may have decided to appoint an Imperial freedman as an aedituus of this temple, in keeping with his general policy of including Imperial slaves and freedmen in the central administration.233 Conversely, the sacrarium divi Augusti at Augustus’ birthplace, which still existed in Suetonius’ day (ad Capita Bubula, ubi nunc sacrarium habet), may have maintained its status as a place devoted to the public cult,234 and may have been exclusively dedicated to the Deified Augustus.235 For this reason, the aeditui of the sacrarium divi Augusti continued to be chosen from among the cohort of the servi publici. The other anonymous public slave (no. 20) listed above, who may have been employed as an aedituus, was also a servus publicus who enjoyed a sort of accommodation at the temple of Vesta in 69 CE: according to a passage from Tacitus’ Histories, it was in his chamber (contubernium eius), which was likely near the temple itself, that Piso was sheltered from the praetorians Otho hired to kill him.236 It is possible that, at that time, other temples also had public slaves as aeditui. Tacitus and Suetonius indicate that during the war between Flavius Sabinus and Vitellius later in 69 CE, the future emperor Domitian was also hidden in the contubernium of an aedituus – most likely an aedituus of the Capitol (no. 643).237 Tacitus and Suetonius do not specify the social status of this attendant, but in light of the Tacitean passage mentioned above, we might infer that this aedituus of the Capitol was also a public slave.238 Another public slave who may have been employed as a caretaker of a sacred place is attested by a fragmentary funerary inscription from the first century CE, which was found in the 1930s during excavations for the construction of Via Cristoforo Colombo (or Via Imperiale – the main road linking the centre of Rome to Ostia): − [- - -]orus pub(licus) ab aram (sic) [- - -] Ịulian`u´ (no. 146).

233 Levick 1990, 82/83; MacLean 2008, 105. 234 On the sacraria, which could be officially consecrated only when they were devoted to public cult, see Van Doren 1958. 235 Cf. also Cecamore 2002, 167–169; Coarelli 2012, 99. Contra Torelli 1992, 74, 76 and Torelli 1993, 144, who used the argument of the different names of the buildings and the diverse status of the aeditui to suggest a change of status of the temple, from sacrarium Divi Augusti to templum Divi Augusti and Divae Augusta, promoted by Claudius. Such a hypothesis seems, however, unlikely. 236 Tac. Hist. 1.43. 237 Tac. Hist. 3.74; Suet. Dom. 1. 238 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 68–69.

At the Service of Religion

115

Patrizia Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo attempted to interpret the text engraved on the epigraphical monument, despite its fragmentary status.239 In light of the public slave’s agnomen Iulianus, she suggested that this publicus was a former slave of Livia or Tiberius, and had been converted to State property. Based on three other inscriptions that mentioned many individuals attached to a marble altar (ab ara marmorea),240 Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo also proposed restoring the lost text to the (grammatically inaccurate) expression ab aram (sic) as [marmoream] and – based on the restored version – concluded that [- - -]orus Iulianus (no. 146) had probably been the caretaker (aedituus) of the ara marmorea, i. e., the Ara Pacis. This hypothesis has not been wide accepted,241 and since the other inscriptions mentioning the ara marmorea come from a site near Porta Capena, some have even proposed that the public slave in question was an aedituus at a cult site called ‘Ara Marmorea’, which may have been located near that gate.242 The evidence is too conjectural to reach a firm conclusion; we can only infer that the expression [- - -]orus pub(licus) ab aram (sic) [- - -] Ịulian`u´ (no. 146) refers to a publicus, possibly the former slave of a member of the Augustan family (perhaps of Augustus himself?), who was a caretaker for a public cult place – likely an altar or small sanctuary, as the fragmentary expression ab aram (sic) [- - -] seems to suggest. Another public slave who may have been in charge of a sacred building is mentioned on a second century CE marble slab found outside Porta Salaria: − Epagathus servus public(us) ad Iuturna(e scil. aedem) or a Diuturna(e scil. aede) (no. 53).

According to the interpretation of the first editor, Harry Langford Wilson, Epagathus should be identified as the aedituus of the goddess Iuturna.243 However, Eder and Coarelli believed the Epagathus was a servant – possibly with administrative duties – of the statio aquarum, which may have been based beside the temple of Iuturna at Largo di Torre Argentina.244 If the seat of the curatores aquarum was indeed near the temple of Juturna, then it is possible that Epagathus was employed as a servant in the water supply management. Frontinus indicates that three public slaves (no. 15) were included in the group of assistants of the curatores aquarum from the Augustan period onward.245 The preposition ad, combined with the name of the temple in the accusative, might

239 Cf. Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo 1976, 48–49. 240 CIL VI, 9403 = ILS 7713; CIL VI, 10020; IGVR III, 1342. 241 Avetta 1985, 135 rejected the idea that the epigraphical expression ara marmorea referred to the Ara Pacis. 242 Rüpke – Glock 2005, 713 no. 361. For the site supposedly named “Ara Marmorea”, see Richardson 1992, 21. 243 Wilson 1910, 27. 244 Eder 1980, 168 with n. 34; Coarelli 1981, 42–45; Coarelli 1996, 162; Coarelli 1997, 246; Coarelli 2019, 169–170, 259–260. Cf. also Corbier 1984, 242 n. 32. Ziolkowski 1986, 626–627 and Burgers 1999, 348 doubted the validity of this argument. 245 See also Paragraph 3.1.2.2.

116

Serving the State

suggest that this public slave was working near that sacred building, if not necessarily inside it. However, since the name of the goddess is also attested as Diuturna, and there is no punctuation in the inscription between either D and I or A and D, one could also interpret the inscription as a Diuturna(e scil. aede). The preposition a or ab combined with the name of a temple in the ablative would be consistent with the usual mentions of public slaves employed as aeditui. Furthermore, the only known inscription of a servus publicus attached as a servant to the statio aquarum – that of Hevodus servus publicus stationis aquaru(m) (no. 77) – does not make any reference to the temple of Iuturna.246 Therefore, it seems more likely that Epagathus was employed as a caretaker (aedituus) of the temple of Iuturna, with no links to the cura aquarum (although this possibility cannot be ruled out entirely). One last instance of a public slave who may have been employed as a caretaker of temples may be found in a lost inscription from Rome: − [- - -]tt[- - -]iss(- - -)? publicus a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus) (no. 161).

Although this slave’s name is unfortunately unknown, Mommsen interpreted him as a publicus who was in charge of the curule seat (sella curulis).247 The sella curulis would have been used by Augustus in his role as a public magistrate, as well as by his advisors and other individuals who participated in the justice administration.248 This interpretation is plausible, but has been debated: Winterling considered the publicus a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus) to be a supervisor of Imperial furniture,249 whereas Dickmann identified him as a kind of bodyguard, who stood behind the seats of the emperor.250 These different interpretations suggest that the evidence is somewhat ambiguous – especially when one considers that the term sedes might also have other meanings in the epigraphic language, such as the ‘pedestal’ of a statue or as a synonym of aedes (temple) or, more broadly, a sacred place.251 As a result, this public slave a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus) can still be interpreted as a sort of aedituus of certain

246 Cf. CIL VI, 8489; cf. CIL VI, p. 3890; AE 2000, 132 (late first/early second c. AD): D(is) M(anibus). / Domitia Olympias se / viva fec(it) sibi et Notho / Caes(aris) n(ostri) ser(vo) et Do(mitio) Zosimiano / et suis poste(ris)q(ue) eorum / Domitia Olympias me viva / dedi. Donavi itu(m) ambitu(mque) Heuodo  / servo publico stationis aquaru(m)  / posteris˹q˺ue eorum et Gaviae. See also Paragraph 3.1.2.2. 247 See Paragraph 3.1.1.4 above. 248 Cf. CIL VI, 2341. 249 Winterling 1999, 99 with n. 84. 250 Dickmann 1999, 283 n. 62. 251 For an overview of the use and the meaning of the term sedes in Latin inscriptions, see Khanoussi – Mastino 2004, 396–399.

At the Service of the Infrastructures of Rome

117

sacred places of Augustus (perhaps the sacrarium and the aedes divi Augusti?), but this conclusion is far from certain.252 3.3 At the Service of the Infrastructures of Rome 3.3.1 Public Slaves in Archives and Basilicas We have already discussed the servi publici who were sent away from the tabularium in 169 BCE (no. 8), when the censors Gaius Claudius Pulcher and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus sealed all the public records and shut the public archive at the Hall of Liberty (Atrium Libertatis) until the public has passed judgment upon Gaius Claudius Pulcher.253 It is unclear whether these servi publici should be interpreted as censuales or ab censu or a censibus, i. e., public slaves attached as servants to the censors in their capacity as magistrates,254 or rather as publici who were simply employed as archive caretakers. Publici employed as archive caretakers may have assumed the title of a or ex tabulario, although this is not attested. In any case, when performing their duties in the tabularium, which probably consisted of not only looking after the building itself but also guarding and filing documents, these public slaves seem to have been under the supervision of the censors. It is possible that the employment of servi publici in the public archives in Rome could date back to the third – or even the fourth – century BCE,255 but none of the evidence refers to a period earlier than the above-mentioned episode recounted by Livy. Servi publici employed in the public archives in Rome are not even attested during the Imperial period.256 This was probably because emperors tended to entrust their own slaves and freedmen with the task of managing the public archives that were – at that point – under the direct supervision of the princeps.257 While no servi publici in archives are attested under the Late Republic and the Empire, two inscriptions dating to the first century BCE attest to public slaves who bore the title ex basilica Opimia:

252 Cf. Khanoussi – Mastino 2004, 398, who interpreted the freedman M(arcus) Livius Aucti l(ibertus) Lydus a sede Augustae, mentioned by CIL VI, 3976, as an attaché to the temple of the living Augusta. As for the publicus a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus), Eder generically spoke of a public slave performing menial tasks in the care of buildings (Eder 1980, 168: “bei der Betreuung von Gebäuden”). 253 See paragraph 3.1.1 above; cf. also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2. 254 See Paragraph 3.1.1.6 above. 255 Weiss 2004, 71. 256 Pace Weiss 2004, 71. 257 Boulvert 1970, 420–428; Weaver 1972, 241–249.

118

Serving the State

− Menop(h)ilus Alf(ianus) ser(vus) pub(licus) ex basilica Opimia (no. 92); − Menophilus Lucretianus servos (sic) publicus ex basilica Opimia (no. 93).

The Basilica Opimia was built in the Roman Forum by the consul Lucius Opimius in 121 BCE, probably around the time that the Temple of Concordia (aedes Concordiae) was built. The Basilica was then demolished after 7 BCE, when Tiberius began to reconstruct the aedes Concordiae.258 As their titles suggest, the two publici ex basilica Opimia were probably employed as caretakers of the building.259 However, since the Basilica Opimia likely served as a venue for tribunals,260 it is also possible that the public slaves provided generic services during hearings. 3.3.2 Public Slaves in the Library in the Porticus Octaviae Seven inscriptions from Rome, all dating roughly to the early first century CE, attest to six public slaves who bore titles that clearly linked them to the public library in the Porticus Octaviae: − − − − − −

Hymnus Aurelianus a bybliothece (sic) Latina porticus Octaviae vilicus (no. 79); Laryx [de?] porticu Octavi(ae) [a? b]ybliothe(ca) Graec(a) (no. 86); Montanus Iulianus vilic(us) a bybliotheca Octaviae Latin(a) (no. 95); Onesimus a porticu (no. 101); Philoxenus Iulian(us) public(us) de porticu Octaviae a bibliotheca Graeca (no. 114); Soterichus publicus Vestricianus a bubliothece (sic) porticus Octaviae (no. 130).

As already discussed,261 the date of the construction of the Porticus Octaviae – and its adjacent library – is uncertain. According to Cassius Dio, construction occurred after 33 BCE, with the spoils of the war against the Dalmatians.262 Other sources suggest later dates, such as 29, 27 or 23 BCE.263 It is unclear whether the project originated with Octavian/Augustus or whether it was adapted to Octavia’s wishes. Dix and Houston suggested that Octavia should be credited with the decision to build a library in the Porticus, as she wished to dedicate the building to her dead son Marcellus; Augustus only secured the funds necessary to construct the library.264 Houston concluded that

Varro, Ling. 5.156; Cic. Sest. 140. Richardson 1992, 54; Davies 2017, 180. Cf. Ferroni 1993, 183: “addetti alla pulizia ed alla manutenzione della stessa [basilica]”. Davies 2017, 180. See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.4. Cass. Dio 49.43.8. Vitr. De arch. 3.2.5; Ov. Ars am. 1.69–70; Livy perioch. 140; Plut. Marc. 30; Festus, p. 188 (ed. Lindsay). 264 Dix – Houston 2006, 685–686. 258 259 260 261 262 263

At the Service of the Infrastructures of Rome

119

the completion of the library should be dated between late 23 BCE, when Marcellus died, and 11 BCE, when Octavia died and Augustus named the Porticus after her.265 In an attempt to combine the information provided by all these sources, one may infer that construction of the Porticus began at some point between the Dalmatian war in 33 BCE (the war booty funded the construction of the building), and before the death of Marcellus. When Marcellus died at the end of 23 BCE, and Octavia ordered a library to be dedicated to him, Augustus may have added the library to the Porticus. This hypothesis, although far from certain, would resolve a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies. Once the library in the Porticus of Octavia was established, it was divided into two sections, a Greek one and a Latin one, as indicated by the titles of four of the abovementioned public slaves (nos. 79, 86, 95, 114). A passage from Ovid seems to suggest that the library’s holdings included works of poetry: in the Tristia the poet from Sulmo imagines his own book trying (in vain) to find his “brothers” (fratres) there.266 While Ovid may have hoped that his own books would be held at the library in the Porticus Octaviae one day, he was also probably well aware that this would be unlikely after his exile.267 When a fire destroyed the library in 80 CE, Domitian faced the difficult task of rebuilding the complex and restoring the collections of books.268 In the early third century CE, another fire destroyed the entire complex of the Porticus of Octavia; fortunately, it was reconstructed by Septimius Severus and Caracalla in 203 CE, as attested by the inscription on the architrave of the propylaeum.269 However, it is unclear whether the library was also restored after that fire. The history of the library in the Porticus Octaviae played a crucial role in the choice to employ public slaves in it. I have already argued that the absence of evidence for servi publici working in the library from the late first century CE onwards is likely due to the fact that the library was transferred to the emperor’s personal property when Domitian was forced to facilitate its reconstruction after the fire in 80 CE.270 However, the seven above-mentioned inscriptions, which all date to the early first century BCE, suggest that servi publici may have been employed in both sections (Latin and Greek) of the library in the Porticus Octaviae throughout most of the first century CE. The seven inscriptions also suggest that the practice of employing servi publici in the library began when the library was instituted in the late first century BCE. The employment

265 266 267 268

Houston 2014, 222 n. 20. Ov. Tr. 3.1.69. Dix – Houston 2006, 686. Suet. Dom. 20; Cass. Dio 66, 24, 1–2. Cf. also Dix – Houston 2006, 686–688. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.4. 269 CIL VI, 1034 = CIL VI, 31231. 270 Halkin 1897, 100–101; Houston 2002, 158. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.4.

120

Serving the State

of public slaves in the library was arguably a direct consequence of the fact that it was ‘public’, i. e., the property of the populus Romanus – whether it was funded with spoils of war, or given as a gift from Octavia or Augustus to the Roman people.271 The agnomen Iulianus of two of the public slaves working there, Montanus Iulianus (no. 95) and Philoxenus Iulianus (no. 114), which is clearly derived from the gentilicium Iulius, might indicate that these were former slaves of Augustus, before they were gifted to the Roman people. It is impossible to infer what the duties of the public slaves who worked in the library in the Porticus Octaviae were from these few instances alone. We also do not know whether they were employed as caretakers of the building or as librarians. The difference in titles between the public slaves employed in the Greek and the Latin sections suggest that they were librarians, which probably meant that they were responsible for filing papyrus rolls and assisting readers.272 If that were true, these public slaves may have had a certain degree of literacy. Remarkably, then, the titles of two among the five servi publici employed in the library in the Porticus Octaviae include the term vilicus, which implies that they acted as managers who coordinated other workers – most likely other public slaves – in the library’s administration.273 3.3.3 The familia publica aquaria Augustus’ decision in 11 BCE to institute ex novo the office of the curatores aquarum was linked to the death of his son-in-law Agrippa, which occurred a year earlier, in 12 BCE. Agrippa had overseen the management of the water supply in Rome since he became an aedile in 33 BCE; in his water management role, Agrippa paid for new buildings at his own expense and used 240 of his private slaves to help maintain the aqueducts and reservoirs.274 When Agrippa died, Augustus inherited this familia of slaves and decided to give them as a gift to the State. These 240 slaves thereby became public slaves (no. 14).275 This familia of slaves, now publica, continued to maintain the conduits (tutela ductuum) for more than a century at least. Frontinus – who was appointed curator aquarum in 97 CE and started writing his work On Aqueducts at the beginning of his time in office – attests to the existence of two familiae of slaves used to maintain the conduits, one belonging to the State (familia publica), and the other to the emperor (familia

271 272 273 274 275

Cf. also Dix – Houston 2006, 671 n. 4. A list of the possible duties performed by the library staff can be found in Aubert 1994, 359. Aubert 1994, 174–175. Frontin. Aq. 2.98. Cf. Rodgers 2004, 15. Frontin. Aq. 2.99. See also Paragraph 3.1.2.2 above.

At the Service of the Infrastructures of Rome

121

Caesaris).276 Frontinus recalls that the familia publica was instituted in 11 BCE, when Augustus made the 240 slaves he had inherited from Agrippa the property of the Roman people (no. 14), whereas the familia Caesaris, which consisted of 460 slaves, was created by Claudius between 47 and 52 CE. This status difference implies that the costs for their services were covered in two different ways: wages (commoda) of the familia publica were paid from the State treasury (aerarium), whereas the commoda of the familia Caesaris were funded by the fiscus, i. e., the emperor’s privy purse.277 Commoda may have included cash payments, although these would not have exceeded basic subsistence expenses.278 Unlike the three servi publici (no. 15) attached as servants to the curatores aquarum, who likely performed clerical and administrative duties, members of the familia publica worked on menial tasks in the water supply and aqueduct maintenance systems. Frontinus writes that both familiae consisted of overseers (vilici), reservoir-keepers (castellarii), inspectors (circitores), pavers (silicarii), plasterers (tectores) and other workmen (alii opifices); he also adds that he himself, as a curator aquarum, was able to bring many of these workmen who had been diverted to private work back to their original duties for the State. This implies that all these public slaves were under the direct supervision of the water commissioner.279 Besides Frontinus’ mention of the group of 240 public slaves (familia publica) (no. 14) employed for the maintenance of the conduits, we also have epigraphical evidence for four of these public slaves, which dates to a period between the late first and the late third centuries CE: − Diadumenus publicus aquae Annesis (sic) (no. 49); − Laetus publicus populi Romani [- - -] aquarius aquae Annionis veteris castelli viae Latinae contra Dracones (no. 84); − Onesimus castellarius public(us) ser(vus) (no. 102); − Soter servos (sic) publicus castellar(ius) aquae Annionis Veteris (no. 129).

The title of castellarius, carried by Onesimus (no. 102) and Soter (no. 129), matches one of the classes of workmen of the familia publica reported by Frontinus; therefore, both oversaw reservoirs. Soter (no. 129), in particular, was in charge of the castellum of the Aqua Anio Vetus, the great aqueduct built in 272 BCE with the spoils of the war against Pyrrhus.280 Laetus (no. 84), who did not bear the title castellarius but is mentioned as an aquarius aquae Annionis veteris castelli (i. e., a workman of the castellum of the Aqua Anio Vetus), probably performed the same – or very similar – duties as the above-

276 277 278 279 280

Frontin. Aq. 2.116. Frontin. Aq. 2.118. Rodgers 2004, 302; Luciani 2020, 373. Frontin. Aq. 2.117. Frontin. Aq. 1.6. For the Aqua Anio Vetus see Ashby 1935, 54–87; Evans 1994, 75–82.

122

Serving the State

mentioned castellarii.281 Laetus’ inscription also provides information about the location of the castellum, which was along the Via Latina in front of an inn or tavern (mansio) named Dracones (contra Dracones), around four miles from Rome.282 Apart from these two examples, there is no other evidence of the other classes of the familia publica mentioned by Frontinus. A possible instance is that of a certain vilicus aquae Marciae, named Amicus, who is attested by a funerary inscription from Rome tentatively dated to the first century CE.283 Although his status is unknown, Amicus may have been a public slave. However, he may also have been an Imperial slave.284 Another vilicus of uncertain status attached to the cura aquarum is [Di]adumenus [vili]cus aquae [- - -]. He was allegedly mentioned along with a woman named Iulia Nereis in a fragmentary inscription from Rome, which was kept in the Villa Casali on the Caelian (in villa Casalia in monte Caelio).285 However, this interpretation is the result of a misleading restoration of part of the missing text, which was suggested by Christian Hülsen based on information provided by Guglielmo Gatti. When publishing this fragmentary epitaph among the additamenta to the inscriptions from Rome, in the second issue of the fourth part of the sixth volume of the CIL (1902), Hülsen proposed the restoration [vili]cus in l. 4, without realizing that it was in fact just a portion of another inscription that had previously been published, when it was better preserved. The epitaphs of Iulia Nereis and the above-listed Diadumenus, who was a publicus – not a vilicus! – aquae Annesis (sic) (no. 49), had already been included by Eugen Bormann and Wilhelm Henzen in the first issue of the sixth volume of the CIL (1876) and reported as being part of the Casali collection (in museo Casali), based on information from Gaetano Marini.286 The similarities of text and location justify the identification of the two inscriptions.287 281 282 283

284 285 286

287

Aquarius is a very general term that designates a workman of the familiae publica or Caesaris in charge of the water supply: cf. De Ruggiero 1895b, 554–555. Ashby 1935, 79; Egidi 2004; Rea et al. 2005, 133–134, 178. Frontinus is probably referring to the same structure, when mentioning a catch-basin (piscina) of the Anio Vetus located at the fourth milestone along the Via Latina: Frontin. Aq. 1.21. CIL VI, 8496 = CIL VI, 33729 (first c. AD?): Amicus vil(icus) / aquae Marciae / Oppia C(ai) ((mulieris)) l(iberta) Psychario / in fr(onte) p(edes) XVI in agr(o) p(edes) XII. // [A]micus vil(icus) / [a] quae Marciae / [Oppi]a C(ai) ((mulieris)) l(iberta) Psychario / [in f]r(onte) p(edes) XVI in agr(o) p(edes) XII. Other scholars have also cast doubt on his status: cf. Halkin 1897, 83; Boulvert 1970, 147–148 n. 365, and Aubert 1994, 448 no. B54. CIL VI, 33732: Dis Manib(us) / Iulia Nereis et / [Di]adumenus / [vili]cus aquae / [- - -]; cf. Bruun 1991, 436; Aubert 1994, 452 no. B91; Carlsen 1995, 41. Cf. CIL VI, 2343: Dis Manib(us). / Iulia Nereis et / Diadumenus / publicus aquae / Annesis (sic) fecerunt / Pudenti vernae suo et sibi / suis vix(i)t an(nis) VII. Annesis is quite certainly an incorrect form for Anniensis/Aniensis and refers to the Aqua Anio Vetus. On Gaetano Marini as an epigrapher, see especially Orlandi 2015, although several other contributions in Buonocore 2015 are useful in this respect. On the Casali collection of antiquities see Santolini Giordani 1989. Cf. also Del Chicca 2004, 436, who noticed the identity of the two individuals, not of the two inscriptions.

At the Service of the Infrastructures of Rome

123

We have already noted that the familia of public slaves established by Augustus in 11 BCE remained in charge of aqueducts for more than a century.288 If we then consider the chronology of all the above-mentioned evidence, we can infer that public slaves continued to be employed in the cura aquarum until well beyond the age of Frontinus. The epitaph of Diadumenus (no. 49) should have been roughly contemporary to Frontinus, as it can be dated to the late first or the early second century CE. The inscriptions mentioning Onesimus (no.  102) and Soter (no.  129) seem to have originated slightly later, around the middle of the second century CE, whereas the funerary monument of Laetus (no. 84) was likely built in the late second or even the early third century CE. Halkin believed that a group of public slaves organised in a familia publica – as described by Frontinus – could not have existed after the third century CE.289 Responsibility for the water supply was transferred to the emperors at that time, after which only Imperial slaves would have been employed in water management. However, a letter sent to the Roman Senate by king Theoderic in 510–511 CE (and included in the epistolary collection of Cassiodorus known as the Variae) seems to suggest that some public slaves were still employed in water supply system in the early sixth century CE.290 Theoderic not only announced to the Senate the outcome of a full-scale investigation into the misappropriation of aqueduct public resources for private use, but also announced that the slaves (mancipia) set aside for the aqueducts by the emperors had been diverted to private work. A royal agent was then appointed to solve this and other issues. This is the latest evidence for public slaves working on aqueducts in Rome, and it seems to confirm that the practice of using public slaves for the maintenance of the aqueducts continued well beyond the third century CE.291

288 289 290 291

See Paragraph 3.1.2.2 above. Halkin 1897, 84–85. Cassiod. Var. 3.31.4. Cf. also Lenski 2006, 345–346, 348. However, one should note that the circitores mentioned in a fourth-century CE inscription from Tibur (CIL XIV, 3649) were not public slaves in charge of the security of the aqueducts at Rome, but low-rank officers of the late Roman army: cf. Lewis 2016.

4. Serving the Cities Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italy and the Western Provinces Introduction The model for managing public slaves in Italian and provincial towns, whether municipia or colonies, was undoubtedly the city of Rome. Like the servi publici populi Romani who were ordered by the Senate to serve the public under the supervision of magistrates or priests, colonial and municipal slaves were also employed by local magistrates (at the behest of the ordo decurionum) to perform public service duties very similar to the ones performed by their counterparts in Rome. The available epigraphical evidence attests to public slaves attached as servants to local magistrates and, more sporadically, involved in religious activities as assistants of priests or temple guards. There is also evidence of public slaves who worked in the administration of municipia and colonies as archivists or in the management of public finances. Like the servi publici populi Romani in Rome, public slaves in Italian and provincial towns are attested as caretakers of public buildings and places, such as granaries, markets, and baths. We will examine each of these contexts in detail in the next sections, but first the focus needs to be put on the procedure for assigning tasks to public slaves and freed ones. 4.1 The Assignment of Tasks to Public Slaves, Freedmen, and Freedwomen The great variety of duties performed by public slaves in municipia and colonies involved many physical, technical and intellectual skills. The process of choosing suitable individuals to execute these duties must have been intense. The assignment of tasks to public slaves did not depend on the personal choices of the public slaves, but rather on

The Assignment of Tasks to Public Slaves, Freedmen, and Freedwomen

125

the interests of their masters,1 i. e., the cities, which were represented by civic authorities (magistrates and decurions, in particular). Those civic authorities considered the individual skills of each public slave, and may have also provided them with some onthe-job training, possibly by means of other servi publici. The tasks of any public slave heavily depended on the decisions of the civic authorities. 4.1.1 “What Type of Business Each Public Slave Should be Assigned To” The masters of public slaves were the citizens as a whole, and work was assigned to public slaves by the representatives of the townsfolk – i. e., the local magistrates and the decurions. It is therefore unsurprising that an entire section of the lex Irnitana (Chapter 78) was devoted to the process of deciding what type of business (negotium) should be assigned to public slaves. The highest magistrates and the local councillors were directly involved in this process, as indicated by the text of the following clause: R(ubrica). Ut decuriones consulantur cui negotio quis/que servus publicus praeponatur. Dumvir, quicumque erit, in diebus quinque {erit in diebus quin/que} quibus primum in municipio Flavio Irnitan[o] erit, ad / decuriones conscriptosve, quam fr[e]quentissimos poterit, re/ferto, quos serv{v}os publicos cuiqu[e] negotio praesse placeat, / facitoque uti de ea re decurione[s] conscriptive decernant {de/cernant}, quodque maior pars eo[r]um decreverit, it fiat sine d(olo) m(alo). Rubric: That the Decurions Should Be Consulted Concerning What Type of Business Each Public Slave Should Be Assigned To. Whoever is duumvir, in the first five days in which he holds office in the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum, is to raise with the decuriones or conscripti, as many as possible, which public slaves should be assigned to each type of business, and he is to get the decuriones or conscripti to pass a decree on that matter, and see that what the majority of them has decreed is carried out without wrongful intent.2

Every year, at the beginning of his term in office (within five days of the election), one of the highest magistrates in Irni – a duumvir – consulted the decurions about the tasks to be assigned to public slaves. After the majority of the local council reached a decision, they had to pass a decree that assigned appropriate business to each public slave,

1 2

See Broekaert 2020, 86. Lex Irn. 78; translation by González – Crawford 1986, 194.

126

Serving the Cities

with no wrongful intent. Although we have no extant legal source comparable to the lex Irnitana (on this and many other matters), we can assume that a similar procedure was followed in other cities of the Empire. As we have seen, in Rome, the business to be assigned to public slaves may also have been discussed by consuls and senators.3 With regard to the official business (negotium) that one of the duumvirs and the decurions had to assign to public slaves, Chapter 78 of the lex Irnitana makes no reference to female public slaves: in the text, one only finds the expressions servus publicus and serv{v}os publicos in the masculine (no. 527). When one compares Chapter 78 with Chapter 72 of the same law, the latter of which is devoted to the official procedure for manumitting public slaves, the absence of any reference to female public slaves is even more striking: Chapter 72 contains numerous explicit references to public slaves in both the masculine and feminine (no. 526).4 One might therefore infer from the lex Irnitana that female public slaves were not officially assigned any negotium. The rest of the available evidence confirms this assumption, as no official tasks seem to have been entrusted to a serva publica.5 In fact, female public slaves played a crucial role in many cities’ economy, although their role may not have been considered worthy of official mention in any statute. As Elisabeth Herrmann-Otto and Weiss noted, the main function of female public slaves was to supply new public slaves.6 As we have seen,7 any children born from a union between a man (regardless of his status) and a female public slave took the same legal status as their mother (i. e., all the children were public slaves). Roman cities likely maintained servae publicae specifically to ensure the natural reproduction of new public slaves. Female public slaves may have also had to rear their children, in addition to performing a variety of other domestic tasks. All of these tasks can be described by the blanket expression ‘household management’. Therefore, although the lex Irnitana does not reference any official negotium assigned to servae publicae, we can infer that giving birth to new public slaves and managing the household were the key duties of female public slaves in Roman cities. 4.1.2 Work and Service for the City After Manumission Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana prescribes the procedure for the manumission of servi publici in Irni, and will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.8 At this point, it is

3 4 5 6 7 8

See Chapter 3, Introduction. On this see Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.1. See Luciani – Urbanová 2019, 432–442. Herrmann-Otto 1994, 200; Weiss 2004, 24–28. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.6. See Paragraph 5.2.1.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

127

sufficient to note that Chapter 72 provides further important insights into the assignment of business to freed public slaves. Indeed, Chapter 72 explicitly states that the rights of the municipium of Irni to claim work (operae) or service (munus) from public freedmen or freedwomen, along with their inheritance (hereditas) or possession of goods (bonorum possessio) or gift (donum), should be the same as if those liberti and libertae were freedmen or freedwomen of a municipium of Italy.9 The provision indicates that freed public slaves could be lawfully required to perform certain work or services according to the instructions of civic authorities, presumably the decurions. That analogous rules were also followed in other cities of the Empire is confirmed not only by the explicit reference to the freedmen and freedwomen of the Italian municipia in Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana, but also by a number of sources from Italy and the provinces that attest to freed public slaves performing the same activities as when they were slaves.10 One can also assume that the activities that are only attested by inscriptions that mention liberti publici, were in fact performed by public slaves too. All this evidence supports the hypothesis that, upon manumission, public slaves were required to perform some operae or munera for their cities. As for public freedwomen, it is difficult to say what kind of operae they were required to offer to their cities. Just as there is no reference to any official duties performed by female public slaves,11 there is also no evidence for any work or service performed by libertae publicae. As a result, we can only assume that public freedwomen remained in charge of ‘household management’, especially if they continued to live with any male public slaves (whether their partners or their children or both). 4.2 Public Slaves and Local Magistrates 4.2.1 The limocincti 4.2.1.1 At the Service of the Highest Magistrates A passage from the lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae indicates that the aediles of the Caesarian colony of Urso (Baetica) had a certain number of apparitores and four public slaves, each of whom had a girded limus/-m (publici cum cincto limo), as their assistants (no. 534). By contrast, the duoviri were assisted by a larger group of apparitores but not by servi publici.12 The lex Irnitana specified that both the aediles and the duumvirs 9 10 11 12

Lex Irn. 72; cf. González – Crawford 1986, 171, 192–193. Luciani 2010, 276–279; Luciani 2017, 47–56. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.4. See Paragraph 4.1.1 above. Cf. also Crawford 1996, 400, 422, 433.

128

Serving the Cities

of the municipium of Irni (Baetica) were attended by public slaves, each girded with the limus/-m (servi communes municipum eius municipii limo cincti) (no. 524).13 The socalled lex Lauriacensis, the municipal law on the administration of Lauriacum (Noricum), which dated to the age of Caracalla, probably also envisaged public slaves limo cincti as assistants of the duoviri (no. 611).14 It seems evident that, in these three communities, public slaves limocincti were attached only to the highest magistrates, such as aediles and duumvirs with judicial powers. A number of inscriptions from several towns in Italy and the provinces show that public slaves limocincti (a compound of limo and cincti) existed not only in Urso, Irni and Lariacum, but also in other cities: − − − −

Anicetus [l]imoci[nctus], at Puteoli (no. 286); Senecio limocinctus, at Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (no. 561); Anonymous limocincti of the tribunal of a quattuorvir iure dicundo, at Verona (no. 505); familia limata, at Capua (no. 188).

The latter is attested by the late first/early second century CE epitaph of Macedo, a slave of the servus publicus Euphrosynus (no. 183), who was an arcarius and a magister of the familia limata (no. 188) in Capua. This suggests that the group of limocincti could also be structured as a collegium, with a magister at the top of the rank. The size of the cohort of servi publici limocincti in Capua must therefore have been substantial. The purpose of the familia limata is unknown, but may have been a funerary one. It is also uncertain whether Euphrosynus was the treasurer of the city of Capua or, more likely, of the collegium itself. If he were treasurer of the collegium, the familia limata probably had a common treasury of funds collected from all the corporate members, to be used for the interests of the collegium itself.15 The limocincti must have been a well-known collective body in other cities, too. In Verona in the second century CE, for instance, a statue was offered to the quattuorvir iure dicundo M(arcus) Gavius Squillianus (who had earlier been quattuorvir aedilicia potestate) by the apparitores and the limocincti (no. 505) of his court (tribunalis eius) (Fig. 9). This inscription seems to suggest that, although the limocincti in Verona were not structured as a collegium like that in Capua, they acted as a group when honouring the magistrate they served. It was probably simpler for servi publici limocincti to attempt to build a patron-client relationship, which might have obtained the favour of the magistrate and even (eventually) a possible manumission.

13 14 15

Cf. also González – Crawford 1986, 153, 182; Weiss 2001, 284–286. For the use of the adjective communis as a synonym of publicus, see Lamberti 1993, 275 n. 14. Cf. also González – Crawford 1986, 241–243; Weiss 2001, 286. On the maintenance of a common treasury as a feature of the familiae of public slaves see Easton 2021, 259–261.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

129

Fig. 9 Bronze tablet that covered the statue base offered to the quattuorvir iure dicundo M(arcus) Gavius Squillianus (who had earlier been quattuorvir aedilicia potestate) by the apparitores and the limocincti (no. 506) of his court (tribunalis eius) – Verona, second c. CE (Verona, Museo Archeologico al Teatro romano; inv. 29900).

Patrick Le Roux, suggested that the limocincti had a religious role.16 Without completely ruling out this hypothesis (which had already been put forward by Eder),17 Weiss maintained that the role of the servi publici limocincti could be compared to that of the lictors, which led him to define them as “Quasi-Liktoren”.18 If one considers that a bodyguarding role was certainly assumed by public slaves who assisted the highest magistrates in Rome, such as consuls, praetors and aediles,19 Weiss’ hypothesis is highly plausible. However, the limocincti may also have performed some clerical duties. The way in which they referred to themselves in the inscription from Verona supports this hypothesis: the explicit mention of the court (tribunal) in which they worked suggests 16 17 18 19

Cf. AE 1986, 333, p. 142. Eder 1980, 145–146. Weiss 2004, 33. See Chapter 3, Paragraphs 3.1.1.1–3.

130

Serving the Cities

that the magistrate could count on them when administering the law (in his capacity as magistrate with judicial power – quattuorvir iure dicundo). If this assumption is correct, the limocincti not only escorted and protected the magistrate while he travelled around the city, but they also assisted him in the law court. In analysing the role played by limocincti in Irni, Juan Francisco Rodríguez Neila argued that they may easily have been involved in clerical activities such as copying or archiving legal documents, or even in more technical work such as the preparation of writing tablets.20 Chapter 86 of the lex Irnitana, when discussing the recruitment of judges, states that the duoviri iure dicundo in Irni had to display beside their tribunal the names of all the chosen judges, written on tablets, so that they could be properly read from ground level.21 If this system applied not only to Irni, but also to other Roman cities, it is reasonable to suppose that both the apparitores (scribae, in particular) and the servi publici limocincti may have helped the magistrates in their judicial function by writing documents. Ultimately, the fact that the limocincti are mentioned together with the apparitores in the inscription from Verona can be interpreted as further evidence that the public slaves bearing the limus/-m, who were attached as servants to the highest magistrates in Roman cities, were employed not only as bodyguards, but also as clerical assistants. 4.2.1.2 What Was the limus/-m of the limocincti? As we have seen, the term limocincti is a compound of limo and cincti, and refers to individuals, mostly public slaves, who were girded by a garment called limus/-m. To explain the meaning of limus/-m, it is worth mentioning a sentence from Marcus Tullius Tiro, freedman of Cicero, which was quoted by Aulus Gellius in his work Attic Nights (from the second half of the second century CE) when he analysed a possible etymology of the term lictor: “Licio enim transverso, quod ‘limum’ appellatur, qui magistratibus” inquit “praeministrabant, cincti erant”. “For,” says he, “those men who were in attendance upon the magistrates were girt across with a kind of girdle (licium) called ‘limum’”.22

Aulus Gellius, however, believed that the above-mentioned etymology was in fact less plausible than the one proposed by Gaius Valgius Rufus in the late first century BCE.

20 21 22

Rodríguez Neila 1997, 225. Lex Irn. 86; cf. González – Crawford 1986, 176–177, 196. On the administration of the law at Irni and specifically on this passage from the charter, cf. Le Roux 1991. Gell. NA 12.3.3; translation by John C. Rolfe from LCL 200 (1927). Notwithstanding this sources, Rouland 1977, 273–274 argued against the assimilation of licium to limus/-m.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

131

Gaius Valgius Rufus believed that the word lictor derived from ligare (“to bind”), because when magistrates ordered that a person should be beaten with rods, his legs and arms were always bound (ligari) by an attendant (viator), who was therefore called a lictor.23 Leaving aside the validity of either etymology, Tiro provided information about a sort of belt, called a limum, which was similar to a licium and was worn by some assistants of the magistrates. It is unclear whether Tiro was identifying the lictors with the public slaves who attended magistrates in order to justify the origin of the term lictor from licium, or if he was referring to both lictors and public slaves simultaneously.24 Lictors commonly wore the toga or the sagum, not the limus/-m.25 The use of the imperfect tense praeministrabant could help explain this discrepancy, as it implies an expression of a past custom. This certainly applied to lictors, the focus of Tiro’s reasoning, but not necessarily to the servi publici attached as servants to magistrates. Servi publici probably continued to wear the limus/-m, both in Rome and in the other cities.26 The term used by Tiro to define a limum, i. e., licium, gives the impression that the limus/-m was a kind of belt or girdle.27 Other sources support this inference. The first confirmation comes from a passage from the Origines of Isidore of Seville (first half of the seventh century CE), which is included in the section devoted to belts (De cingulis) in his book on ships, buildings, and clothing (De navibus aedificiis et vestibus): Limus est cinctus quem publici habebant servi: et dictus limus quia transversas habebat purpuras, id est limas. A limus is a wide belt (cinctus) that public slaves used to wear, and it was called limus because it had purple bands that were slanted, that is, oblique (limus).28

At the beginning of the book on belts, Isidore himself admits that, among the known kinds of belts, the cinctus is the widest one: Cinctus est lata zona, et minus lata semicinctium, et utrisque minima cingulum; nam a cinctu per diminutionem cingulum nominatum. A cinctus is a wide belt (zona), while a semicinctium is less wide, and a cingulum is less than either, for the word cingulum is formed as a diminutive from cinctus.29

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Gell. NA 12.3.2 and 4; cf. also Maltby 1991, 340. At any rate, there is no need to envisage a mistake or a “confusion” made by Tiro between the dress called limus and the kind of belt named licium, as supposed by Rouland 1977, 273. Kübler 1926, 508. Cf. also Eder 1980, 106 n. 16; Weiss 2004, 32–33. For the term licium, see TLL VII.2, s. v. licium, coll. 1373–1374. Isid. Etym. 19.33.4; translation adapted from Barney et al. 2006, 392. Isid. Etym. 19.33.1; translation adapted from Barney et al. 2006, 392.

132

Serving the Cities

The term cinctus, derived from the term cingere, had been used to designate a belt, especially one worn by a man, since the second half of the first century BCE. This is confirmed by a passage from Varro’s On the Latin Language: Cinctus et cingillum a cingendo, alterum uiris, alterum mulieribus attributum. Cinctus “belt” and cingillum “girdle”, from cingere “to gird”, the one assigned to men and the other to women.30

Isidore also refers to the limus worn by public slaves in another passage, which is included in the section devoted to the boundaries of fields (De finibus agrorum) in his book on buildings and fields (De aedificiis et agris): Limites appellati antiquo uerbo transuersi, nam transuersa omnia antiqui lima dicebant; a quo et limina ostiorum, per quae foris vel intus itur, et limites, quod per eos in agros foris eatur. Hinc et limus uocabulum accepit, cingulum quo serui publici cingebantur obliqua purpura. Limites (“limits”) are named after the old word for “crosswise”, because the ancients referred to anything crosswise as limus. From this term are derived both the limina (“thresholds”) of entryways, across which one goes in or out, and limites (“boundary-limits”), because one goes across these into the fields. Hence also we get the word limus, a belt with slantwise purple trim that public slaves would wear.31

In this second excerpt, too, Isidore seems to refer to the limus as a belt, albeit of lesser width (cingulum). Isidore’s source here is presumably the Latin writer on land-surveying, known as Hyginus Gromaticus, who seems to have written a treaty on legal boundaries during Trajan’s reign.32 Using a neuter form (limum),33 and without making any reference to public slaves, Hyginus presented the same origin of the noun: Limites autem appellati a limo, id est antiquo verbo transversi: nam et limum cinctum ideo purpuram transversam habeat. Indeed limites got their name from limus, that is the old expression for “transverse”; consequently the garment limus cinctus is so named because it has a purple stripe running across it.34

30 31 32 33 34

Varro, Ling. 5.114; translation by Roland G. Kent LCL 333 (1938). Isid. Etym. 15.14.2; translation adapted from Barney et al. 2006, 315. Campbell 1996, 77. See also Guillaumin 2005, 172: “Notre texte emploie une forme neutre de ce mot, limum”. Cf. also the use of the neuter form in Gell. NA 12.3.2 and 4: see n. 22 above. Hyg. lim. const. p. 167.16–19 (ed. Lindsay) = p. 132.20–133.1 (ed. Thulin); translation by Campbell 2000, 135.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

133

Based on this evidence, we can conclude that the term limus (or limum) typically referred to a sort of wide belt or short apron, which was worn by public slaves who served magistrates. It could be of varying widths, and may have had crosswise purple stripes.35 However, the term limus may have also designated a different item of clothing –not a belt, but a long dress. Isidore referenced this garment in the section of the Origines devoted to different kinds of clothing and their names (De diversitate et nominibus vestimentorum): Limus est vestis quae a umbilico usque ad pedes producitur. Haec autem vestis habet in extremo sui purpuram limam, id est flexuosam; unde et nomen accepit, nam limum obliquum dicimus. A limus is a garment that reaches from the navel to the feet. This garment has a purple band at its lower edge that is ‘aslant’, that is, ‘undulating’, whence it takes its name, for we call something that is aslant limus.36

Isidore likely took this information from the following (very similar) excerpt from Servius’ commentary on Virgil, from the fourth or fifth century CE: Limus autem uestis qua ab umbilico usque ad pedes prope teguntur pudenda poparum. Haec autem uestis habet in extremo sui purpuram limam, id est flexuosam, unde et nomen accepit: nam ‘limum’ obliquum dicimus. A limus, instead, is a garment that reaches from the navel to the feet in order to cover the genitals of the popae. This garment has a purple band at its lower edge that is ‘aslant’, that is, ‘undulating’, whence it takes its name, for we call something that is aslant ‘limus’.37

According to both Servius and Isidore, therefore, limus also designated a dress (vestis) – presumably a long apron – which extended from the navel to the feet. Servius and Isidore claim that the term limus derived from the fact that it had a purple stripe at its lower edge, which was aslant (lima), or undulating (flexuosa), like the other type of limus/-m. Servius indicated that this particular vestis was worn by the popae, i. e., those among the sacrificial attendants (victimarii) who carried a mallet to stun victims during sacrifices.38 Isidore, on the other hand, does not refer to any specific individuals who wore the limus. Various depictions of sacrificial scenes attest to popae wearing a long apron reaching from the navel to the feet, similar to the limus described by Servius and Isi-

35 36 37 38

For an overall investigation of the sources, see Luciani 2019a, 38–43. Isid. Etym. 19.22.26; translation adapted from Barney et al. 2006, 385. Serv. Aen. 12.120; my translation. On the victimarii, see Lennon 2015.

134

Serving the Cities

dore.39 The function of this particular garment was to protect the popae from the inevitable spraying of blood during sacrificial slaughters.40 Although the available inscriptional evidence suggests that popae and victimarii in Rome were mostly selected from slaves or freedmen,41 not one public slave employed as a popa or a victimarius is actually attested by any literary or epigraphic sources in Rome.42 As for other cities in the Empire, only the epitaph of Eros pubicu(s) victimarius (no. 310) and possibly that of [- - - pu]blic[us] victi[marius], whose name is unfortunately lost (no. 315), both from Brundisium, seem to suggest that public slaves could be employed as popae or victimarii.43 The lack of any other source suggests that it was rare for public slaves to occupy these roles in both Italian and provincial cities. Many scholars have supposed that the type of limus was worn by all public slaves during the exercise of their duties.44 Weiss, who thought about the limus only as a long apron reaching from the navel to the feet, emphasized that it is unlikely public slaves would have worn this garment, especially when performing technical duties. Weiss considered this further support for the argument that only public slaves attached as servants to magistrates wore it.45 However, a dress reaching from the navel to the feet may even have been awkward for public slaves who assisted magistrates: when escorting or helping them during journeys and clerical activities, public slaves certainly had no need to wear the long limus that the popae used to protect themselves during the sacrificial slaughters; such a garment would have been more of a hindrance than a help. On the other hand, a short tunic girded by a wide belt or a short apron would have not impeded public slaves’ daily activities, and may have even served as a badge of the office of the magistrates. Based on the available evidence, it is thus possible to conclude that the term limus/-m probably designated two different items of clothing: a) a long apron reaching from the navel to the feet, which the popae wore during sacrifices; and b) a wide belt – or a short apron – with oblique purple stripes worn by the public slaves who assisted the highest magistrates.

39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Lennon 2015, 67. The style and length of the limus worn by popae could vary over time: Fless 1995, 75–77. Cameron 2011, 602. Lennon 2015, 67–68, 76–79. Cf. also Eder 1980, 44. See Paragraph 4.3.1 below. Cf., e. g., Mommsen 18873, 323–324; Halkin 1897, 218, n. 2; Saglio 1904, 1259; Rouland 1977, 273–274; Eder 1980, 102, 106, 122. Weiss 2004, 31–32.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

135

4.2.1.3 Images of limocincti Depictions of public slaves are relatively rare and difficult to trace. However, since certain literary sources attest to the presence of a public slave during triumphal ceremonies (as noted in Chapters 2 and 3),46 visual images associated with those triumphs may provide insight into the external appearances of the servi publici.47 One clear example can be found in the above-mentioned ‘Tiberius Cup’ from Boscoreale (cf. Fig. 3). The young man wearing a short tunica manicata and a wide belt around his waist as he crowns Tiberius in the triumphal chariot is easily identifiable as a servus publicus wearing the limus/-m. Another example is the fragment of a relief sculpture from Palestrina, possibly dating to 117 CE, which depicts the “posthumous” triumph of the emperor Trajan.48 The emperor – recognisable by his distinctive features and hairstyle – is accompanied in his chariot by a young man holding a large, jewelled crown over his head; this young man is also wearing a tunica manicata girded with a wide belt. These depictions seem to confirm that the limus/-m worn by public slaves attached as servants to magistrates was probably not a long dress that reached from the navel to the feet, but rather a wide belt or short apron that girded their tunic around the waist. This garment was worn by public slaves who assisted public officials in Rome, and also by the servi publici limocincti attached as servants to the highest local magistrates in other Italian and provincial cities. 4.2.2 The officiales As we have just seen, not all the public slaves attached as servants to local magistrates had the right to wear the limus/-m. Only those who served the holders of the highest offices, such as duoviri and aediles, or quattuorviri iure dicundo and aedilicia potestate, could wear the limus/-m. The lowest-ranking magistrates, such as the quaestors, were also assisted by public slaves; the latter, however, had no right to wear the limus/-m. This is attested by Chapter 20 of the lex Irnitana, which stipulated that quaestores could only be attended by public slaves with no other qualifications (no. 525).49 As a result, in Irni, while duumvirs and aediles were assisted by public slaves limocincti, the quaestors were assisted by

46 47 48 49

See Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.1.1.1. For an overall investigation of iconographical sources, see Luciani 2019a, 43–50. Musso 1987; Musso 2008, 141–143. For the presumed ‘posthumous’ triumph of Trajan, celebrated by Hadrian with an imago Traiani on the triumphal chariot, see SHA Hadr. 6.3; Epit. de Caes. 13.11. Cf. also González – Crawford 1986, 153, 182.

136

Serving the Cities

public slaves who did not wear the limus/-m. The type of public slaves who could be assigned to each magistrate therefore reflected the hierarchical differences between the magistrates. This implies that, like the fasces carried by the lictors, the limus/-m worn by servi publici limocincti was also a symbol of the power of the highest magistrates. A public slave who attended upon decurions (?) and magistrates (servo[s (sic) p]ublicus / [- - - decurio?]ṇibus aeque ac magistratibus appa[re]ret) (no. 288) is referenced in the epigraphic text engraved on a marble slab from Salernum in the first century CE.50 Unfortunately, the fragmentary status of the document makes it difficult to discern the inscription’s full meaning; however, the inscription clearly mentions a local magistrate, [- - -] M(arcus) f(ilius) Fal(erna) Pedica Ma[rcianus?], who had been both a duovir quinquennalis and a duovir, and for whom the ordo decurionum decreed a public funeral and the erection of a statue in return for his great merits. We can infer that, among his many other contributions, the magistrate also purchased – at his own expense – a public slave who had been attached as servant to decurions and magistrates. Since this public slave was not recorded as a limocinctus (and unless the lost section contained information to the contrary), one may assume that he was attached to minor magistrates. Furthermore, if the restoration [- - - decurio?]ṇibus is correct, we can infer that local councillors were also assisted by public slaves, though probably not limocincti. Apart from these sources, there is no other evidence for public slaves without the limus/-m who assisted local magistrates. However, it is still possible that the entire group of servi publici attached as servants to local magistrates, both with and without the limus/-m, could have been designated by the general term officiales. This is suggested by the following cases: − officiales Tar[ri]cinensium, at Tarracina (no. 291); − off(iciales) pub(lici), at Feltria (no. 477).

In the first inscription, dating to the first century CE, the freedmen (liberti) and the officiales of the townsfolk of Tarracina are mentioned together: both groups set up a funerary monument for Proculus, who was a rei public(a)e (servus) (no. 289). The term officiales, therefore, seems to refer to certain public slaves of Tarracina, who were different not only from the rei publicae servi, like Proculus, but also from the liberti Tar[ri]cinensium. As a result, the term officiales Tar[ri]cinensium likely referred to all the servi publici attached as servants to local magistrates.51

50 51

Weiss 2004, 19, 88; Sudi Guiral 2010a, 251. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 167 n. 1. On the possibility that the two groups of public slaves (officiales) and freedmen (liberti) had performed a burial rite for Proculus rei public(a)e (servus) (no. 289), by acting as collegia funeraticia, see Easton 2021, 254.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

137

The second inscription, which dates to 323 CE, August 28th, mentions certain officiales, who are described as publ(ici), along with the quattuorviri, i. e. the magistrates of Feltria, and six principales: the latter should be understood as the most distinctive decurions of the local council. All three groups – quattuorviri, principales and officiales publici – were beneficiaries of a legacy left by a private citizen, Hostilius Flamininus, in his will. Hostilius Flamininus gave 500,000 denarii to the collegia of the fabri and centonarii, so that they could annually celebrate his own birthday ( January, 9th) by preparing a funeral banquet. Every year, such an investment yielded direct cash returns (60,000 denarii), which had to be divided as follows: a part was used to fund a second banquet to be held during the rose festival (Rosalia), whereas the other was given to the quattuorviri, the six principales and the officiales publici in the form of sportulae of 10 solidi and one siliqua. Since the officiales publici are mentioned together with local magistrates and decurions, they may have been public slaves attached as servants to the quattuorviri.52 Lenski and Christian Witschel used this inscriptional evidence to tentatively confirm the existence of public slaves in the fourth century CE.53 Their caution seems justified, especially if one considers that officiales in the Late Empire may have been freeborn individuals rather than enslaved people.54 After all, some freeborn apparitores may also have been included in the group of officiales mentioned in the inscription from 323 CE.55 However, the combination of the adjective publicus with the term officiales – as well as their explicit connection with the quattuorviri – does seem to suggest that they were public slaves attached as servants to local magistrates. In a small town such as Feltria,56 and during a period of great economic instability such as the early fourth century CE, requiring public slaves to serve the local magistrates may have been a less expensive solution than recruiting freeborn apparitores for this job.57 The idea that the term officialis could also designate a public slave seems to be confirmed by a passage from Book 1 of the Metamorphoses by Apuleius. When the protagonist, Lucius, meets his former school friend, who had since become an aedile, at the city market in Hypata, Lucius recognizes that the man has the typical attributes of a magistrate:

52

53

54 55 56 57

Cf. also Lécrivain 1904, 1549; ILS 9420, with a different transcription for the relevant l. 10: Off(icio) pub(lico) (scil. servis); Pasqualini 1969–70, 284; Buchi 1992, 138; Carlà 2008, 84. For the interpretation of principales and officiales as members of the collegia of the fabri and the centonarii see Colombo 2017, 51–53. Cf. Lenski 2006, 347 n. 64: “SupplIt 5, 1989, 253–255 no. 3 = ILS 9420 (a. 323) records the management of an endowment in Feltria, from which annual sportulae were to be given to various groups, including the off(icio) pub(lico). This seems to imply a familia publica, but this supposition cannot be confirmed”; Witschel 2006, 391 no. 58 and n. 150. Boak 1937, 2056. Cf. also Cesano 1908, 243–246. On the size of Feltria see de Ligt 2012, 299. See also Carlà 2008, 85–89.

138

Serving the Cities

“Nam et lixas et virgas et habitum prorsus magistratui congruentem in te video”. “But what’s this? Congratulations! I see you have attendants and the rods of office and the dress of a magistrate”.58

As an aedile, Lucius’ friend would have overseen food supplies and market inspections. Among the friends’ attendants (designated by Apuleius as lixae),59 is an officialis, who is later ordered by the magistrate to destroy the poor-quality fish that a fishmonger just sold to Lucius: Et profusa in medium sportula iubet officialem suum insuper pisces inscendere ac pedibus suis totos obterere. he emptied the basket out on to the open pavement and ordered his assistant to trample on the fish and crush them to a pulp with his feet.60

Leaving aside the fictional content of Apuleius’ novel and the comic aspect of this particular situation (Lucius is eventually left with no fish!), it is possible that Apuleius used the term officialis to designate a public slave who served an aedile.61 4.2.3 Public Slaves as an Honour Worthy of a Magistrate Having public slaves attached as servants was perceived as an honour, whether those public slaves wore the limus/-m or not. This is made especially clear by a decree issued by the local council of Cumae between 14 and 29 CE. The text of the decree was engraved on a marble slab that is now kept at the National Archaeological Museum of Naples.62 Although the fragmentary nature of the monument prevents us from constructing a full account of the legal action, it is clear that a series of honours was granted to a certain C(aius) Cupiennus Satrius Marcianus, as well as to his mother and offspring. The reasons why these honours were granted are unclear, as they were probably recorded in the lost part of the monument. However, we know that the honours included: a) the opportunity to offer a sacrifice at public expense on the occasion of the dedication of statues to Tiberius and Livia; b) permission to wear the toga praetexta and to appear with a laurel wreath during ceremonial processions and games; and c) a reserved parking slot for the litter (lectica) 58 59 60 61 62

Apul. Met. 1.24; translation by John A. Hanson from LCL 44 (1996). On the meaning of the term lixa as a synonym of apparitor, cf. TLL, VII.2, s. v. apparitor, col. 1550.66. Apul. Met. 1.25; translation by John A. Hanson from LCL 44 (1996). Cf. also Halkin 1897, 166–167. More cautiously, Weiss did not rule out this possibility (Weiss 2004, 85 n. 216). Degrassi 1926 = Degrassi 1962, 473–481; Sherk 1970, 39 no. 41; Weiss 2004, 34; Sudi Guiral 2010a.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

139

in the amphitheatre. Furthermore, it was decreed that C(aius) Cupiennus Satrius Marcianus, as well as his mother and children, were entitled to have a public slave attend upon them (no. 191) – namely, servos (sic) publicus u[t appareat] (l. 2 and 14) and servos (sic) publicus is appare[at - - -] (l. 8). These expressions are very similar to the ones in Chapters 19 and 20 of the lex Irnitana, according to which aediles and quaestors were entitled to have municipal slaves attend upon them, including those with and without the limus/-m (nos. 524–525): … Eisque aedilibus servos communes municipum eius municipii, qui is appareant, limo cinctos habere liceto … (Chapter 19, l. 16–17), and … Eisque (scil. quaestoribus) servos communes municipum [e]ius mu[nicipi, q]ui is appareant, in eo municipio secum habere liceto … (Chapter 20, l. 30–32). Having a public slave as an assistant was therefore a symbol of prestige. This prestige essentially transformed C(aius) Cupiennus Satrius Marcianus and his family into high-ranking members of the local elite, although neither he nor his sons had been magistrates. The reference in the decree from the local council of Cumae to the privilege of having a reserved place to park the lectica in the amphitheatre allows us to draw a parallel between this decree and an inscription from Aricia. The inscription is engraved on a marble slab dating to between the late first and early second centuries CE,63 and reads as follows: Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus) Iovi Opt(imo) Max(imo) lecticaris voto trichlia ex permiss(u) 5 fecit suo inpendio (sic).

Although the text is not entirely clear, it provides information about a vow (votum) to Jupiter Best and Greatest (Iuppiter Optimus Maximus) that was taken and fulfilled by Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus) (no. 171), a slave of the townsfolk of Aricia. This public slave had promised the god an offer, which he made at his own expense (fecit suo inpendio), with someone’s permission (ex permissu) – presumably one of the local councillors. The object of his donation is mentioned at l. 4 as trichlia, which is a hapax and may stand for either trichl{i}a(m), or trichlia/trichlia. The first case would be related to the term trichila, also known in its variants triclia or tri-

63

AE 1957, 105 (Aricia, Regio I; first/second c. CE).

140

Serving the Cities

clea, which designated a “bower”, like a summerhouse or a pergola.64 The second case would refer to triclinia, i. e., “dining couches” or “dining halls”.65 If one connects this inscription with the ancient ceremony of the lectisternium, the second interpretation may be preferable. The lectisternium was a sacred banquet offered to  – and in honour of  – the gods, which was incorporated into several major festivals and was held both in Rome and in other cities.66 According to Livy, the lectisternium was first celebrated in 399 BCE, after the consultation of the Sibylline Books during a pestilence.67 Sacrificial animals were offered to the gods, whose images lay on spread couches (lecta strata). The lectisternium is also referenced in Book 8 of the Commentaries on the Gallic War, written by Aulus Hirtius about the final year of Caesar’s campaign in Gaul.68 In 50 BCE, Caesar travelled to Cisalpine Gaul to thank the inhabitants of municipia and colonies for supporting the election of Mark Antony as augur and recommend himself as a candidate for consulship the following year. Caesar’s arrival was welcomed by all the towns with great affection: victims were sacrificed everywhere, and festal couches duly spread. Aulus Hirtius referred to these couches as triclinia strata. With this in mind, the idea that a public slave in Aricia, in fulfilling a vow to Jupiter, offered some triclinia, or “couches”, to be used during religious festivals with a lectisternium, seems to be a more reasonable possibility – and easier to explain – than the idea that he offered a trichila, i. e., a “bower”. The expression lecticaris at l. 3 is even more difficult to interpret. At first glance, it seems to correspond to the dative plural of the term lecticarius, i. e., lecticarīs/lecticari(i)s, which would mean “to the litter-bearers”; this could refer to the recipients of the offer made by the public slave Euhelpistus. However, it could also stand for the nominative lecticari(u)s, i. e., “litter-bearer”, which would designate the job title of the public slave. Both interpretations are problematic. With the first interpretation, there would be an overlap between the recipients of the offer, i. e., a god, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, and the group of individuals employed as litter-bearers (lecticarii); this 64

65

66 67 68

The occurrences of the term trichila/triclia/triclea in the inscriptions are rare: cf. CIL VI, 21383 (Rome; 8 CE); AE 1986, 25 (Rome; 8 CE); CIL VI, 10237 = ILS 7870 (Rome; 16 CE); CIL VI, 4305 = ILS 1732 (Rome; late first c. CE); CIL VI, 52 = ILS 4335 (Rome; 102–105 CE); CIL VI, 15593 = ILS 8063c (Rome; early second c. CE); AE 1900, 135 = CIL VI, 36868 = CIL VI, 38398 (Rome; second c. CE); CIL VI, 29958–29959 (Rome; unknown date); CIL XIV, 1636 = ILS 7926 (Ostia, Regio I; second c. CE); CIL II, 266 = AE 2002, 669 (Olisipo, Lusitania; late first/early second c. CE); AE 2002, 679 (Augusta Emerita, Lusitania; late second c. CE/early third c. CE); AE 1975, 883 = AE 1978, 835 = AE 1983, 975 = AE 2005, 1685 (Fundus Aufidianus, Africa proconsularis; late third c. CE). The variants trichli(ni)a or trich(i)li(ni)a for triclinia are already attested: cf. CIL XIV, 375 (Ostia, Regio I; mid-first c. CE); CIL IV, 5244 (Pompeii, Regio I, mid-first c. CE); CIL VI, 10332 = ILS 7889 (Roma; first c. CE); CIL III, 9767 = ILS 5547 (Aequum, Dalmatia; late first/early second c. CE); CIL IX, 4971 = ILS 6560 (Cures Sabini, Regio I; second c. CE); EpOst 1342 (Ostia, Regio I; second c. CE). See Beard et al. 1998, 130. Livy 5.13. Cf. also Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 12.9. Caes. BGall. 8.51.3.

Public Slaves and Local Magistrates

141

scenario would have been unbecoming, to say the least. With the second interpretation, it would be unusual for the job title of the public slave who set up the epigraphic monument to be mentioned after the name of the deity, instead of being placed after the name of the public slave, as one would expect. However, when interpreted as two separate sentences, the inscription seems more meaningful: the first sentence would comprise the name of the donor (Euhelpistus, the slave of the townsfolk of Aricia) and the dedicatee ( Jupiter Best and Greatest), whereas the second sentence would focus on the offer, with the slave’s job title serving as an apposition (lecticari(u)s) of the implied subject (Euhelpistus). We can thus suggest the following new transcription and translation: Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus) Iovi Opt(imo) Max(imo). Lecticari(u)s voto trichli(ni)a ex permiss(u) 5 fecit suo inpendio (sic). Euhelpistus, slave of the townsfolk of Aricia, (set up this marble slab) for Jupiter Best and Greatest. As a litter-bearer, he (i. e., Euhelpistus, slave of the townsfolk of Aricia) made some couches by vow, at his own expense (and) with the permission (of the local councillors).

According to this logic, Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus) (no. 171) would have been a public slave employed as a litter-bearer. He may have been in charge of transporting local magistrates and councillors, or other possible individuals worthy of such a privilege, as was the case for C(aius) Cupiennus Satrius Marcianus and the members of his family at Cumae, around the town. Thanks to his connections with the members of the local elite in Aricia, Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus) (no. 171) may have been granted permission to offer some dining couches to Jupiter Best Greatest in fulfilment of his vow. If this (original) interpretation is correct, this inscription would be the only extant evidence of a public slave employed in a Roman community as a lecticarius. Being transported by a public slave on a lectica may have been a distinction granted to only the most important members of the local elite.

142

Serving the Cities

4.3 Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities 4.3.1 Public Slaves and Freedmen as Assistants of Priests Unlike the substantial body of inscriptional evidence for servi publici attached as assistants to official priests in Rome,69 the available sources referring to public slaves involved in religious activities in other Roman cities, whether in Italy or in the provinces, are not so numerous. As we will see in this section, only some scattered epigraphic sources seem to suggest that public slaves could be employed as assistants of priests and magistrates to perform duties during religious festivals and ceremonies.70 A second century CE inscription from Capua mentions a public slave with the title of a sacris, named Soter colon(orum scil. servus) (no. 187). The inscription attests to a servus publicus who played a role during some religious rites (sacra), and he probably acted as an assistant to the public priests of the town. As with [G]laucus publicus a sacris (no.  71) in Rome,71 the lack of specificity in this inscription prevents us from ascertaining the cult or the priesthood he served.72 Two inscriptions from Brundisium provide evidence for many public slaves employed as victimarii, i. e., the attendants responsible for the slaughtering of sacrificial animals. The first is the late second century CE epitaph of Eros pubicu(s) victimarius (no. 310), which was engraved on a limestone stele that also bears images of a knife (culter) and an axe (ascia) to depict the duties of the public slave. The second inscription is fragmentary, but may attest to a similar [- - - pu]blic[us] victi[marius]; his name is unfortunately lost in the gap (no. 315).73 Both public slaves therefore took part in the city’s public sacrifices and were also in charge of a crucial activity during religious festivals.74 The victimarii acted under the supervision of public priests and magistrates, and were probably considered subordinate assistants. Since the only two known at-

69 70

71 72 73 74

See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2. Halkin 1897, 160 with n. 3, suggested that Nemetogena (no. 515), who is recorded as an ancilla publ[i]ca in her funerary inscription from Burdigala (Gallia Narbonensis), was an assistant of a public priestess; however, this hypothesis is not justified, as there is no reference to such an activity in the epigraphic text. Analogously, Asclepiades rei p(ublicae) L(aurentium) L(avinatium) servus arkarius (no. 197), Olympus Laurentium Lavinatium arcarius (no. 198) and Syntrophus (sic) (no. 199), a colleague of the latter, were public slaves of the townsfolk of Lavinium who were employed as arcarii and had nothing to do with the priesthood of the Laurentes Lavinates, contrary to what was supposed by Weiss 2004, 40, 136 n. 428, 246. See also Paragraph 4.4.2.1. See Paragraph 3.2.5. Cf., by contrast, the case of Agatho publ(icus) Silianus a sacris sodal(ium) Augustal(ium) (no. 26), who certainly performed his duties during the ceremonies for the cult of Augustus and the Julii along with the sodales Augustales. Grelle et al. 2017, 170. See also Paragraph 4.2.2.1 above. The activities of the victimarii carried some social clout among slaves and freedmen: see Lennon 2015.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities

143

testations of public slaves as victimarii come from Brundisium, this evidence may even reflect a specific local arrangement.75 As we have seen, some slaves of the provinces may also have been attached as servants to the provincial flamines.76 These slaves would have provided assistance during religious ceremonies in the public temples, especially for the Imperial cult. This may have been the case with Atticus I̅ I̅ I̅ provinciarum Galliarum servus (no.  734), Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus) (no.  733)  – who was then manumitted, thus becoming P(ublius) Claudius III Galliarum lib(ertus) Abascantus (no.  735)  – and C(aius) Public(ius) provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) [- - -] (no. 730), before he was granted freedom.77 In the absence of any other reference to their exact duties, we cannot rule out a priori the possibility that they were involved in religious activities. However, the late first or early second century CE inscription mentioning Atticus I̅ I̅ I̅ provinciarum Galliarum servus (no. 734) and the four inscriptions, all dating to the late second century CE, that refer to Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus) (no. 733) – who later became P(ublius) Claudius III Galliarum lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735) – originate from Rome and Ostia, respectively. This fact complicates things, but also reveals other possibilities. These men may have been at the embassies as assistants of the provincial flamen, but they may also have accompanied the governor of the province or the federal administrative functionary (allectus arcae) on official business.78 Moreover, Atticus I̅ I̅ I̅ provinciarum Galliarum servus (no. 734) moved to Rome, whereas Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus) (no. 733) moved to Ostia; both had families in those cities, and neither of them returned to Gaul.79 These circumstances seem incompatible with a role as an assistant to provincial governor during religious ceremonies, which must have primarily taken place in the capital of the province. It therefore seems more likely that these men were sent to Italy to accompany provincial authorities on official business. A more persuasive case may be that of L(ucius) Fabius provinc(iae) lib(ertus) Victor, a freedman of the province of Tarraconensis (no. 736). In the second century CE, he set up a funerary inscription for his partner (contubernalis) Gavia Athenais at Tarraco, the caput of the province of Tarraconensis. Since there is evidence of a flamen p(rovinciae) H(ispaniae) c(iterioris) called L(ucius) Fabius L(uci) f(ilius) Quir(ina) Silo, who held this priesthood between 140 and 180 CE, we must consider the possibility that L(ucius) Fabius provinc(iae) lib(ertus) Victor was a former slave of the province 75

76 77 78 79

Halkin’s hypothesis that [- - -]us Voc(ontiorum) serv(u)s [- - -]rius (no.  548) from Dea Augusta Vocontiorum (Gallia Narbonensis), whose fragmentary epitaph records him as a [- - -]rius, was also a [victima]rius (Halkin 1897, 161) cannot be accepted unreservedly, as the missing text can be restored in many other ways, such as [tabula]rius, [arca]rius, [saltua]rius etc. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.9. Halkin 1897, 164–166. Cf. also Noy 2000, 207; Wierschowski 2001, 81–81; Ricci 2006, 17; Scuderi 2009, 94. On the life of Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus) (no. 733), who then became P(ublius) Claudius III Galliarum lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735), see Herz 1989; Zevi 2018.

144

Serving the Cities

attached as a servant to that flamen.80 At some point, L(ucius) Fabius L(uci) f(ilius) Quir(ina) Silo may have submitted a request for the manumission of the slave of the province Victor to the concilium provinciae, i. e., the assembly of legates of the colonies and municipalities of Hispania citerior. When this proposal was accepted, Victor was manumitted, and assumed the praenomen and nomen of the flamen who had proposed his manumission. If this interpretation is correct, Victor, as a slave of the province, would have assisted the provincial flamen in overseeing the Imperial cult in Tarraco and throughout the province. However, not all slaves of the provinces were necessarily attached as servants to provincial flamines. For instance, the slave of the province of Baetica, who became P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus, was a sculptor of marble statues (no. 729). Tertullus, a slave of the province of Britannia (no. 732), may have performed financial duties, which were probably linked to the army.81 The scarcity of evidence discussed in this section suggests that public slaves who assisted priests and magistrates during religious ceremonies were not a common feature of Roman towns. 4.3.2 Public Slaves and Freedmen as aeditui Other inscriptional evidence suggests that servi and liberti publici in Italian and provincial towns were frequently employed as caretakers of temples or sacred areas.82 A second century CE funerary inscription from Aquileia that mentions the public slave Abascantus colonorum Aquil(eiensium) ser(vus) (no. 444), whose title is recorded as officio lucum (sic) Herculis, is a good starting point.83 According to Coarelli, the word lucus was used in Republican literary sources to describe a sacred grove or clearing, whereas in Imperial epigraphic sources it designated a more structured sacred area. This more structured area would have been surrounded by trees and plants, and would also have contained seats (sedilia), altars (arae) and statues (signa).84 Therefore, Abas80 81 82

83 84

Cf. Alföldy 1973, 71 no. 24; RIT 275 and 335; CIL II2/14, 1135, 1199. See also Paragraph 4.4.2.1 below. Slaves of temples or religious colleges are not considered here, as they cannot be regarded as public slaves: see Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.10. A fragmentary inscription from Savaria (Pannonia superior) has been interpreted by Halkin (Halkin 1897, 164) as mentioning a public slave of the altar of some emperors: … [- - - p]ublic(us)  / [ar]ae Augg(ustorum)  / [provinc]iae P(annoniae) s(uperioris) (CIL III, 4170, ll. 3–5). However, this source has been excluded, as a more convincing interpretation of the same inscription has been proposed in more recent times: … [- - - equo p]ublic(o) / [sac(erdos) ar]ae Augg(ustorum) / [provinc]iae P(annoniae) s(uperioris) (AE 2003, 1367, ll. 3–5). Cf. also Pasqualini 1975, 1981–1982; Zenarolla 2008, 275–276, no. AQ10. The term lucum can certainly be understood as a contracted form of the genitive plural of the term lucus, thus standing for luc(or)um. Coarelli 1993, 46–47.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities

145

cantus seems to have been in charge (officio) of some groves dedicated to Hercules (luci Herculis), with basic amenities for religious life. The groves were public and were probably located in the outskirts of Aquileia, perhaps near the lagoon area south of the colony.85 Abascantus may have been a caretaker of all the sacred structures of the luci Herculis; his duties were therefore probably comparable to those of an aedituus. We can draw a parallel between this evidence and a funerary inscription from Capua, dating to the late second or the early third century CE. The inscription is on a limestone slab set up by an aedituus named Dexter (no. 645) and his partner Campania Albina (no. 644) for their son, Dexter Duroni(an)us (no. 646), who held the title of a basilica. This inscriptional evidence, which was perhaps too quickly excluded by Weiss,86 has been associated with the group of the public slaves from Capua by Heikki Solin.87 The woman bears the nomen Campanius, which was usually taken by the public slaves of the townsfolk of Capua upon manumission.88 Campania Albina (no. 644) may have been a former public slave. Her partner Dexter (no. 645) and her son Dexter Duroni(an)us (no.  646) may also have been public slaves. Dexter Duroni(an)us (no. 646) took his father’s name and was probably born while his mother was still a slave, as he seems to be of servile status. Indeed, if one considers that the two male individuals – father and son – were employed in public service, as an aedituus and as an a basilica (i. e., a caretaker of the public basilica) respectively, we can assume that they were two public slaves of Capua. Since the deceased also bore the agnomen Duroni(an)us, all three slaves had likely been slaves of a private individual named Duronius before they were converted to the property of the city of Capua for employment in public service. The woman may have been manumitted by the civic authorities of Capua at a later time. As a result, it does not seem “methodologically imprudent” to consider this source in a systematic review of the evidence for public slaves and freedmen.89 A new inscription from Pompeii mentions a public freedman, M(arcus) Venerius coloniae lib(ertus) Secundio (no. 284a), who was an aedituus Veneris, i. e., the sacristan of the temple of Venus.

85

86 87 88 89

Modugno 2000, c. 68 n. 6. Contra Fontana 1997, 114, who argued that the inscription does not necessarily attest to the existence of luci dedicated to Hercules. On public slaves employed in the worship of Hercules in Rome see Halkin 1897, 49–53; Eder 1980, 39–41; see also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1 and Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.2. Weiss 2004, 143. Solin 1985, 175–176 = Solin 1998, 234–236. See, e. g., C(aius) Campanius col(oniae) lib(ertus) Ursulus (no. 182). Cf. also Halkin 1935, 131; Luciani 2021a, 173. Cf. Weiss 2004, 143: “Es ist im Gegenteil noch einmal darauf hinzuweisen, daß bislang kein einziger unzweifelhafter Beleg für einen servus publicus aedituus außerhalb Roms bekannt ist, und es erscheint daher methodisch gewagt, dies nun für den campanischen Dexter aedituus zu postulieren”.

146

Serving the Cities

These inscriptions, along with the fact that aeditui of public temples in Rome were often recruited from among servi publici,90 suggest that a series of aeditui – whose conditions were not explicitly stated, and each of whom bore either the nomen Publicius or a nomen derived from a city’s toponym – were all former public slaves.91 The most significant case in this regard is that of A(ulus) Ostiensis Asclepiades, aeditu(u)s Capitoli, at Ostia (no. 240). Like many freed public slaves in Ostia, this individual’s nomen was derived from the name of the city. He was in charge of the temple dedicated to the Capitoline triad ( Jupiter, Juno and Minerva), and offered a base to support an emperor from the second or third century CE, whose name was erased. A(ulus) Ostiensis Asclepiades, aeditu(u)s Capitoli, at Ostia (no. 240) also gave a statue of Mars as a gift to the corpus familiae public(a)e libertorum et servorum (no. 278), i. e., the whole group of public slaves and freedmen organized as a collegium. The nomenclature of this aedituus, combined with his explicit connection with the familia publica, supports the theory that he was a public freedman.92 We should note that two individuals with the same nomen and cognomen, i. e., Ostiensis Asclepiades, are mentioned in the famous second century CE list of the members of the familia publica of Ostia (no. 280), whereas M(arcus) Ostiensis Asclepiades (no. 651) is mentioned as a plumbarius on some lead pipes from Ostia.93 It is difficult to establish any connection between these individuals, because homonymity was probably frequent; the occurrence of two individuals with the same nomenclature in the same list attests to this.94 However, the social milieu of all these individuals was probably similar. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that Q(uintus) Ostiensis Felix, an aedituus of the temple of the goddess Roma and Augustus at Ostia (no. 653) who dedicated a marble altar to the Imperium in the first century CE, was also a public freedman.95 On the other hand, the case of a certain M(arcus) Tusculanius Amianthus, the chief officer (magister) of the aeditui of the temple of the Dioscuri at Tusculum (no. 660) who had also been appointed as an Augustalis, remains a puzzle. His epitaph was arranged by his brother M(arcus) Tusculanius M(arci) f(ilius) Receptus, a freeborn individual, which might suggest that M(arcus) Tusculanius Amianthus was an ingenuus.96 However, since the latter bore a nomen derived from the town of Tusculum and a cog-

90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 68–70; Eder 1980, 37–39. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.6. Cf. also Bömer 1981, 25–26 with n. 3; Weiss 2004, 142–143 (with caution); Luciani 2010, 279–285; Sudi-Guiral 2010b. Contra Halkin 1897, 163, although some decades later he confidently included them among the liberti publici: see Halkin 1935, 129, 131. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 142 with n. 456. Cf. Paragraph 4.7.1.1. Cf. also Cébeillac Gervasoni et al. 2010, 175. On the temple of the goddess Roma and Augustus at Ostia, see Polito 2014. See Gorostidi Pi 2008, 857–860, who interpreted him as an ingenuus, i. e., M(arcus) Tusculaniu[s M(arci) f(ilius) Amianthus], when restoring another fragmentary inscription that possibly mentions him (cf. CIL XIV, 2620 = CIL VI, 10408).

Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities

147

nomen of Greek origin, and because his status is not explicitly stated in the inscription, he may also have been a former public slave.97 Indeed, M(arcus) Tusculanius Amianthus may have been the son of two public slaves, or of a female public slave and a public freedman. He may have been born while his mother was still a serva publica and inherited her status. His brother, on the other hand, may have been born after both parents had been manumitted, which would have made him an ingenuus for all intents and purposes.98 This hypothesis suggests that this family had opportunities for upward social mobility, which makes sense, given that M(arcus) Tusculanius Amianthus bore the title of Augustalis. Identifying aeditui who bore the nomen Publicius as public freedmen is somewhat more straightforward, although still speculative: − − − −

M(arcus) Publicius Campanus, at Iader (Dalmatia) (no. 712); Publicius Eutychius, at Brixia (no. 690);99 Cl(audius) Publicius Fortunatus, at Caesarea (Mauretania Caesariensis) (no. 720); C(aius) Publicius Hermes, aedituus, at Tergeste (no. 702).

Cl(audius) Publicius Fortunatus (no. 720) is mentioned in a late first or early second century CE funerary inscription that had been arranged for him at Caesarea (Mauretania Caesariensis) by his wife and children. The fact that he, his wife, and his children all bore only one name each implies that they were all of servile condition. The other three individuals, however, are mentioned on sacred inscriptions they arranged for themselves: M(arcus) Publicius Campanus (no. 712) gave an epigraphic monument (an altar?) as a gift to Apollo Lycius – at the god’s command – near Iader (Dalmatia) between the late first and the early second centuries CE; Publicius Eutychius (no. 690) fulfilled his vow to Victoria Augusta in Brixia in the third century CE; and C(aius) Publicius Hermes (no. 702) offered an altar to the Magna Mater deum at Tergeste in the second century CE. Even assuming that all the above-mentioned aeditui – each of whom had a nomen derived from the toponym of a town or the nomen Publicius – were former public slaves, the evidence suggests that the duties of the aedituus were performed more by public freedmen than by public slaves. Moreover, many of the liberti/-ae publici/-ae attested as occupying these roles may have been in fact former public slaves who were required to perform the aedituus’ duties even after being manumitted.100 The fact that most of

On his nomen, see Schulze 1904, 526; Halkin 1935, 129, 131; Luciani 2021a, 172. On his Greek name, see Solin 20032, 785–786. 98 Cf. also Luciani 2010, 284 n. 176; Sudi-Guiral 2010b, 427–428. A similar case would be that of Oriens aliment(arius) Saepinati(um) (no. 370) and his brother L(ucius) Saepinius Orestis, who were the sons of L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens (no. 373). 99 For the same interpretation, see also Gregori 1990, 146, 220–221. 100 Cf. also Luciani 2010, 281–285; Sudi-Guiral 2010b, 425–429.

97

148

Serving the Cities

these individuals set up sacred inscriptions devoted to particular gods and goddesses is not sufficient evidence upon which to infer that they were caretakers of the temples dedicated to those deities, although that possibility cannot be ruled out.101 4.3.3 Public Slaves and the Magna Mater The fact that the above-mentioned aedituus C(aius) Publicius Hermes at Tergeste (no.  702) offered an altar to the Magna Mater deum suggests a link between public slaves and the goddess of Anatolian origin.102 C(aius) Publicius Hermes (no. 702) was not alone in dedicating an altar to the Great Mother at Tergeste: he was joined by a priest (sacerdos) named Q(uintus) Publicius Charito (no. 701) as well as by a female cymbal player (cymbalistria), Secunda (no. 704). Since the sacerdos bore the same nomen Publicius as the aedituus and a cognomen of Greek origin, he may have been a public freedman.103 Moreover, the cymbalistria’s nomenclature, which consisted of only one name, suggests that she may have been a slave, possibly a public one.104 A number of scholars have interpreted the two men as liberti publici and the woman as a serva publica.105 There are parallels between the cymbalistria Secunda from Tergeste (no.  704) and a liberta publica of the townsfolk of Beneventum named Concordia col(onorum) lib(erta) Ianuari[a], who also held the title of c[y]mbal(istria) (no. 302), possibly in the second century CE. The cymbals were an attribute of Attis and the Corybantes, and were an essential instrument of the ritual music of the mystery cult of Magna Mater, along with the hand drum (tympanon) and flutes (tibiae).106 This evidence invites us to explore other possible connections between the cult of Magna Mater and public slaves, freedmen and freedwomen. An inscription from Alta Ripa, in the territory of the civitas Vangionum (Germania superior), attests to a public slave and a public freedwoman who worshipped Magna Mater: in 250 CE, Gratinus rei p(ublicae) civ(itatis) Vang(ionum) servus arcarius (no. 569) and Decorata libert(a) public(a) (no.  568) constructed an altar for the Mater Deum Magna and the divine

Cf. also Degrassi 1950, 34 no.  5, regarding Publicius Eu[ty]chius, who was an aedituus at Brixia (no. 690). 102 On the cult of Magna Mater, see now Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018. 103 On the nomen Publicius, which was taken by public freedmen at Tergeste, see Q(uintus) Publicius Teṛgest(inorum) l(ibertus) Felix (no. 491). Cf. also Halkin 1935, 129; Luciani 2021a, 198 nos. 28–31 (Tab. 1). On the name Charito, of Greek origin, see Solin 20032, 491–493. 104 For the Latin name Secundus/-a, widely used among slaves, see Kajanto 1965, 30, 74–77, 292, and Solin 1996, 149–150. 105 Von Domaszewski 1911, 50; Graillot 1912, 261; Halkin 1935, 129; Scrinari 1951, 45; InscrIt X, 4, 11 (P. Sticotti); Pascal 1964, 56 n. 4; Degrassi 1970, 625 = Degrassi 1971, 169; Fontana 2001, c. 90; SupplIt 10, 1992, p. 211 (C. Zaccaria); Bassignano 2003, 25. 106 Graillot 1912, 257–258; Thomas 1984, 1532; Silvestrini 2000, 199; Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 197–200.

101

Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities

149

powers of that place, along with a statue of Diana, so as to fulfil their vows willingly and deservingly. Several other inscriptions suggest that worshipping the Anatolian goddess may have been common for public slaves and freedmen in other cities too:107 C(aius) Poblicius Olymp[us], sacerdos M(atris) d(eum) at Mediolanum (no. 708) L(ucius) Publicius Syntropus, archigallus, at Tergeste (no. 703); Publicius Mysticus, arc(h)igallus, at Augusta Emerita (Lusitania) (no. 718); Publicius Fortunatus, who made a taurobolium at Corduba (Baetica) (no. 709); Sex(tus) Publicius [- - -]anus, who made a taurobolium at Arausio (Gallia Narbonensis) (no. 714); − Publicius T(h)allus, whose funerary slab was given by the college of the cannophores at Locri Epizephyrii (no. 662); − Veronia Trofime, sacer(dos) Matris deum, at Verona (no. 705).

− − − − −

The first individual was a priest of the Magna Mater called C(aius) Poblicius Olymp[us] (no. 708), who constructed a funerary monument for himself and his own freedwoman Poblicia T(h)isbe at Mediolanum in the second century CE. While the woman was not a liberta publica, there is some doubt about the status of C(aius) Poblicius Olymp[us] (no. 708). Some onomastic arguments seem to support the idea that he was a public freedman:108 indeed, he bore a Greek cognomen and the nomen derived from the adjective publicus, which was taken by the public freedmen in Mediolanum upon manumission.109 The second and third individuals, L(ucius) Publicius Syntropus (no. 701) and Publicius Mysticus (no. 718), were both archigalli, i. e., eunuch priests of the Magna Mater deum. In the first and late second centuries CE, respectively, these men announced the vaticinations after the rite of the taurobolium, or criobolium (the sacrifice of a bull or a ram), which took place every year on March 24th.110 Once again, these men’s nomenclature – which encompassed both the Greek cognomina111 and the nomen Publicius that

107 For two possible public freedmen as hymnologi of Magna Mater at Rome, see Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.5. 108 Cf. also von Domaszewski 1911, 50; Halkin 1935, 129. 109 On the nomen Poblicius/Publicius, which was taken by public freedmen at Mediolanum, see C(aius) Poblicius municipum Mediolaniens(i)u(m) l(ibertus) Alexsander (no.  510), and C(aius) Publicius m(unicipum) M(ediolanensium) lib(ertus) Eutyches (no. 511); cf. also Halkin 1935, 129. On the name Olympus, of Greek origin, see Solin 20032, 685–687. 110 De Ruggiero 1895c, 641–642; Graillot 1912, 230–238; Carcopino 1923; Thomas 1984, 1525–1528; Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 176–191. 111 Solin 20032, 1056–1057, 1058, 1100–1101.

150

Serving the Cities

was typical for public freedmen of both Tergeste and Augusta Emerita,112 suggests that they may have been former public slaves.113 Publicius Fortunatus (no. 709) is attested by an inscription on an altar devoted to the well-being of the emperor Severus Alexander at Corduba (Baetica) in 234 CE. The text records that he made a taurobolium, while a woman, named Coelia Ianuaria, transmitted (suscepit) the testicles (thalamas) of a ram (c{h}rionis). Both man and woman were under the supervision of a priest called Ulpius Heliades.114 The man’s nomenclature consisted of the nomen commonly assumed by public freedmen at Corduba,115 as well as a Latin name that was common among the slave population.116 This suggests that Publicius Fortunatus (no. 709) may have been a libertus publicus. Sex(tus) Publicius [- - -]anus (no. 714) at Arausio (Gallia Narbonensis) also made a taurobolium to the divine spirit of Magna Mater, on behalf of the well-being of the emperor Commodus between 185 and 191 CE. His case is therefore similar to that of Publicius Fortunatus (no. 696) from Corduba. The fact that the third or fourth century CE funerary inscription of Publicius T(h)allus (no. 662) was set up at Locri Epizephyrii by the college of the cannophores may suggest a link between the deceased, who bore a nomen derived from the adjective publicus and a Greek name,117 and the cult of Magna Mater. The college of the cannophores may indeed have been involved with the ritual ceremonies of Magna Mater, but this is still unconfirmed.118 Finally, Veronia Trofime, a priestess of Magna Mater, is mentioned in a first century CE funerary inscription made for her and Veronius Primus (no. 707) by their son C(aius) Veronius Carpus (no. 706), who held the title of sexvir Claudialis maior.119 Both the Greek 112

113 114

115 116 117 118 119

As for public freedmen at Tergeste, see n. 97. On the nomenclature of public freedmen at Augusta Emerita, see Publicia Em[er(itensium) l(iberta)] Ebora (no.  570) and Publicia coloniae l(iberta) Graecul[a] (no. 572); cf. also Halkin 1935, 129. On the name Olympus, of Greek origin, see Solin 20032, 685–687. Cf. also von Domaszewski 1911, 50; Graillot 1912, 233; Halkin 1935, 129; Scrinari 1951, 45; InscrIt X, 3, 8 (A. Degrassi); Pascal 1964, 56 n. 4; Degrassi 1970, 625 = Degrassi 1971, 169; Budischovsky 1977b, 109; SupplIt 10, 1992, p. 191 (C. Zaccaria); Fontana 2001, 90. This interpretation, suggested by Van Haeperen 2018, is more attractive than that proposed by Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 205–207, who interpreted Publicius Fortunatus and Coelia Ianuaria as a thalamas and a chrionis respectively, which would have been two functions within the cult of the Magna Mater. Moreover, I do not believe that a certain Publicius Valerius Fortunatus, who made a taurobolium four years later (238 CE) and is also attested by a similar inscription from Corduba (CIL II²/7, 234), was the same person (for this interpretation, see Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 205): most likely, he was the son of Publicius Fortunatus (no. 709); cf. also Alvar Ezquerra 1994, 285. On the nomen Publicius, which was taken by public freedmen at Corduba, see A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus, sacerdos, [fa]miliae publicae [c(olonorum) c(oloniae)] P(atriciae) perpetuus mag(ister) II (no. 521); cf. also Halkin 1935, 129. Kajanto 1965, 13, 273; Solin 1996, 142–144. For the Greek name Thallus, see Solin 20032, 1171–1173. Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, 279–280. Cf. also Modonesi 1995, 44.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in Religious Activities

151

cognomina (i. e., Carpus and Trofime, a variant of Trophime),120 and the Latin cognomina Primus, which was very widespread in the case of both slaves and freedmen,121 along with the nomen Veronius, which was taken by liberti publici at Verona,122 suggest that all these individuals may have been public freedmen.123 This considerable body of epigraphic evidence seems to support the hypothesis that, in many Roman cities, public freedmen and freedwomen were commonly employed as sacerdotes of the Magna Mater or as their assistants (archigalli and cymbalistriae). Public freedmen and freedwomen (or possible ones) attested as sacerdotes and archigalli likely assumed their roles after manumission, as slaves were not permitted to hold such positions. Since these individuals were probably elected or appointed by local councillors,124 we can assume that they were former public slaves who managed to build a strong relationship with the magistrates and decurions in their towns. Servi publici may also have been involved as lower assistants during public festivals and ceremonies dedicated to the Great Mother in the cities, which would have made them particularly suitable to be chosen as sacerdotes and archigalli, once they were manumitted. This could help explain the special connection that existed between public slaves and freedmen and the cult of Magna Mater. 4.3.4 Public Freedmen and the Imperial Cult C(aius) Veronius Carpus (no. 692), a priest of the Imperial cult, may also have been a public freedman of Verona. He was a sexvir Claudialis maior, and therefore in charge of the worship of the deified emperor Claudius. We have also seen the case of M(arcus) Tusculanius Amianthus, the chief officer of the aeditui of the temple of the Dioscuri at Tusculum (no. 660), who had been appointed as an Augustalis. In this regard, it is worth noting that 14 inscriptions unequivocally mention liberti publici who entered the group of the *Augustales (also known as sexviri Augustales or simply sexviri): – M(arcus) Venerius coloniae lib(ertus) Secundio, Augustalis et min(ister) eorum at Pompeii (no. 284a);

120 Solin 20032, 1052–1054, 1193–1196. 121 Kajanto 1965, 291; Solin 1996, 142–144. 122 See, e. g., Veronia Caesia (no.  502), who was the mother of Heliodorus (no.  498) and Caesianus (no. 494), and the partner of Heliodorus Veronens(ium scil. servus) (no. 497). Cf. also Halkin 1897, 147–148; Schulze 1904, 526; Halkin 1935, 131; Pergreffi 1940, 319; Sartori 1960, 184; Buonopane 2006, 260. 123 Cf. also von Domaszewski 1911, 50; Halkin 1935, 131; Sartori 1960, 239; Breuer 1996, 309–310 no. V158; Bassignano 2003, 25. 124 As for the priests and priestesses of Magna Mater, see von Domaszewski 1911, 50; Graillot 1912, 239–240.

152

Serving the Cities

− M(arcus) Aeserninus Ampliatus, sevir Augustalis at Aesernia (no. 340); − L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens, Augustalis at Saepinum (no. 373); − M(arcus) Valerius col(onorum) l(ibertus) Verna, sexvir Aug(ustalis) et Tib(erialis) at Asculum (no. 385); − [-] Venerius col(onorum) l(ibertus) Felix, mag(ister) Aug(ustalis) at Hadria (no. 387); − C(aius) Publicius munic[ipum] Asisinatium libe[rtus] Verecundus, VIvir [Aug(ustalis)] at Asisium (no. 396); − Volsinius [V]ictorinus, [q(uin)]q(uennalis) coll(egii) fabr(um), Augustal[is], [ta] bul(arius) rei publ(icae) [V]olsiniens(ium) [i]t(em) Ferentiensium at Volsinii (no. 429); − C(aius) Concordius Brixil(lanorum) l(ibertus) Primus, V̅ I̅ vir Aug(ustalis) gr(atuitus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) at Concordia Brixillum (no. 431); − [-] Po˹bl˺icius Vẹ[leia]tium lib(ertus) Seṛ[- - -], II̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ Ivir at Veleia (no. 441); − M(arcus) Publicius Trid(entinorum) lib(ertus) Metrodorus, VIvir Aug(ustalis) at Tridentum (no. 493); − P(ublius) Poblicius m(unicipum) V(icetinorum) l(ibertus) Valens, IĪĪĪĪIvir at Vicetia (no. 506); − Sex(tus) Pu˹bl˺ic(ius) colon(iae) Aq[uens(is)] libertus Anten[or], IIIIIIvir Augustalis co[rp(oratus)] item [cor]porat(us) centonar(ius) at Aquae Sextiae (Gallia Narbonensis) (no. 544); − L(ucius) Publ(icius) Aper, lib(ertus) et tabul(arius) rei publ(icae), Augustalis gratuitus at Iulia Emona (Pannonia superior?) (no. 620); – M(arcus) Publicius Secundanus nautarum Mosallicor(um) libertus tabularius, IIIIIIvir, Augustalis (no. 751).

In some very exceptional cases, public slaves could also be part of the corpus of the Augustales. At Liternum, for instance, Felix col(onorum) ark(arius) (no. 200), Felixs col(onorum) ark(arius) (no. 201), Hermes col(onorum) ark(arius) (no. 202), Vitalis col(onorum) ark(arius) (no. 205), and Puteolanus Puteolanor(um) ser(vus) tabularius (no. 204) were the only servile members of the local Augustales. The *Augustales were undoubtedly linked to the worship of Augustus and other emperors.125 However, they did not manage the Imperial cult independently as official municipal priests, and they may also have performed other civic duties.126 The public freedmen who had been appointed *Augustales or *Claudiales must have had an active role in the public performances of the Imperial cult, alongside official priests, local magistrates and decurions.127 The honorary title *Augustalis was generally (though not exclusively) bestowed on the most prominent freedmen in Roman cities by the local 125 126 127

See Laird 2015, 7: “[t]heir public role […] inevitably involved them in the performance of religious rituals, some of which honored emperors and the Imperial family”. Duthoy 1978, 1293–1306; Fishwick 1991, 609–616; Mouritsen 2006, 240–242. Cf. also Mouritsen 2006, 241; Beard et al. 1998, 357–358.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

153

councillors.128 Only a few fortunate public freedmen, probably those who were more closely connected with local elites, could hope for this honour.129 4.4 Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration 4.4.1 The Management of Public Records In the Greco-Roman world, each city’s administration produced a large amount of public documents and records. These documents and records were kept in a place, usually a temple or a structure specifically built for that purpose, which served as a civic archive.130 Based on certain passages from the charters of Urso and Irni in Baetica, Rodríguez Neila compiled a useful list of the types of documents that may have been filed in a Roman city’s archive during the Empire. These records were normally written on whitewashed and waxed wooden tablets (tabulae dealbatae and ceratae), and occasionally on papyrus.131 These documents included: a) a copy of the public calendar; b) all the documents concerning legal activity; c) the census of the citizens; d) the proceedings of local assemblies; e) the lists of magistrates, decurions, local priests, attendants (apparitores) and public slaves (servi publici); f) a copy of the oaths taken by magistrates and scribes; g) a copy of the decrees issued by the local council (decreta decurionum) and by the Emperor; h) the list of all the public property; i) the town’s land register; and j) the receipts of all public transactions.132 Although the texts of colonial and municipal charters were commonly engraved on durable materials such as bronze, which guaranteed their preservation for public display, a copy of the charter written on tablets may also have been filed in the town’s archive.133 Private documents, such as birth certificates, wills, loans, and dowries, were generally kept in public archives of the cities in the Greek East. Scholars are unsure whether the same applied to the civic archives

128 129 130

131 132 133

Laird 2015; cf. also Abramenko 1993; Vandevoorde 2017. Cf. Easton 2019. See also Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.5. On Greek and Roman archives, see Lafaye 1919a, 17–19; Sachers – Weiss 1932, 1962–1969; Gross 1950; Posner 1972, 91–223; Culham 1989; Boffo 1995; Vössing 1996; Rhodes 2001a; Rhodes 2001b; Brélaz 2003; Fezzi 2003, 6–14; Moatti 2003; Faraguna 2005; Rodríguez Neila 2005; Faraguna 2006a; Faraguna 2006b. Rodríguez Neila 1991–92; cf. also Rodríguez Neila 2005, 23–61. On administrative documents in the Roman world, see also Eck 1998, 359–381. This documentation included contracts of public works, information on public services and the renting of public property, registers of fines, documentation outlining credit terms and detailing private donations. See also Gregori 1999b; Rodríguez Neila 2005, 95–132. Hassall 2003. On the public display of local charters, see Corbier 1987; Corbier 2005.

154

Serving the Cities

in the Roman West,134 or if private documents were only kept in public archives in exceptional circumstances.135 4.4.1.1 Public Archives in the Roman Cities The Latin term for the building where public records were kept was tabularium, derived from the wooden tabulae in which official texts were kept.136 As Claudia Moatti observed,137 identifying a tabularium is always challenging. Intact archaeological remains of civic archives only exist in few cities of the Empire, such as Pompeii, Carsulae, Virunum (Noricum), Verulamium (Britannia), Tiddis (Numidia), Sabratha and Segermes (Africa proconsularis).138 Nevertheless, we can assume that every self-governing Roman city in Italy and the provinces had a local archive. Literary and inscriptional evidence refers to tabularia in many other Roman cities, even where relevant archaeological evidence is not available. For instance, when discussing the Roman citizenship of his client Archias among the Roman citizens of Heraclea in Lucania, Cicero alludes to the presence of the record of the enrolment of Archias as a citizen of Heraclea in the local archive (tabularium), which had been burnt during the Social War in 90–89 BCE.139 Similarly, when the writer Apuleius was accused of marrying Pudentilla when the latter was sixty, he used her birth certificate, which was kept in the archive of Oea in Tripolitania, to demonstrate that she was thirty when she married him.140 The two Spanish charters from Urso and Irni also provide important inscriptional evidence: they mention tabulae, which are designated as either tabulae publicae or tabulae communes municipum eius municipii. This suggests that a local archive existed in both cities.141 Other passages from the lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae and the lex Irnitana indicate that the civic tabularium was managed by the highest magistrates, namely the duumvirs.142 Since the censors were in charge of public documents in Rome,143 we can infer that in other cities, administration of the public archive also fell to the highest mag134 135 136

Rodríguez Neila 1991–92, 148. Weiss 2004, 74. Lafaye 1919a, 14; Lafaye 1919b, 19; Sachers – Weiss 1932, cc. 1962–1963; Sachers 1932, c. 1970; Moatti 1993, 74; Hartmann 2020, 31–44. 137 Moatti 1993, 75. 138 Balty 1991, 151–161. Quite apart from the cases of Sabratha and Segermes, in all the other towns, the tabularium was located in the forum, next to the other main public buildings, such as the curia and the basilica. 139 Cic. Arch. 4.8. Cf. Fezzi 2003, 21–23. 140 Apul. Apol. 89. 141 Lex Urs. 81, 130–131, 134; lex Irn. 63, 66, 73. 142 References in Rodríguez Neila 1991–92, 155, and Rodríguez Neila 2005, 67. 143 Hartmann 2020, 81. Cf. also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.6.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

155

istrates – probably those who held the census every five years, i. e., the duumvirs or quattuorviri (hereafter called quinquennales). 4.4.1.2 Public Slaves and Freedmen as tabularii At Urso and Irni, some freeborn apparitores, such as scribae and librarii, assisted the highest magistrates in drawing up and keeping public records.144 This arrangement was probably followed in all colonies and municipia throughout the Empire. However, servi and liberti publici were also commonly employed in civic tabularia. A number of inscriptions indicate that, in the Greek East, public slaves were usually referred to as γραμματεῖς or λογογραφεῖς δημόσιοι, while in the western provinces they were called tabularii.145 The list of public slaves and freedmen employed as tabularii in the Roman West includes: − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Alexander colon(orum) tab(ularius), at Capua (no. 180); Calomallus Vas(iensium) tabul(arius), at Vasio (Gallia Narbonensis) (no. 555); Eracleo publicus tabularius, at Dion (Macedonia) (no. 583); Festus Veron(ensium) ser(vus) tab(ularius), at Verona (no. 496); Geminus a tabulario public(o), at Vienna (Gallia Narbonensis) (no. 556); Graecinus colon(iae) Aug(ustae) Firm(ae) ser(vus) tabul(arius), at Astigi (Baetica) (no. 517); C(aius) Interamnius Crescentio libert(us) et tabular(ius) r(ei) p(ublicae), at Interamna Lirenas (no. 195); Optatus col(onorum) adiutor [t]a[b]ul(arii) [of]ficii a r[ati]o[n(e)] lanae, at Beneventum (no. 307); Ost(iensis) Hermes tab(ularius), at Ostia (no. 258); L(ucius) Publ(icius) Aper, lib(ertus) et tabul(arius) rei publ(icae), at Iulia Emona (Pannonia superior) (no. 620); Puteolanus Puteolanor(um) ser(vus) tabularius, at Puteoli but attested at Liternum (no. 204); Volsinius [V]ictorinus, [q(uin)]q(uennalis) coll(egii) fabr(um), Augustal[is] [ta]bul(arius) rei publ(icae) [V]olsiniens(ium) [i]t(em) Ferentiensium, at Volsinii (no. 429); [- - -] col(oniae) Diensis tabularius, at Dion (Macedonia) (no. 584).

These instances of public slaves and freedmen employed as tabularii also attest to the presence of civic archives in the relevant cities. Other inscriptions seem to mention ad144 See lex Urs. 81; lex Irn. 73; cf. also Crawford 1996, 425; González – Crawford 1986, 172, 223. See also Paragraph 4.2.1.1 above. 145 Halkin 1897, 178–179; Sachers 1932, c. 1971; Lenski 2006, 340.

156

Serving the Cities

ditional public slaves or freedmen employed as tabularii, although the interpretations are not entirely certain and the statuses of the tabularii are not explicitly stated: − P(ublius) Ael(ius) Maximinus, t̂ab(ularius) c(ivitatis) {C} Er(aviscorum), at Aquincum (no. 723). − [[[- - -]isus]] tabularius, at Cirta (no. 722);146 − [- - -]s t̂âb̂(ularii) civ(itatis scil. servus)?, at Tyndaris (no. 726); − Anonymous tabularius civitatis, at Canusium (no. 661); − Anonymous libertus tabu[larius?], at Caesaraugusta (no. 727);

It is unclear whether all the cities employed scribae or librarii and servi or liberti publici at the same time. This may have depended on the size of the city; due to budgetary constraints, some small or medium-sized towns probably employed only public slaves and freedmen in the administration of their tabularia. This was likely the case for Volsinii and Ferentium during the Imperial period, as the above-listed Volsinius Victorinus (no. 429) was not only a tabularius in Volsinii, the city to which he belonged as a public slave, but also in the neighbouring town of Ferentium.147 Detailed information about the tasks of the scribae and librarii is provided in the charters of Urso and Irni. Scribae had to keep the accounts (scribere rationes) and – since they had to manage (tractare) documents in the public archive (tabulae publicae) – they had to swear an oath.148 These duties are confirmed by two authors, Cicero and Festus.149 The lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae also established that duumvirs could be accompanied by one librarius and two scribae.150 The librarii must have been of lower status than the scribae, as they did not have to swear an oath, and their salary was lower.151 Librarii were probably only given the task of transcribing the documents, while scribae were required to produce the originals, as Cicero seems to confirm in another passage.152 There is no similar evidence regarding the tasks of the public slaves and freedmen employed as tabularii. Like the librarii, they probably performed clerical duties, such

146 Cf. CIL VIII, p. 965: ‘enumerantur hominis, quem res publica Cirtensis liberavit, filius tabularius rei publicae eiusdem, coniux eius, filii, nepotes’; ILAlg II, 803 (Stephane Gsell): ‘monument funéraire élevé à Namphamo, ancien esclave public et affranchi de la république de Cirta, son fils, tabularius de la colonie, sa belle-fille et d’autres de ses enfants’. Namphamo’s son probably was a public slave. Contra Weiss 2004, 72 n. 166. 147 On the size of the two cities, see de Ligt 2012, 319–320. 148 See lex Urs. 81; lex Irn. 73; cf. also Crawford 1996, 425; González – Crawford 1986, 172, 223. On the scribae, see Muñiz Coello 1982; Badian 1989; Purcell 2001; David 2007; David 2019, 57–67, 223–246; Hartmann 2020. 149 Cic. Dom. 28.74; Festus, p. 333 (ed. Lindsay). 150 See lex Urs. 62; cf. Crawford 1996, 422. 151 At Urso, the librarii got 300 sesterces, whereas the salary of the scribae was 1200 sesterces: lex Urs. 72. Cf. also Hartmann 2020, 46–47. 152 Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.13.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

157

as transcribing and copying public records (lists of citizens, magistrates, decurions, and the inventory of public property and goods). Public slaves and freedmen employed as tabularii may have maintained financial accounts, which would have made them responsible for documents such as receipts of public transactions and revenue accounts.153 Their duties may have also included preparing tablets and other writing materials.154 Finally, at least some of them were likely entrusted with the task of simply guarding the civic archive and the documents inside it, similar to the public slaves employed in the tabularium at Rome in 169 BCE (no. 8).155 Certain epigraphic sources may shed light on the activities of the servi publici tabularii. However, interpreting these sources can be challenging. The first source is an inscription of unknown date from Beneventum, which mentions Optatus (no. 307), who had been an assistant (adiutor) to a tabularius officii a ration(e) lanae, whose name is not recorded in the inscription. Although the social status and name of this tabularius are unknown, we cannot rule out the possibility that he was a public slave (if not a public freedman), because he seems to have been in charge of maintaining the accounts of public revenues from the wool trade. The latter must have been organized as a public department (officium), which would have required a number of staff and even an adiutor.156 Likewise, the libertus tabu[larius] (no. 727) mentioned in the so-called lex rivi Hiberiensis – a fragmentary bronze tablet that recorded the text of an irrigation decree from Hadrian’s times and concerned the area of a district (pagus) near the Ebro river, in the civic territory of Caesaraugusta (Tarraconensis)157 – may also have been a former public slave employed as an accountant. The legal text on the tablet contains irrigation regulations, with details about the levies and labour irrigators had to provide. The libertus tabu[larius] is recorded in the fragmentary second column of the text. He had to keep the accounts and administer the community funds in the pagus. Although the status of this tabularius is unknown (it may have been unspecified or simply lost in the gap), it would not be surprising if he were a public freedman of Caesaraugusta, who looked after the city’s affairs on a pagus within the city’s territory. A very similar duty must also have been performed by the tabularius civitatis (no.  661) recorded in an inscription on a bronze tablet dating to between 321 and 375 CE and originating from the territory of Canusium. This tablet contains a constitution of Valentinian I that regulated the tax collection process in that region’s pagi.158 The 153 154 155 156 157 158

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 178–183; Lafaye 1919b, 9; France 2000, 195; Cristofori 2004, 278–282; Weiss 2004, 70–84; Rodríguez Neila 2005, 71; Lenski 2006, 340. Rodríguez Neila 1997, 225. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.6. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 77. Beltrán Lloris 2006 (= AE 2006, 676, with French translation by P. Le Roux); cf. also Nörr 2008; Crawford – Beltrán Lloris 2013; Tarpin 2014. Giardina – Grelle 1983 (= AE 1984, 250) = Ruggeri 2003 (= AE 2003, 359).

158

Serving the Cities

tabularius civitatis was required to gather all the information about the tax collection in the pagi within the city’s territory, based on monthly reports compiled by the praepositi pagorum and other officials employed to monitor the horrea publica. Afterwards, the praepositi pagorum had to forward a written revenue account to the governor of the province.159 By establishing the intermediary role of the praepositi pagorum between the possessores and the tabularius civitatis, the law aimed to prevent any abuse that the tabularius civitatis could commit against landowners in the pagus.160 The inscription from Canusium mentions the tasks of the tabularius civitatis, but also insinuates that he may have taken advantage of his position to forge public documents. That tabularii had many opportunities to forge public documents is also suggested by Pliny the Younger in several letters to Trajan regarding the dreadful conditions of civic archives in Bithynia; Pliny implies that civic archives were often manipulated to promote private interests.161 Although the social status of the tabularius civitatis mentioned in the legal text from Canusium is unknown, he may have been a servus or a libertus publicus. However, he may also have been a private slave or freedman. Private citizens often brought their own slaves or freedmen to public archives to look after their affairs, especially during the late Empire.162 It was probably for this reason that, in 401 CE, the emperors Arcadius and Honorius ordered that only free men could be employed as tabularii. This prevented anyone subject to servitude from being an archivist.163 This rescript referred to both public and private slaves, and contemplated severe penalties for masters who allowed their slaves to access a public archive. Thus, while public slaves were still employed as tabularii in a few cities at the end of the fourth century CE, this practice should have become less and less common from the fifth century CE onwards, as it was strictly forbidden.164 Halkin argued that this was probably the final step of a process that began under Diocletian: the available sources suggest that, beginning in the late third century CE, public and private slaves were gradually substituted by free men, whether ingenui or liberti.165 A rescript issued in 293 CE by the emperors Diocletian or Maximian established that a public freedman who continued to be employed as a tabularius after manumission could not lose his freedom, and that his son would have the opportunity to become a decurion.166 We can therefore infer that, by the end of the third century CE, public slaves were still employed as tabularii and could continue to do this type of 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Giardina – Grelle 1983, 262. Giardina – Grelle 1983, 296. Plin. Ep. 10.65.3. Cf. also Plin. Ep. 10.31.4. Halkin 1897, 179. Cod. Theod. 8.2.5 = Cod. Iust. 10.69.3 (401 CE, April 24th). Cf. also Lenski 2006, 341 with n. 32. Halkin 1897, 179. Cod. Iust. 7.9.3 (290 or 293 CE, April 17th). Cf. also Lenski 2006, 341 n. 29, who, on the basis of Corcoran 20002, 79, integrated the text with Cod. Iust. 6.8.1 and attributed it to Maximian.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

159

work after manumission.167 Weiss suggested that the replacement of public slaves with public freedmen in civic archives may have started earlier, between the late first and early second centuries CE, based on inscriptions from that period that mention liberti publici tabularii.168 However, Weiss’ argument does not consider the possibility that many – if not all – of the public freedmen attested as tabularii were in fact public slaves who had continued in this line of work after their manumission. The rescript from Diocletian or Maximian, would not have been necessary were it not for this possibility. After all, most of the sources that mention tabularii who were public freedmen are funerary inscriptions, which attest to the status of these individuals at the time of their death. From this evidence, one can rather infer that public slaves employed as tabularii had more opportunities to be manumitted than public slaves in other lines of works.169 4.4.1.3 Producing and Protecting Public Records As we have seen, during the first three centuries of the Empire, public slaves and freedmen were commonly employed as tabularii in colonies and municipia in both the Greek East and the Roman West. Many of the public freedmen attested as tabularii were probably former public slaves who continued to perform the same duties after being manumitted. By the late third and early fourth centuries CE, public slaves were still employed as tabularii, but they began to be gradually replaced by freeborn individuals. This continued until the beginning of the fifth century CE, when slaves of any kind were forbidden from being tabularii. Public slaves and freedmen employed as tabularii were in charge not only of guarding public records and the buildings in which they were kept, but also of physically transcribing documents and keeping accounts. Possibly because of the complexity and variety of their tasks, tabularii needed to be skilled individuals who could work in close contact with local magistrates. As a result, tabularii generally enjoyed better social conditions, and had had more opportunities to obtain freedom, and consort with local elites, relatively to other slaves. 4.4.2 The Management of the Public Finance In Roman towns, supervision of the public treasury and the financial accounts fell to the highest magistrates. All financial business was submitted to the local councillors (decuriones), who examined each matter and provided their opinion on it, whether 167 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 179; Lenski 2006, 341. 168 Weiss 2004, 77–78. 169 See also Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.6.

160

Serving the Cities

positive or negative. In many towns, specific magistrates  – called quaestores  – were elected on a yearly basis to supervise local finances.170 Quaestores had power to collect, spend, keep, administer and monitor the public funds of the towns, as made clear by Chapter 20 of the lex Irnitana.171 Chapter 20 also established that the quaestors could be attended by public slaves, who did not have the right to wear the limus/-m.172. An arrangement similar to that of Irni probably occurred in other cities too. As we will see in the next few paragraphs, a large amount of inscriptional evidence from various towns of the Empire attests to public slaves who performed financial duties. These public slaves may have been attached as servants to the quaestors for this purpose.173 Some of the public slaves with financial duties, though, may have been under the supervision of the highest magistrates who oversaw the financial sector, such as the duoviri or quattuorviri iure dicundo, or other officials constituted ad hoc like the curatores aerarii.174 Public slaves or freedmen employed within the financial administration had various titles, such as arcarius, dispensator, actor and vilicus aerarii or vilicus summarum or vilicus ‘nude dictus’. The titles seem to have corresponded to specific tasks.175 As we will see in greater detail in the next paragraphs, public slaves employed as arcarii and dispensatores may have performed similar duties, whereas the activities of a servus publicus actor were more specific. Vilici aerarii or summarum or ‘nude dicti’ were probably employed in the largest cities to supervise and coordinate all public slaves with financial duties. 4.4.2.1 Public Slaves and Freedmen as arcarii In the Roman West, at least 37 public slaves and one public freedman employed as arcarii are attested by inscriptions from both the Italian peninsula and the provinces: − Albanus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) A(eliae) A(ugustae) A(eclani) s(ervus) ark(arius), at Aeclanum (no. 299); − Apronianus rei p(ublicae) ark(arius), at Aequiculum (no. 337);

170 171 172 173 174 175

For an epigraphic catalogue of all the civic quaestors, see Petraccia Lucernoni 1988. Lex Irn. 20; cf. González – Crawford 1986, 153, 182. See also Paragraph 4.2.2. However, Weiss 2004, 39 suggested that the public slaves assigned to the quaestors under the provisions of Chapter 20 of the lex Irnitana were employed as personal servants of such magistrates rather than as assistants with financial tasks. Buonopane – Zaccaria 2017, 200–201; Mennella – Pettirossi 2017, 178–179. Cf. also Fuchs 1895, 632; Halkin 1897, 183 (with caution); Aubert 1994, 190–192; Andreau 2001, 126; Cristofori 2004, 142–147; Silvestrini 2005, 543–544; Sudi-Guiral 2008, 414. Contra Weiss 2004, 48, who argued that the titles of arcarius, vilicus aerarii and dispensator were used to designate the same function. On private actores, dispensatores and vilici, see Schumacher 2010.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

161

− Asclepiades rei p(ublicae) L(aurentium) L(avinatium) servus arkarius, at Lavinium (no. 197);176 − Crescen[s] publ(icus) arca[rius], at Brundisium (no. 309); − Dexter col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ser(vus) ark(arius), at Beneventum (no. 304); − Dion[y]s[i]us ark(arius), at Ostia (no. 219); − Epitynchan(us) m(unicipum) M(ediolanensium) ser(vus) vi[l]ic(us) ark(arius), at Mediolanum (no. 509); − Epitynchanus Telesinorum ser(vus) ark(arius), at Telesia (no. 377); − Eunus col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ark(arius), at Beneventum (no. 305); − Evaristus ark(arius), at Ostia (no. 225); − Felix ark(arius) rei p(ublicae) Neapolitanorum, at Neapolis (no. 211); − Felix col(onorum) ark(arius), at Liternum (no. 200); − Felixs col(onorum) ark(arius), at Liternum (no. 201); − Fortunatus rei [publ(icae)] arkarius, at Aequiculum (no. 338); − Gratinus rei p(ublicae) civ(itatis) Vang(ionum) servus arcarius, at civitas Vangionum (no. 569); − Hermes col(onorum) ark(arius), at Liternum (no. 202); − Liberalis col(onorum) col(oniae) Sip(onti) ser(vus) arkar(ius) qui et ante egit rationem alimentariam sub cura praefector(um), at Sipontum (no. 326); − Lupulus col(oniae) Capuae arcar(ius), at Capua (no. 184); − Montanus populi Antinatium Ma[r]sor(um) ser(vus) arcarius, at Antinum (no. 347); − Niceros colonorum coloniae Puteolanae servus arcarius, at Puteoli (no. 287); − Noricus col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ark(arius), at Beneventum (no. 306); − Nymphicus Volc(eianorum) ark(arius), at Volcei (no. 334); − Olympus Laurentium Lavinatium arcarius, at Lavinium (no. 198); − Parthenius arcarius rei publicae Lavicanorum Quintanensium, at Labici (no. 196); − Primigenius r(ei) p(ublicae) Aricinorum ser(vus) arc(arius), at Aricia (no. 172); − Primus col(oniae) arcarius, at Paestum (no. 331); − Primus publicus Tusculanorum arcarius, at Tusculum (no. 292); − Privatus arc(arius) Cretae, at Capua (no. 185); − Qenarus (sic) publ(icus) arcarius thermarum, at Brundisium (no. 313); − Quartio Brix(ianorum scil. servus) vilic(us) a[rk]ar(ius), at Brixia (no. 473); − Restitu(tus) r(ei) p(ublicae) B(ovillensium) ar[carius], at Bovillae (no. 173); − Secundus ark(arius) rei p(ublicae) Amerinor(um), at Ameria (no. 394);

176

The attestation of this arcarius of the townsfolk of Lavinium seems to confirm that Olympus Laurentium Lavinatium arcarius (no. 198) can also be considered as a public slave of the res publica of Lavinium: cf. also Halkin 1897, 233; Nonnis 1995–96, 259 n. 63; Luciani 2019c, 294 n. a. Contra Weiss 2004, 40, 136 n. 428, 246, who mistakenly interpreted him as a public slave attached to the priesthood of the Laurentes Lavinates.

162

Serving the Cities

− Syntrophus (sic), who was a collega of Olympus Laurentium Lavinatium arcarius at Lavinium (no. 199); − Veientius Ianuarius lib(ertus) ark(arius), at Veii (no. 423); − Vitalis col(onorum) ark(arius), at Liternum (no. 205); − [- - -]us col(onorum) ark(arius), at Casinum (no. 189); − [- - -]nus rei p(ublicae) Tervent(inorum) ser(vus) ark(arius), at Terventum (no. 379).

The term arcarius, also known by the variant arkarius,177 derives from the word arca,178 which means “chest for keeping money in, coffer, and financial resources, treasury in a wider sense”.179 Jean Andreau referred to a private arcarius as a slave cashier who kept his master’s arca, which suggests that this slave also acted as a coin essayer and a money exchanger.180 Private arcarii likely collected sums and lent money.181 A servus publicus employed as an arcarius may have performed similar duties: he was probably in charge of the civic treasury under the supervision of the competent magistrate.182 A good translation in English of the term arcarius might be public “treasurer” or “financial clerk”. The fact that the names of three public slaves with the title of arcarii  – Dexter col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ser(vus) ark(arius) (no.  304), Eunus col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ark(arius) (no.  305) and Albanus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) A(eliae) A(ugustae) A(eclani) s(ervus) ark(arius) (no.  299)  – occur in three rectangular bronze stamps (signacula) from Imperial times (two from Beneventum and one from Aeclanum),183 may shed some light on their duties. It has been suggested that rectangular signacula with individuals’ names on their surfaces may have been used as wax seals not only to sign documents written on papyrus, but also to guarantee the content of a document or a container and prevent illegal openings or fraud.184 The servi publici arcarii may have been entrusted with the task to affix seals to certain public financial accounts in order to certify their authenticity, and/or to seal the public arca, where the public treasury was kept, after a transaction occurred. Anthony Birley put forward a fascinating hypothesis about the inscription TERTVLL̂ I PROVINC found on a bronze seal at Cramond on the Firth of Forth, a Roman fort on the Antonine Wall. Birley argued that the text on the seal may have meant Tertullus provinc(iae scil. servus) (no. 732), which would have referred to a slave of the province TLL II, s. v. arcarius, col. 438.46. TLL II, s. v. arca, col. 431.38. OLD, 1968, s. v. arca, 161. Andreau 2001, 126. See, e. g., Dig. 40.5.41.17 (Scaev. 4 resp.). Silvestrini 2005, 548. A fourth public slave mentioned on a bronze seal may be Herculan(us) Tel(esinorum)? ark(arius) (no. 670), although the reading is uncertain; cf. Di Stefano Manzella 2014, 56. 184 Di Stefano Manzella 2011, 362–364; Wallace-Hadrill 2016, 8; Lazzarini 2014, 89. 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

163

entrusted by the governor to certificate some public goods.185 In light of the abovementioned seals from Beneventum and Aeclanum, it is possible that, as a provinc(iae scil. servus), Tertullus (no. 732) may have had some kind of financial function similar to that of other public slaves employed as arcarii – for instance, supervising the allocation of money or rations to the army. This type of task may have required the use of a stamp of warranty on documents or goods. If this interpretation is correct, not only might the bronze seal from Cramond attest to the existence of a slave of the province of Britannia and shed light on possible functions of the provinciae servi,186 but it might also provide evidence about the operations of the concilium Britanniae along the northern boundaries of the province (i. e., the northern frontier of the Empire) in the mid second century CE. 4.4.2.2 Public Slaves Attached as arcarii to Specific Cash Departments An inscription from Capua provides further evidence about the duties of public arcarii in Roman towns, although it concerns a very specific case. The inscription is on the funerary opistographic marble slab of a public slave of the colony, Alexander, who was employed as a tabularius (no. 180) in the early second century CE.187 His epitaph records that he was the son of Privatus, who had been an arcarius Cretae (no. 185). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of his father’s name, the latter too was also most likely a public slave: he was in charge of a special financial office in Capua, which was created specifically to collect all the land revenue from the island of Crete.188 In 36 BCE, Octavian granted the city of Capua a considerable amount of land within the territory of Knossos, which was added to the Capuan civic territory. This land concession was a form of compensation for the portions of the ager Campanus that were allocated to Octavian’s veterans after the civil war.189 The land Octavian gave to Capua consisted of plots of land around Knossos that had not been allocated to anyone, and became public land that Capua granted to private individuals in return for a lease (agri vectigales).190 The collection of the revenue from those land concessions fell within the jurisdiction of the city of Capua. Since the subsequent profits were considerably high  – up to

Birley 1979, 145; Birley 2005, 12. Contra RIB II.1, 2409.35: Tertulli Provinc(ialis). The author of the entry in 1851, Daniel Wilson has indeed suggested that the Cramond seal would attest to a slave – allegedly called Provinc(ialis) – of the prefect (L. Minthonius) Tertullus, who is attested as a commander of the cohort V Gallorum at Cramond. 186 On the slaves of the provinces, see Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.8. 187 On the public slaves employed as tabularii, see Paragraph 4.4.1.2. 188 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 233; Weiss 2004, 194 no. 5. 189 See Vell. Pat. 2.81.2; Cass. Dio 49.14.5. 190 On the entire issue, see Biundo 2003. 185

164

Serving the Cities

1,200,000 sesterces according to Velleius191 – it became necessary for Capua to organize a specific office and recruit public slaves for assistance.192 It is unclear whether those public slaves performed their duties at Capua or on the island of Crete. At any rate, this land seems to have remained the property of Capua for centuries, until the third or even the fourth century CE.193 The above-mentioned epitaph of Alexander colon(orum) tab(ularius) in Capua (no. 180) and his father Privatus, public arcarius Cretae (no. 185), which date to the early second century CE, attest to the existence of a cash department in Capua more than a century after Octavian’s granting of land. Leaving aside the specificity of this case, we can infer that, in other cities too, public slaves employed as arcarii probably managed the revenue from the land concessions. Another public slave attached as an arcarius to a specific cash department was Qenarus (sic), who held the title of arcarius thermarum at Brundisium (no. 313). He was likely in charge of the treasury of the public baths.194 The main source of revenue was likely the admission fee paid by users for access to the thermae publicae, which may have been considerable.195 Due to the high costs of running public baths, in various towns, especially during the second century CE, many private individuals donated money for the restoration and embellishment of the thermae publicae, or for the distribution of free oil to the people, as acts of euergetism.196 In a city like Brundisium, such monetary donations, along with the daily proceeds, were probably kept in a cash department specifically instituted for that purpose (arca thermarum). Therefore, the public slave employed as an arcarius thermarum at Brundisium may not only have performed the duties of a mere cashier at the entrance of the baths (capturarius), but he may also – perhaps even primarily – have been employed as a manager of the money kept in the arca thermarum.197 That the task of the overall financial management of the public baths of a city was assigned to a public slave is not surprising. An inscription from Patavium attests to a familia thermensis thermarum urbanarum, i. e., a household of public slaves who were in charge (practically and financially) of the public baths of the entire city (no. 483).198 An inscription from Sipontum provides information about another important financial sector of the city, in which public slaves could be employed as arcarii. Before being an arkarius of the city, Liberalis col(onorum) col(oniae) Sip(onti) ser(vus)

191 192 193 194 195

Vell. Pat. 2.81.2. Cf. also Biundo 2003, 139; Weiss 2004, 46–47. Biundo 2003, 136. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 47–48; Grelle et al. 2017, 168. Fagan 1999, 231. On the hypothesis that tickets to the public baths were available at popular prices, see, e. g., Nielsen 1990, 124. 196 Cf. Fagan 1999, 173–175, 233–316. 197 Cf. also Fagan 1999, 321; Weiss 2004, 47–48. On the contrary, Michael Wisseman considered the arcarius thermarum from Brundisium (no. 313) as a capturarius: Wisseman 1984, 84. 198 See Paragraph 4.5.4.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

165

arkar(ius) (no. 326) was probably in charge of the ratio alimentaria under the supervision of some praefects; this is suggested by the expression recorded in his epitaph: ante egit rationem alimentariam sub cura praefector(um). The ratio alimentaria was a special department created in the early second century CE within the alimenta, the welfare scheme instituted by Nerva (and promoted by Trajan) to provide cities with subsistence payments to support children in small inland towns throughout the Italian peninsula.199 As stated in the inscription, Liberalis performed his duties under the supervision of certain praefects. The latter can be identified as the praefecti alimentorum, i. e., the officials of senatorial rank responsible for providing financial support to children in areas involved in the alimenta programme.200 The inscription from Sipontum suggests that two other public slaves, Oriens aliment(arius) Saepinati(um scil. servus) (no. 370) and Verecundus Urv(inatium) vil(icus) ab alim(entis) (no. 413), were attached to similar cash departments connected to the alimenta in the regions of Saepinum and Urvinum Mataurense respectively.201 Furthermore, if Restutus (no. 666) – who is mentioned as an actor ali(mentorum) with no reference to his status in a late second or early third century CE inscription from Auximum – was also a public slave, he can be added to this list. 4.4.2.3 Public Slaves and Freedmen as dispensatores Seven inscriptions provide evidence of public slaves and freedmen employed as dispensatores in the Roman West: Athenio dispensator publicus, at Santacris? (no. 634); Eucharistus publ(icus scil. servus) disp(ensator) pec(uniae), at Parma (no. 433); Hermes Terg(estinorum scil. servus) dis[p(ensator)], at Tergeste (no. 490); Ianuarius [c]ol(oniae) di[sp(ensator)], at Asculum (no. 383); (scil. Pollentius) col(onorum) Pol(ensium) lib(ertus) Valerianus summarum dispensat(or), at Pola (no. 486); − Rufus col(oniae) disp(ensator) arc(a)e summar(um), at Asculum (no. 384); − Speratus Bals(ensium) dis(pensator), at Balsa (no. 574). − − − − −

By providing some information about the etymology of the term dispensatores in his summary of the treatise On the Meaning of the Words written by Verrius Flaccus in the early first century CE, the second century CE grammarian Festus explains that individuals with the title dispensatores acted as payers:

199 On the alimenta, see Cao 2010. 200 Eck 1999, 169–176. 201 Cf. also Cristofori 2004, 185–188; Weiss 2004, 92–98.

166

Serving the Cities

Dispensatores dicti, quia aes pensantes expendebant, non adnumerabant. “They are called dispensatores as they weighed the money they paid out instead of counting it”.202

In his Institutes, the second century CE jurist Gaius describes the duties of slaves with the title dispensatores in very similar terms: Tunc igitur et qui dabat alicui pecuniam, non numerabat eam, sed appendebat; servi, quibus permittitur administratio pecuniae, dispensatores appellati sunt. “A person paying money would not count it but weigh it. This is why slaves who are permitted the administration of money are called in Latin ‘dispensatores’, that is, weighers-out”.203

One other source from the second century CE confirms this interpretation: a passage from the libri ex Plautio written by the jurist Pomponius, and excerpted in the Digest of Justinian. The duties of the dispensator are described by the expressions rationes tractare or ordinare, i. e., “to handle or present the accounts”, and reliquum reddere, “to pay any balance due”.204 Besides being in charge of their master’s money, dispensatores also dealt with financial transactions,205 specifically with purchases. When paying money out, dispensatores were likely required to manage the relevant receipts. Andreau suggested that private dispensatores made payments on their owners’ behalves, in addition to keeping the accounts.206 Analogously, public dispensatores may have been in charge of making the payments required by the various expenditure items in the city budget.207 Public slaves and freedmen employed as dispensatores probably dealt with the outlay of sums of money, as the frequent presence of expressions like pecuniae, summarum and arcae summarum beside their titles seems to suggest. 4.4.2.4 Public Slaves and Freedmen as actores Other public slaves who were entrusted with specific financial tasks held the title of actores. Extant sources attest to 13 public slaves who were actores:

202 203 204 205 206 207

Festus, p. 72 (ed. Lindsay); my translation. Gai. Inst. 1.122; translation by Gordon – Robinson 1988, 83. Dig. 40.7.21pr. (Pomp. 7 ex Plaut.). Carlsen 1992, 97–98 = Carlsen 2013, 193–194. Andreau 2001, 126. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 186, who defined the dispensator as a “caissier-payeur.” On this and in general the dispensatores, see Muñiz Coello 1989b.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

− − − − − − −

− − − − − −

167

Charito Neviod(unensium) (scil. sevus actor) summ(arum), at Neviodunum (no. 621); Diogenes ser(vus) act(or) r[ei publ(icae)] Calenorum, at Cales (no. 176); Ianuarius r(ei) p(ublicae) c(oloniae) His(pellatium) a(ctor?), at Hispellum (no. 402); Marcus act(or) rei p(ublicae) Venafr(anorum), at Venafrum (no. 293); Primitivus r(ei) p(ublicae) ser(vus) act(or), at Volsinii (no. 427); Privatus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervus), at Pompeii (no. 283); Secundus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vus), at Pompeii (no. 284): he may have been manumitted and possibly became M(arcus) Venerius Sec[undus?] (no. 285); Steph[anus]? m(unicipum) Aq(uileiensium) actor summ(arum), at Aquileia (no. 459); Teucer Iunior rei p(ublicae) ser(vus) act(or) Tip(asentium), at Tipasa (no. 597); Trophimus m(unicipum) C(omensium) act(or), at Comum (no. 508); [- - -]si[s] Solv(ensium scil. servus actor) summ(arum), at Flavia Solva (no. 610); [- - -] act(or) ser(vus) pu[b(licus)], at Cures Sabini (no. 358); Anonymous actor publicus, at Comum (no. 692).

Most of their titles simply consisted of the term actor. In the case of Steph[anus]? m(unicipum) Aq(uileiensium) actor summ(arum) from Aquileia (no.  459), actor is combined with the term summarum, as was already noted for two dispensatores, one at Asculum (no. 303) and the other at Pola (no. 486), and will also be noted for a vilicus at Aquileia (no. 448).208 For this reason, we may also identify Charito (no. 621), a public slave from Neviodunum, and [- - -]si[s] (no. 610), a public slave from Flavia Solva, who only held the title of summarum, as actores. The servi publici actores supervised financial transactions between the city and private individuals. They acted as agents of their city, and looked after public interests.209 As representatives of the city, they were legally allowed to collect sums that private individuals owed to the city, in return for such things as public land concessions, outstanding debts, or the purchase of goods from private individuals.210 Similar tasks were also carried out by both Imperial and private servi actores who acted as representatives of their masters in financial transactions.211 A rescript of Severus Alexander addressed to the quattuorviri of Fabrateria, and included in the Justinian Code, sheds some light on the tasks of the servi publici actores.212 The public slave acting as an actor for Fabrateria was required to give the city’s debtors 208 The same title, i. e., actor summarum, is used by Suetonius in the Life of Domitian to designate the steward, presumably an Imperial slave, whom the emperor Domitian decided to crucify: Suet. Dom. 11.1. 209 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 155; Cristofori 2004, 185–187; Weiss 2004, 59–69; Bricchi 2006b, 366, n. 84; Sudi-Guiral 2008, 409; Aubert 2021. 210 Weiss 2004, 63–64, 69; Bricchi 2006b, 367. 211 Aubert 1994, 186–187; Andreau 2001, 127. 212 Cod. Iust. 11.40.

168

Serving the Cities

receipts (cautiones) that showed the amount they had paid to the public treasury. To have legal effect, these cautiones needed to be approved and countersigned by certain officials, called curatores (perhaps aerarii?). In the event of a money shortage that was not due to an insolvent debtor, the public slave who managed the collection of outstanding debt as an actor could be held liable, and the requisite amount would be taken from his peculium.213 The assortment of wax tablets found in the summer of 1875 in Pompeii inside the house of the banker L(ucius) Caecilius Iucundus provide another – and arguably the finest – example of the receipts given by the actores to the debtors. All these wax tablets acknowledge payments made by one L(ucius) Caecilius Iucundus to the city of Pompeii between 53 and 62 CE.214 Specifically, they record the payment of four different vectigalia publica: a) the rent of an estate, called fundus Audianus; b) the rent of a fuller’s workshop (fullonica); c) a tax on public pasture (ob vectigal publicum pasquorum); and d) a tax related to a market (mancipis mercatuum). Each receipt consisted of three sealed tablets whose textual structures were quite standardized.215 On the recto of the first tablet, which served as a front cover, the term chirographum, i. e., “handwritten document”, is followed by the name of the public slave of Pompeii (Secundus in 53 CE, and Privatus from 55 to 62 CE; see nos. 283–284) in the genitive, along with the total money received and the reason for the payment, such as a rent or a tax. On the recto and the verso of the second tablet (i. e., the tablet containing the two internal pages of the document), the date is expressed by the names of the two duumvirs in charge, along with the day and the month. The date is then followed by the name of the public slave in the nominative, combined with the phrase scripsi me accepisse ab L(ucio) Caecilio Iucundo, the sum received, the reason for the payment, and the consular date. The public slave writing the receipt delineated his tasks, such as collecting money (me accepisse) and drawing up the receipt (scripsi). On the verso of the last tablet, which served as a back cover, the name of the slave appears again, along with the same formula used on the second tablet (scripsi me accepisse) or, alternatively, the names of the two duumvirs in charge and of certain witnesses. These witnesses were magistrates, namely aediles, and in one case a possible public freedman named M(arcus) Venerius Sec[undio vel undus] (no. 285), who may be identified with the aedituus Veneris and Augustalis et min(ister) eorum M(arcus) Venerius coloniae lib(ertus) Secundio (no. 284a), or with the public slave Secundus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vus) (no. 284) mentioned on a tablet from 53 CE, in the event that the latter had been manumitted. An apparitor, possibly a scribe, and other difficult-to-identify individuals were also present.216 Although the tablets do not 213 214 215 216

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 155–156; Weiss 2004, 62; Sudi-Guiral 2008, 412. Cf. CIL IV, 3340, cxxxviii–cliii; cf. Andreau 1974. See Cooley 2012, 73–75. Cf. Andreau 2003, 242–243.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

169

expressly state this, the two public slaves who received the money and drew up the receipts, Privatus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervus) (no. 283) and Secundus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vus) (no. 284), can be considered actores.217 Another source can be compared to the receipts from Pompeii: a letter from Pliny the Younger to Caninius, an individual from Comum.218 Caninius had consulted his friend and fellow citizen Pliny in the early second century CE about the best way to safeguard the money he wanted to give to the citizens of Comum for an annual feast after his death. Pliny suggested that Caninius act as he (Pliny) had done after he promised to pay 500,000 sesterces to rear of freeborn boys and girls: instead of giving the sum directly to the city, Pliny decided to sell some land from his estates to the city of Comum, which were worth considerably more. He then bought back the land charged with a public rental (vectigal) of 30,000 sesterces to be paid to the city every year. In this way, Pliny protected the fund from the neglect that land under the city’s control was likely to suffer. He was sure to always find someone who would work the land and pay the vectigal, as the value of the land’s produce greatly exceeded the rental price. The city would always have the right to 30,000 sesterces of the annual income, whose interest could be used to rear of freeborn boys and girls.219 The city of Comum was represented by an actor publicus (no. 692) during all of these transactions. Besides providing important insights into the economy of a medium-sized Italian city in the early second century CE,220 Pliny’s account also attests to a formal transfer of ownership (mancipatio) from a private citizen to the municipality, by means of an actor publicus acting as a representative of the town. Pliny does not provide any information about the status of the actor, but it is widely accepted that he may have been a public slave.221 A first century CE inscription from Comum attests to the existence of a public slave in that city with the title actor: Trophimus, m(unicipum) C(omensium) act(or) (no. 508). Restutus (no. 666), who is attested as an actor ali(mentorum) at Auximum between the late second and the early third centuries CE, may have performed similar duties to those of the anonymous actor at Comum recorded by Pliny. Restutus’ status is not explicitly stated in the inscription, but he may have been a public slave.222 Analogously, Fronto (no. 715), who is mentioned as an actor huius loci in his epitaph from Cularo (Gallia Narbonensis), may have been a local public slave employed as an actor. 217 218 219

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 156–157; Weiss 2004, 63; Sudi-Guiral 2008, 410–412. Plin. Ep. 7.18. Cf. Duncan-Jones 1964, 129–130. Rich useful bibliography is in Magioncalda 1999, 186, who suggested a slightly different – albeit unsatisfactory – interpretation (hence Cao 2010, 177–178). 220 On the size of Comum, see de Ligt 2012, 295. 221 See Halkin 1897, 159, n. 4; Weiss 2004, 61, 97; Bricchi 2006b, 369–370; Sudi-Guiral 2008, 409. Contra Eder 1980, 79–80; Carlsen 1995, 129. 222 Cf. also Cristofori 2004, 189.

170

Serving the Cities

It is worth noting that some freeborn actores also existed in Roman towns. Their duties, however, were completely different from those of the public slaves in charge as actores.223 The freeborn actores also acted as representatives of the city, but only during trials that involved the local community as a whole. For this reason, freeborn actores were chosen from among the decuriones of the town and their duties were limited to the duration of the trials. 4.4.2.5 Public Slaves and Freedmen as vilici aerarii or summarum or nude dicti The term vilicus is listed next to the titles of two above-mentioned arcarii, Quartio Brix(ianorum scil. servus) vilic(us) a[rk]ar(ius) from Brixia (no. 473) and Epitynchan(us) m(unicipum) M(ediolanensium) ser(vus) vi[l]ic(us) ark(arius) from Mediolanum (no. 509), as well as in the title of the above-mentioned vil(icus) ab alim(entis) held by Verecundus Urv(inatium) (no. 413). Other epigraphic sources also mention public slaves with the titles vilici aerarii or summarum: − C(aius) Aquileiens(is) Felix vilic(us) summarum, at Aquileia (no. 448); − Virilis m(unicipum) A(ltinatium) s(ervus) vilic(us) aer(arii), at Altinum (no. 443); − Anonymous villicus (sic) aerarii, at Patavium (no. 482).

The explicit reference to the aerarium in the inscriptions from Patavium and Altinum suggests that the two relevant public slaves were responsible for managing the civic treasury.224 The same seems to apply to the vilic(us) summarum from Aquileia, who bore a name derived from the city and was most likely a public freedman. As previously mentioned, the term summa, which means “sum” or “amount of money”, could also refer to the financial administration. When combined with titles like dispensator, actor and vilicus, the term summa designated officials who were assigned to tax collection and its administration.225 The term vilicus, in particular, defined a number of individuals – often Imperial or public slaves or freedmen – who held managerial roles in many different sectors, and thus had subordinate personnel at their service.226 In some large towns, such as Aquileia, Altinum, Patavium, Brixia and Mediolanum, the administration of the public treasury may have required a more structured organization that envisaged some servi and liberti publici employed as financial managers (vilici arcarii, aerarii and summarum). These individuals probably oversaw other subordi-

223

De Ruggiero 1895a, 69; Halkin 1897, 159–160; Weiss 2004, 67–69; Bricchi 2006b, 357, 372–376; Sudi-Guiral 2008, 406. 224 Cf. TLL I, s. v. aerarium, coll. 1058–1059. 225 See Carlsen 1995, 46, 127. 226 On the vilici see Aubert 1993, 173; Aubert 1994, 123–175; Carlsen 1995; Ionel 2001, 185–191.

Public Slaves and Freedmen in the Civic Administration

171

nate personnel, who were presumably also public slaves.227 A similar situation may have applied to Daphnus col(oniae) Sav(ariae) (no. 622), who set up an altar to the Genius candidatorum and Venus Victrix at Savaria in the Severian age. His job title, vil(icus) kal(endarii) Septimiani, suggests that he was a financial manager in charge of the account-book of a special fund offered to the colony of Savaria by Septimius Severus.228 In smaller cities, however, some public slaves employed as arcarii were probably able to deal with different financial tasks by themselves.229 Six more inscriptions – one from a small town in Central Italy (Tifernum Mataurense), two medium-sized towns in Northern Italy (Comum and Vercellae), and two from large centres (Ostia, Brundisium and Brixia) – mention other servi publici vilici ‘nude dicti’, or without further specification:230 − − − − − −

Bucolus m(unicipum) C(omensium) ser(vus) vi[l(icus)], at Comum (no. 507); Cosmus Brixianor(um scil. servus) vilic(us), at Brixia (no. 468); Dativus vilicus (no. 218), at Ostia: he was a member of the familia publica (no. 280); Maxim(us) publicus vil(icus) Br(undisinorum), at Brundisium (no. 312); Zosimus m(unicipum) V(ercellensium) vilicus, at Vercellae (no. 512); [- - -]us vilicus p[ub(licus?)], at Tifernum Mataurense (no. 411).

The connection between these public slaves and the finances of the relevant cities is not explicitly stated. Halkin listed these slaves among the “Esclaves des villes employés dans l’administration financière”.231 Weiss, however, pointed out that such public slaves may also have been allocated to other public sectors.232 There is indeed evidence of public slaves who were employed as vilici, and whose tasks did not relate to the financial administration. Among them were Onesimus c(olonorum) P(lacentinorum) s(ervus) vil(icus) macelli at Placentia (no. 437) and a number of vilici plumbariorum at Bononia (nos. 673–682) and Verona (no. 499).233 Since the term vilicus is derived from villa,234 Albino Garzetti suggested that one of the vilici listed above, Cosmus Brixianor(um scil. servus) vilic(us) (no. 468), managed an estate owned by the city of Brixia.235 By contrast, Gian Luca Gregori compared this 227 On the size of those cities, see de Ligt 2012, 289–292. 228 Mócsy 1974, 219; Carlsen 1995, 64 with n. 178. For the interpretation of the kalendarium Septimianum as an estate previously owned by a certain Septimius, which had at some point been transferred to the property of the colony of Savaria, see Weiss 2004, 98–101. 229 Cf. also Carlsen 1995, 40; Andreau 2001, 126; Silvestrini 2005, 544. 230 On the size of Brixia, Comum, Vercellae, Ostia, Tifernum Mataurense, Brundisium see de Ligt 2012, 291, 295, 297–298, 304, 318, 327. 231 Halkin 1897, 188–189. 232 Weiss 2004, 42–43. 233 See Paragraphs 4.5.2 and 4.7.1.1 below. 234 See Varro, Rust. 1.14. Cf. also Aubert 1993, 173; Aubert 1994, 123–124; Carlsen 1995, 27; Cristofori 2004, 327. 235 Garzetti 1975, 34, 55–56.

172

Serving the Cities

vilicus to an arcarius, and suggested that he may have performed financial tasks.236 Since the other known arcarius from Brixia also held the title vilicus (probably because he supervised some subordinate public slaves), it seems more likely that the public slave Cosmus Brixianor(um scil. servus) vilic(us) (no. 468) was employed as a manager within the city’s financial administration rather than as a manager of an estate. One should not forget that public slaves and freedmen employed to manage the city’s land (which was used as pasture and as a source of wood) were called saltuarii, not only in Brixia (see no. 691), but also at Carsulae (no. 398) and Divodurum Mediomatricorum (see no. 711).237 Finally, both Jean-Jacques Aubert and Jesper Carlsen, who studied the role of the vilici in the Roman world, believed that public slaves who held the title vilici without further specification were employed in the management of public finances.238 This line of reasoning seems to support Halkin’s belief that all the above-mentioned public slaves with the title vilicus, and no other specification, performed duties similar to those of the arcarii and dispensatores within a town’s financial administration. These slaves presumably had a role of supervision and control over other public slaves deployed in the financial administration.239 4.4.2.6 Managing Public Money In sum, the titles examined above (arcarius, dispensator and actor) seem to have designated three different roles, all related to the financial sector. Public slaves in charge as arcarii can be defined as ‘treasurers’ or ‘cashiers’, i. e., subordinate overseers of the public treasury. Arcarii probably also had the task of counting and verifying the authenticity of the coins kept in the public coffer. Dispensatores seemed to have been employed to keep the accounts, with special attention to payments; they probably also assumed the role of official paymasters. Finally, actores confirmed that taxes and rents had been paid correctly. Andreau proposed that a sort of hierarchy existed among the three roles in the private sector, with arcarii at the lowest level and dispensatores and actores enjoying higher statuses.240 It is possible that a similar hierarchy applied to the public sector too, al-

236 Gregori 1999a, 146. 237 See Paragraph 4.6.1. 238 Aubert 1994, 174, n. 197; Carlsen 1995, 39. For the imperial vilici, whose duties “were particularly connected with the collection of customs revenue in the provinces”, see Weaver 1972, 202. Cf. also Boulvert 1970, 433–434; Herrmann-Otto 1994, 364. 239 Cf. also Grelle et al. 2017, 169, who thinks it incautious interpreting Maxim(us) publicus vil(icus) Br(undisinorum) from Brundisium (no.  312) as a manager of a public estate, thus preferring to consider him as a public slave involved in the management of the financial sector. 240 Andreau 2001, 126–127.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

173

though the available sources are not conclusive on this point. What can be more easily inferred is that public slaves acting as arcarii, dispensatores and actores only co-existed in the largest and most important towns, where they could be organized in a group under the supervision of another public slave acting as a manager, such as the vilicus aerarii or vilicus summarum or vilicus ‘nude dictus’.241 In smaller towns, on the other hand, one public slave may have performed the three different financial duties by himself. Whether ‘simple’ arcarii, dispensatores, actores or vilici, all public slaves (and freedmen) performing financial duties were directly supervised by local magistrates, such as the quaestores and the curatores aerarii, or by the highest officers, such as the duoviri and the quattuorviri. While we have evidence for 66 public slaves entrusted with financial duties, there is evidence for only three public freedmen employed in this sector: Veientius Ianuarius at Veii (no. 423), (scil. Pollentius) col(onorum) Pol(ensium) lib(ertus) Valerianus summarum dispensat(or) at Pola (no.  486), and C(aius) Aquileiens(is) Felix vilic(us) summarum at Aquileia (no.  448). The civic authorities probably did not manumit public slaves entrusted with the delicate task of managing public money very frequently: magistrates and decurions could arguably command more authority over slaves than freedmen. The previously mentioned rescript from Severus Alexander concerning the punishment of a public slave acting as an actor in the event of a money shortage from the aerarium of a city like Fabrateria is particularly telling in this regard.242 4.5 Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure 4.5.1 Granaries An inscription from Beneventum, now lost, which dated to the second century CE, attests to the existence of a public slave in the town who held the title of horrearius: Concordius co[l(onorum scil. servus)] horr(earius) (no. 303). The latter erected a monument, possibly an altar, which was sacred to the Genius loci and the numen of Ceres. His title suggests that he was in charge of the warehouse for grain and other cereals (horreum), and he likely performed duties related to the management of the corn-supply (cura annonae).243 Since Chapter 19 of the lex Irnitana established that aediles were also responsible for managing the corn supply in Irni,244 Concordius co[l(onorum scil. servus)] horr(earius) (no. 303) may have acted under the supervision of the aediles of

241 242 243 244

Halkin 1897, 189; Silvestrini 2005, 549; Aubert 1993, 173; Aubert 1994, 169–175; Carlsen 1995. See Paragraph 4.4.2.4 above. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 189–190; Weiss 2004, 90–91. See lex Irn. 19.

174

Serving the Cities

the colony of Brundisium. However, one should consider that the time to which the inscription dates, i. e., the second century CE, was when the curatores annonae began to be appointed in various Italian towns to support local magistrates in the management of the corn supply, which was critical at that time.245 As such, we cannot rule out the possibility that Concordius performed his duties under the supervision of one of these overseers. At any rate, his offering to the Spirit of the place (Genius loci), which was probably the public granary of the colony of Beneventum, and to the divine power (numen) of Ceres, goddess of agriculture and grain, suggests that his devotion was linked to the sector in which he performed his duties. One first century CE funerary inscription from Aquileia appears to attest to a public freedman equally involved in the management of a city’s granary (Fig. 10): an altar set up by the heirs (heredes) of a deceased individual named [- Aqu]ileiensis [- - -]nus, who held the title of ex horreo Maroniano (no. 687). The fragmentary nature of this monument makes it difficult to come to a conclusive interpretation. However, the fact

Fig. 10 Limestone altar that mentions [- Aqu]ileiensis [- - -]nus ex horreo Maroniano (no. 688) – Aquileia, first c. CE (Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale; inv. 1059; courtesy of Ministero della cultura, Direzione regionale musei del Friuli Venezia Giulia).

245 On the curatores annonae, see Mrozek 1994.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

175

that the deceased’s nomen, which is clearly derived from the city’s toponym, is the same as the nomen of the former public slaves of the colony of Aquileia suggests that he may have been a public freedman.246 Furthermore, his title suggests that he was in charge of a storehouse for grain called horreum Maronianum. This supports the theory that [- Aqu]ileiensis [- - -]nus was a public freedman.247 The name Maronianum may come from the nomen Maronius – or the Greek cognomen, Maro(n) – of the horreum’s former owner.248 It is possible that the granary was made Aquileia’s property at some point (either sold or simply given), and the city decided to use its public slave to manage the granary. When the horreum was sold or given to the city, it would have kept the name derived from his former owner. That a city employed its own slaves and freedmen to run the public warehouse for grain and cereals is not surprising; in granaries owned by the Emperor, Imperial slaves or freedmen also worked as horrearii.249 However, the fact that we have evidence for only one public slave who was a horrearius, and for a public freedman of uncertain interpretation, suggests that the use of servi and liberti publici in public horrea of Roman towns was probably not very common. To confirm this assumption – which may seem like an argument ex silentio – we can look to three of the 127 Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum, which were discovered in 1959 near Pompeii.250 These wax tablets contain a record of the lease of part of the public granaries at Puteoli, namely the horrea Bassiana publica Puteolanorum. The lease was drawn up in 37 CE between a private individual, C. Novius Cypaerus (who managed the warehouses with his own slave Diognetus) and Hesicus, a slave of the freedman of Emperor Tiberius named Iulius Euenus. This warehouse lease demonstrates that public horrea could be managed by private horrearii, not just by public slaves.251 From this evidence we can also infer that a horreum contained not only grain from Alexandria, but also other cereals and vegetables, such as chickpeas, spelt, lentils and monocopus, the exact nature of which is unknown.252 Henriette Pavis d’Escurac suggested that the horrearii acted as caretakers of the building, as they had keys to each of the small stores within the warehouse (cellae).253

246 Cf. also Weiss 2004, 91 (with caution). On the nomen Aquileiensis of the former servi publici of Aquileia, see Halkin 1935, 132; Luciani 2021a, 173. 247 Giovanni Brusin also considered him as a former public slave: see InscrAq 567. 248 For the first interpretation, see Calderini 1930, 313 n. 2; for the second, see Rickman 1971, 164–166; Tiussi 2004, 283 n.  83. On the nomen Maronius, quite common in Noricum and Pannonia, see Schulze 1904, 189; OPEL III, p. 59. For the interpretation of Maronianus as a name derived from the Greek name Maro(n), see Kajanto 1965, 150; cf. also Solin 20032, 544; Zaccaria 2000a, 96 n. 34. 249 Boulvert 1970, 151–159; Pavis d’Escurac 1974; Pavis d’Escurac 1976, 248. 250 Cf. TPSulp 45, 51, 52 = TPN 86, 43, 44. Cf. also Rickman 1980, 236. 251 Cf. also Weiss 2004, 91. 252 Cf. TPSulp 52, p. 140. 253 Pavis d’Escurac 1974, 307; Pavis d’Escurac 1976, 248.

176

Serving the Cities

Some years earlier, Geoffrey Rickman also argued that “[t]heir job must have been predominantly one of guarding not only against theft but also against the deterioration of the goods stored”.254 Weiss maintained that the horrearii acted as administrative supervisors.255 Although we cannot make conclusive determinations about the exact role of the horrearii, we might suggest that they performed the duties of both guardians and administrative agents, and were in charge of – among other things – drawing up lease contracts and receipts on the acceptance and discharge of goods.256 4.5.2 Markets A funerary inscription from Placentia, possibly dating to the first century CE, provides evidence of a public slave named Onesimus c(olonorum) P(lacentinorum) s(ervus), who was a vilicus macelli (no. 437). His title implies that Onesimus was in charge of the town market (macellum) and probably supervised other subordinate public slaves employed there. Chapter 19 of the lex Irnitana (mentioned in the previous paragraph with regard to the management of the corn supply) clearly attests that, at Irni, the aediles were also responsible for the overall management of the macellum, as well as the verification of the weights and measures used in it.257 In other Roman cities too, whether colonies or municipia, the aediles or the quattorviri aedilicia potestate may have been in charge of the town market.258 The public slave with the title vilicus macelli in Placentia was therefore probably in charge of the daily operations of the macellum under the command of the local aediles. His duties may also have included verifying the quality of goods and the accuracy of weights and measures, as well as collecting the taxes levied on food.259 In every self-governing Roman town there was a macellum, i. e., a specific building where foodstuffs were traded.260 The etymology of macellum has long been debated; it may come from the Semitic root miklā (= ‘enclosure’), via the Greek μάκελλον.261 Marcello Gaggiotti also suggested that the Latin term macellum may have derived from the Semitic root ‘kl (= ‘to eat’), which generally referred to the edibility of products sold in the market.262 The macellum was usually situated in the centre of a Roman town, near

254 255 256 257 258 259 260

Rickman 1971, 179. Weiss 2004, 91 with n. 238. Cf. Rickman 1971, 179–180. On this debate in the literature, see Pavis d’Escurac 1976, 248. See lex Irn. 19; cf. also González – Crawford 1986, 153, 182. See also Marengo – Paci 1990, 123. Cf. also De Ruyt 1983, 359; Marengo – Paci 1990, 124; Weiss 2004, 85; Tran 2009, 335. For a comprehensive definition of the macellum, a discussion of its function and an exploration of its spread throughout the Roman world, see De Ruyt 1983; Marengo – Paci 1990; Richard 2014; Cristilli 2015. 261 Status quaestionis in De Ruyt 1983, 233–235. See also Richard 2014, 255–261. 262 Gaggiotti 1990, 773–782.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

177

the forum and the main public buildings.263 Architecturally speaking, the macellum was usually a quadrangular (though sometimes circular or hexagonal) closed space, a sort of piazza enclosed by walls. Around these walls were small shops, each with a front opening with a table or platform (mensa) on which goods were exposed (mainly meat and fish, but also fruit and vegetables, as well as bread). At the centre of the macellum, there was an open space, a sort of internal courtyard that followed the contours of the building. The macellum was therefore a place that could easily be controlled by aediles and other subordinate personnel like public slaves. In Greek cities, where the market was traditionally held in the ἀγορά, the officers in charge of maintaining order in the marketplace were called ἀγορανόμοι.264 Since they performed duties similar to those of Roman aediles, this term was also used to designate local aediles in Greco-Roman cities.265 The ἀγορανόμοι walked round the ἀγορά with their assistants and ensured that commercial activities ran smoothly. A passage from Book 1 of the Metamorphoses by Apuleius features a story about an aedilis of Hypata, who ordered his officialis, possibly a public slave, to trample on and destroy the fish bought by Lucius.266 Though fictional and deliberately absurd, the story seems to suggest that such a situation was possible. A similar caricature is found in the Rudens, where Plautus depicts a very strict aedilis in Cyrene, who – whenever he saw any bad merchandise – threw it overboard.267 These ‘theatrical’ acts helped a comedian like Plautus and a satirical writer like Apuleius portray comical situations, but they did not necessarily correspond to real situations. In fact, the penalties for selling bad-quality food mostly consisted of fines.268 These fines must have been particularly expensive: at Leptis Magna, in the first century CE a quattuorvir with aedilician powers – who was designated by the uncommon title IIIIvir macelli – was able to set up a bracket for a statue of Liber Pater with the money raised through fines (ex multis).269 The lack of evidence for public slaves and freedmen in this sector, combined with the ample evidence for various other freeborn auxiliary figures involved in the management of the town macella, suggests that towns did not usually recruit public slaves to manage the markets. Each town probably provided these services autonomously, using many different means and personnel to control this commercial venue.

263 On the macellum in Roman towns, see De Ruyt 1983, 275–303, 326–339; Marengo – Paci 1990, 115– 118, 120; De Ruyt 2007, 138–149. 264 Marengo – Paci 1990, 124; Weiss 2004, 84. 265 See, e. g., Plaut. Capt. 813–824. 266 Apul. Met. 1.24; see Paragraph 4.2.2 above. 267 Plaut. Rud. 373–374. 268 Cf. De Ruyt 1983, 357. 269 IRT 294 = AE 2003, 1902.

178

Serving the Cities

4.5.3 Weights and Measures In addition to controlling the quality of the foodstuffs sold in the macellum, local magistrates with aedilician powers also had to verify the accuracy of weights and measures.270 When listing the duties of the aediles at Irni, Chapter 19 of the lex Irnitana mentions the control of weights and measures.271 Counterfeit weights and measures must have been common in Roman towns; inscriptional evidence often attests to forged or invalid weights and measures in local macella.272 A decree from the local council of Herculaneum, inscribed on a (now lost) late first century BCE marble plaque is illustrative in this regard.273 Two duumvirs, M(arcus) Remmius and his homonymous son, had purchased new weights (pondera) at their own expense, as the previous ones were defective. They had also funded the construction of two public buildings, a chalcidicum and a schola. The local councillors of Herculaneum therefore decided that the two magistrates should be given authority over the weights and the two buildings during their lifetimes. The decurions also decreed that the two M(arcii) Remmii could be assisted by some public slaves when overseeing this business. These public slaves would have been purchased for this specific purpose (no.  193), and would have remained with the two M(arcii) Remmii unless a second decree of the town councillors had come to a different decision. Since these public slaves were specifically purchased to manage the weights in accordance with the decree, they were not the same as the publici attached as servants to the aediles.274 They were under the supervision of the aediles, but did not serve them as assistants. The charters of various cities established that public slaves should assist local magistrates; however, local councillors could decide to entrust other public slaves with specific tasks.275 The decree of the decurions from Herculaneum attests to this. 4.5.4 Baths Two epigraphic sources, one from Brundisium and the other from Patavium, attest to servi publici who worked in public baths. Qenarus (sic), who held the title of arcarius

270 On this topic see also Berrendonner 2009. 271 See Paragraph 4.5.2 above. 272 On this topic see Rizzi 2013. For an inscription from Histonium, which attests to two aediles who had bread baskets (?) constructed, because the measures and weights had become invalid (CIL IX, 2854 = ILS 5591; first century CE), see Broekaert 2007. 273 CIL X, 1453 = ILS 5616 (Herculaneum, Regio I; late first century BC). Cf. also Cooley - Cooley 20142, 182 no. F88. 274 Cf. also Weiss 2004, 88. Contra Halkin 1897, 167, who interpreted them as ‘regular’ assistants of the aediles. 275 See Paragraph 4.1.1.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

179

thermarum and was in charge of the special finance department devoted to the thermae publicae at Brundisium (no. 307), was already discussed in the section devoted to public slaves employed as arcarii.276 The case from Patavium, however, does not specifically refer to the financial sector of the baths: it is a sacred inscription set up by the familia thermensis thermarum urbanarum (no. 483) for the eternal health of their domini. The Patavium text was initially found in the private collection of classical antiquities of the Maggi da Bassano family in Padua in the 16th century but was then lost well before the mid-19th century.277 Besides referring to a unit of freeborn individuals related by blood and/or marriage, the Latin term familia was frequently used to designate a close group (or household) of slaves and freed slaves.278 With that in mind, a familia with the attribute thermensis, which was closely connected to the baths in the town (thermae urbanae) probably referred to a group of servi and liberti publici who were specifically in charge of the public baths. The term domini (“masters”) must indeed have referred to the municipes Patavini (“the inhabitants of the municipium of Patavium”), i. e., those who formally owned the public slaves.279 The expression domini, which designated the townsfolk as a whole, also occurs in an inscription from Asisium. The inscription records that a public slave, Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus (no. 397), gave a temple with porches dedicated to Jupiter Paganicus at his own expense, in exchange for the bounty of the domini (ex indulgentia dominorum). The domini should be interpreted as the municipes of Asisium in terms of their legal capacity to own public slaves: Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus (no. 397) presumably gave the municipium of Asisium a sacred building in exchange for the promise that the magistrates and decurions would manumit him.280 A similar use of the expression domini to designate the Patavini as a whole can also be found in another inscription from Patavium. This inscription is engraved on a limestone base that was set up for the Genius dominorum and Ceres by T(itus) Poblicius Crescens (no. 696), who also ordered two silver statues of the deities, valued at 2,000 sesterces, to be made and given to the Lares publici in his will. The two imagines had been placed on top of the base, as suggested by the two recesses on the upper surface. The domini mentioned in the inscription have been interpreted as a pair of joint emperors, whereas the Lares publici have been identified as the Lares Augusti, i. e., the house-

276 277 278 279 280

See Paragraph 4.4.2.2. For the collection of Maggi da Bassano, see Bodon 1991; Bodon 2005, 67–122. Dig. 50.16.195 (Ulp. 46 ad ed.). Cf. Bruun 2015, 614. Luciani 2017, 61. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 126; Luciani 2017, 60. Contra Lazzaro 1981, 207, who suggested that the term domini referred to two joint emperors from the late third or the early fourth century CE; see also Zanovello 1998, 321.

180

Serving the Cities

hold gods linked to Augustus and his family.281 It should be noted, however, that in epigraphic dedications to the Genius of one or more emperors, the expression Genius domini or dominorum is usually combined with the adjective nostri or nostrorum and the name(s) of the honoured emperor(s), or with the epithet Augusti or Augustorum.282 The inscription from Patavium does not contain any names, titles or epithets. Instead, we should note that: a) this inscription could be a dedication to the personal Genius of a group of individuals designated as domini;283 b) dedications to the Genius of the master were commonly offered by slaves and/or freedmen and placed in the shrine of the household gods;284 and c) the dedicator bore the nomen Poblicius, which was assumed by public slaves in many cities upon manumission. It is therefore possible that the two statues were dedicated by a public freedman to Ceres and the Genius of his own masters – i. e., the townsfolk of Patavium. The monument would have been placed in the sacellum of the Lares publici of the city of Patavium: in other words, the shrine of the guardian of the public freedman’s own household.285 Since was a testamentary bequest, it is obvious that T(itus) Poblicius Crescens made the decision to dedicate the monument when he was still alive. He may have even promised to donate the two statues when he was still a public slave, in exchange for the promise of being manumitted; the use of the term domini seems to support this theory.286 Returning to the inscription from Patavium that mentioned the familia thermensis thermarum urbanarum (no. 483), numerous scholars has suggested that it referred to a familia publica, i. e., a group of public slaves and freedmen who were in charge of the public baths at Patavium.287 The familia thermensis thermarum urbanarum of Patavium (no. 483) probably consisted of personnel with different tasks and abilities. Michael Wisseman identified six branches of the public baths in which slaves and freedmen were employed: 1) the central management, in which bath-attendants (balneatores) worked; 2) technical services, such as heating, which were overseen by an individual in charge of the furnace (fornacator or faber balnearius); 3) the cash desk, which was managed by the cashier (capturarius); 4) the cloakroom, where the capsarius looked after clothes; 5) personal care treatments, carried out by the depilator and other similar workers; and 6) general duties, such as pouring fresh water over bathers or into the

281 282 283 284 285 286 287

Cesano 1906, 459; Vitucci 1946, 404; Pascal 1964, 73; Bassignano 1981, 215–216; Bassignano 1987, 341–342; Modonesi 1995, 36; Zaccaria 2000b, 180 nn. 88–89; Zaccaria 2008, 225 n. 16, 227–228. See, e. g., Cesano 1906, 458–462. Cf. Gradel 2002, 372, who included the inscription from Padua among the “dedications from Italy to the Genius of living non-imperials”. Cf. Cesano 1906, 454; Antolini – Marengo 2017. No attestation of public freedmen from Patavium existed so far. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.6. Cf. also Waltzing 1896, 217 n. 1; Halkin 1897, 173; De Ruggiero 1906, 32; Bassignano 1981, 227; Rodríguez Neila 1988, 235; Weiss 2004, 126; Biundo 2008, 169.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

181

jugs available for drinking (tasks carried out by the perfusor and the praefusor or profusor, or by the mediastinus).288 Members of the familia thermensis thermarum urbanarum (no. 483) at Patavium may have performed many of these duties, if not all of them. Since responsibility for the public baths fell to the magistrates with aedilician power, as indicated by the lex Irnitana,289 the public slaves and freedmen who were part of the familia thermensis thermarum urbanarum (no. 483) at Patavium probably acted under the supervision of the local quattuorviri aedilicia potestate. An inscription from Fordongianus (Sardinia), dating to the late first century CE, may also attest to a public slave performing some bath-related duties, although the fragmentary nature of this (now lost) monument precludes any firm conclusion. The inscription seems to provide information about some work in a pool or reservoir (piscina) that had been undertaken by [Fe]lix Ypsit[anorum (scil. servus)] (no. 626), i. e., a public slave of Aquae Ypsitanae. Aquae Ypsitanae was renowned for its thermal springs, and became part of the urban area of Forum Traiani in the early second century CE.290 Another piece of evidence for a public slave who may have been employed in the management of baths comes from a granite funerary stele set up in the late second century CE by Provincial(is) Nereus p(rovinciae) l(ibertus) (no. 737), a freed slave of the province of Hispania citerior. The stele was dedicated to his partner Provincial(is) Protis, who may have been a freedwoman of the province (no. 738). Since the monument was found just a few kilometres from Santo Adrião de Vizela (Portugal, in the territory of Bracara Augusta), the site of one of the most important Roman baths in that province (Caldas de Vizela), José d’Encarnação has suggested that these individuals were in charge of maintening the hot springs on behalf of the governor of Hispania Citerior or his procurator.291 Although this theory is intriguing, we do not have enough evidence to confirm it. It is remarkable that, despite the multitude of public baths in the towns of the Greco-Roman world,292 no other instances of servi or liberti publici employed in this sector have been identified. One possible explanation for this absence of evidence is that some of the above-mentioned duties were in fact performed by the numerous private slaves who accompanied their masters to the public baths. For example, it may have been a private slave who looked after the clothes of his own dominus, or poured fresh water over his body, or acted as his masseur and provided personal care treatments.293 Another possible explanation is that other duties, probably the most specific

288 Wisseman 1984, 81, 89. Cf. also Nielsen 1990, 126–131; Weiss 2004, 126. 289 Lex Irn. 19; cf. González – Crawford 1986, 153, 182. 290 On the Aquae Ypsitanae, see Zucca 2013, 146–163. On the creation of Forum Traiani, see Mastino – Zucca 2014, 207–208. 291 d’Encarnação 1994, 217–230. 292 On the spread of public baths in Roman Italy, see Fagan 1999, 349–356. 293 Nielsen 1990, 131; Fagan 1999, 199–200.

182

Serving the Cities

and technical ones, were in fact performed by servi poenae, i. e., men sentenced to slavery for a crime. Servi poenae were commonly assigned to the baths or to other similar menial tasks, such as clearing the sewers or laying roads and streets. Information to this effect is provided by a letter from the emperor Trajan to Pliny the Younger in response to the latter’s request for advice concerning mismanagements in some cities of Bytinia. At Nicomedia and Nicaea, some servi poenae – who had been condemned to forced labour, to the arena, or to other similar punishments – were in fact illegally performing the duties and functions of public slaves, which unfortunately are not stated explicitly. In performing these duties, they even took the yearly emolument (annua) that was owed to the public slaves.294 Trajan instructed Pliny to bring those who had been condemned within the past ten years, and who had not been released by any appropriate authority, back to their sentences. For the eldest ones or for those who had been condemned more than ten years previously, on the other hand, Trajan instructed Pliny to entrust them with tasks that were similar to their punishment, e. g., taking care of baths, clearing sewers or laying roads and streets.295 From Trajan’s words, we can infer that such duties were most commonly assigned to servi poenae rather than to public slaves.296 Finally, the relative lack of evidence for servi and liberti publici employed in public baths can be explained by the fact that in most Italian and provincial towns, the management of public baths was mostly assigned to private individuals.297 4.5.5 Public Slaves in the Amphitheatres? When local magistrates went to the amphitheatre to attend games and processions, they were probably accompanied by the servi publici attached to them as servants. The presence of public slaves in the amphitheatre was contingent on the circumstances. The idea that some public slaves may have been employed permanently, e. g., to look after the building and help during events, is a novel one. However, inscriptional evidence from Italy and Spain provides clues about the possible involvement of servi publici in the management of amphitheatres and the slaves’ activities in those settings. The first epigraphic source to be mentioned in this respect is a fragmentary limestone altar from Aquileia.298 The altar dates to the late first or the early second century CE, and its inscription reads as follows (Fig. 11):

294 Plin. Ep. 10.31.2–3. 295 Plin. Ep. 10.32.2. 296 Cf. Weiss 2004, 127, who instead used these passages to show that the employment of servi publici in public baths was a common phenomenon, at least in eastern part of the Empire. 297 Cf. also Robinson 1984–85, 1070; Weiss 2004, 126. 298 InscrAq 322.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

183

Nemesi Aug(ustae) Acutio [r]ẹi p(ublicae) ser(vus) 5 [- - -]ịcio ------

The first four lines of the inscription suggest that the altar was dedicated to the goddess Nemesis, who is mentioned with the epithet of Augusta. The inscription was offered by a certain Acutio, who is designated as [r]ei p(ublicae) ser(vus) (no. 445). The findspot of the inscription was likely near the amphitheatre of Aquileia, which probably hosted a shrine dedicated to Nemesis.299 This theory seems plausible not only in view

Fig. 11 Limestone altar dedicated to Nemesis Augusta by Acutio [r]ei p(ublicae) ser(vus) (no. 446) – Aquileia, late first/early second c. CE (Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale; inv. RC 102; courtesy of Ministero della cultura, Direzione regionale musei del Friuli Venezia Giulia). 299 Cf. InscrAq 322; Gregori 1989, 94. On the Nemeseion of Aquileia and the location of the amphitheatre, cf. Fontana 2004, 414 n. 72; Ventura, Giovannini 2012; see also Le Glay 1990, 220. For the amphitheatre of Aquileia see Bertacchi 1994, 168–177.

184

Serving the Cities

of the special devotion that performers of games felt toward Nemesis, who they believed controlled their fate, but also in light of the extensive evidence linking the cult of this goddess to amphitheatres in the Roman world.300 The gap in line 5, [- - -]icio, affects our understanding of the rest of the inscription. Giovanni Brusin proposed restoring the text to [et Fel]icio, which would imply a reference to the name of a second dedicator in the nominative.301 However, there is not enough space to restore a total of five letters plus a punctuation mark. A different solution, and restoration with fewer letters, could be [Pobl- vel Publ]icio. A reference to a second individual bearing the nomen traditionally used by public freedmen would make more sense, especially considering that a servus publicus is mentioned in the previous lines. However, three arguments can be raised against this solution: first, four letters seem to be still too many for the available space; second, the nomen usually assumed by public freedmen in Aquileia is Aquileiensis, not Poblicius/Publicius; third, if one accepts this restoration, not only would the meaning of the inscription remain unclear, but it would also be difficult to explain. The inscription was a sacred one, not a funerary one, and the name in the dative of a second dedicatee (in addition to the name of a deity) would be hard to explain. The closest parallel to this inscription is probably another funerary stele from Aquileia: that of Abascantus colonorum Aquil(eiensium) ser(vus) officio luc(or)um Herculis (no. 444), which has been mentioned earlier in this chapter.302 A suitable supplement for line 5 might be [off]icio, followed by the reference to the sector in which the servus publicus was employed. This would supply part of the job title of the public slave, which is mostly lost in the gap: Nemesi Aug(ustae) Acutio [r]ẹi p(ublicae) ser(vus) 5 [off]ịcio ------

Like Abascantus, who was a public slave in charge of the sacred grove(s) of Hercules (officio lucorum Herculis) (no. 444), Acutio [r]ei p(ublicae) ser(vus) [off]icio [- - -] (no. 445) may have been a public slave in charge of (officio) a sacred place dedicated to Nemesis at the amphitheatre of Aquileia, or in charge of the amphitheatre itself. A dedication to Nemesis offered by a public slave who looked after the temple of that goddess would be peculiar, whereas it would be less surprising if that public slave was in charge of the amphitheatre, especially in light of the special link between Nemesis 300 Cf. Gregori 1989, 66; Bouley 1990, 242; Fortea López 1992, 51–62; Hornum 1993, 43; Foucher 1994, 229; Gregori 1994, 63; Lichocka 1998, 619; Wittenberg 2014. 301 Cf. InscrAq 322. For the name Felicio, see Kajanto 1965, 273. 302 See Paragraph 4.3.2 above.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Civic Infrastructure

185

and all the individuals connected with the amphitheatre and its games or spectacles.303 With this in mind, Acutio may have been a public slave whose duties included providing assistance for the preparation of games and spectacles in the amphitheatre of Aquileia, as well as providing assistance during the performances. He may also have been employed as a permanent caretaker of the amphitheatre itself.304 Two other inscriptions from Baetica may support this hypothesis. The first one is a rather peculiar dedication to Nemesis Augusta dating to the Hadrianic era, which was engraved on a marble slab with a footprints relief (plantae pedum) and placed on the floor of a corridor in the amphitheatre of Italica. The text was conceived in Latin but written in Greek. It was written from right to left and from bottom to top, using letters that were either turned or inverted. For these reasons, some sholars have proposed that the text had a magical purpose.305 The author, Ζώσιμος π(ούβλικος) Ἰταλικήνσιουμ Λύκιος (no. 529), was a public slave of Italica who came from Lycia. The second inscription was engraved on a bronze tablet dating to between the late first and early second centuries CE, and was discovered near the amphitheatre of Carmo. It is a dedication to Nemesis Augusta offered by a public slave, whose name is unfortunately hard to interpret: Omp(h)e r(ei)p(ublicae) s(erva) or De(- - -) r(ei) p(ublicae) s(ervus) (no. 520).306 It is impossible to determine with certainty whether these public slaves actually looked after the amphitheatres in Italica and Carmo, respectively, or assisted with the preparation and performance of games that took place there. And yet, when considered along with the inscription from Aquileia, the theory seems plausible. Games and spectacles must have been frequent in Roman towns, and their preparations probably required significant numbers of workers.307 Since servi publici were commonly employed in public buildings, such as temples, archives, granaries, markets, and baths, it is not surprising that some inscriptional evidence seems to attest to their employment in amphitheatres, too. Cities may have entrusted their own slaves with the task of preparing games and spectacles, as well as looking after the amphitheatres. However, this probably did not happen everywhere and cannot be demonstrated with absolute certainty.308 303 Le Glay 1990, 221: “[On] peut conclure que Némésis […] était aux IIe–IIIe s. devenue une divinité syncretiste, sans nul doute la déesse principale, favorite des munerarii, des gladiateurs et des venatores et même plus largement de tous ceux qui entrenaient un rapport avec l’amphithéâtre et ses jeux”. 304 Cf. also Maselli Scotti 2002, 142. 305 Gómez-Pantoja 2007, 65–69. For the issues of the date and the interpretation of the inscription, see also Canto 1984, 191–192; Hornum 1993, 274–275 no. 217; Fortea López 1994, 247–248 no. 61; de Hoz 1997, 71 no. 19.1. 306 For the difficulties in the interpretation of the text, see Stylow 2001, 99–100, as well as the comments of Antonio Caballos Rufino in HEp 2005, 448. 307 Zaccaria 1994, 71. 308 Private slaves were also frequently employed in the preparation and the management of games and spectacles in the amphitheatres of Italian and provincial towns: Aubert 1994, 363–367.

186

Serving the Cities

4.5.6 Urban Embellishment and Street Furniture Two inscriptions, from Spain and Italy respectively, suggest that public slaves and freedmen could also be employed in activities related to the urban layout and its embellishment. An early first century CE funerary limestone stele from Corduba (Baetica) mentions a particular duty of a freedman of the province of Baetica named P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus (no. 729), who died at 75. The stele records that he was a marmorarius signuarius, i. e., a marble mason specialized in making statues. By invoking the expression verna urbicus the anonymous dedicator of the epitaph probably intended to provide information about Fortunatus’ former status: he had previously been a slave of the townsfolk of Corduba, and was likely born from a female public slave in that city, as he took his mother’s status at birth. At some point, he was converted from the property of the colony to the property of the province, and was later manumitted by members of the provincial council (concilium provinciae). Since Corduba was both the capital of the province and the seat of the concilium provinciae,309 he probably remained in that city. Fortunatus was likely a marble sculptor both before his manumission, as a slave of the colony and the province, and after his manumission, when he officially became a provinciae libertus. His expertise probably made him a valuable employee to both the city and the province, as numerous statues of emperors and prominent individuals seem to have crowded public spaces and buildings, not only in Corduba but also in many other cities of the province.310 The works of Fortunatus, who was later known as P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus (no. 729), were likely distributed throughout the province and used to decorate both Corduba and other provincial towns. Closely linked with this type of urban embellishment were the duties performed in Brundisium by the public slave Amaranthus, who is mentioned as a topiarius in his early first century CE epitaph (no. 308). Since the term topiarius designates an ornamental gardener,311 Amaranthus was likely entrusted with the task of tending to public parks and gardens of the Apulian city.312 The two above-mentioned inscriptions suggest that public slaves could contribute to the embellishment of their cities by producing statues as signuarii or tending to public gardens as topiarii. However, public slaves could also be employed to check if complex instruments like public clocks worked properly. This was the case for the anonymous servus (no. 560) who was given as a gift by a certain C(aius) Blaesius C(ai) fil(ius) Voltinia Gratus to a city – possibly Boutae – in the territory of Vienna (Gallia Narbonensis) in the first century CE. C(aius) Blaesius C(ai) fil(ius) Voltinia Gratus 309 310 311 312

Haensch 1997, 183. Cf. Arce 2002. Malaspina 2013, 250–251. Cf. also Grelle et al. 2017, 168–169.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Land

187

paid 10,000 sesterces for a public building with statues and railings, in which a horologium – presumably a ‘water-clock’ – was placed. He also gave 4,000 sesterces to cover the expenses for a public slave who managed the horologium. By means of this donation, the slave became a servus publicus.313 The scarcity of evidence for public slaves and freedmen entrusted with these sorts of tasks (producing statues, tending to gardens, and managing water-clocks) could suggest that these duties were only extraordinarily performed by public slaves. However, other similar sources may emerge in the future. 4.6 Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Land 4.6.1 Public Slaves as saltuarii 4.6.1.1 The Available Evidence The funerary inscription for Quint(a) R[e]stituta Car(sulanorum scil. serva) (no. 400), which was set up by Primiti(v)us p(ublicus) saltuarius Car(sulanorum) (no. 398) near Carsulae between the late second and the early third century CE, is extremely significant, because it is the only evidence we have of a public slave employed as a saltuarius, i. e., a forester or guardian of a public estate.314 This source not only informs us that public slaves could be entrusted with this type of task; it also suggests that the following saltuarii, who in three other inscriptions bear the nomen Publicius, may have been former public slaves who continued to perform their duties of saltuarii after manumission: − P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio, in the territory of Aquileia or Tergeste (no. 688);315 − Ti(berius) Public(ius) Primitivos saltuar(ius) pagi Veneri, in the territory of Brixia (no. 691);316 − T(itus) Publici(us) Tertius saltuari(us), in the territory of Divodurum Mediomatricorum? (Gallia Belgica) (no. 711).317

313 314 315

316 317

Cf. also Weiss 2004, 24, 217 no. 192. For a thorough examination of the sources on saltuarii in the Roman world, see Carlsen 1996 = Carlsen 2013, 141–151. Modern scholarship agrees with the idea that P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio (no. 688) was a public freedman: Hermann Dessau in ILS 6683; Calderini 1930, 279 n. 7 and p. CXXV n. 4; Degrassi 1954, 25; Ramilli 1975, 80; Chevallier 1983, 208 n. 288; Carlsen 1996, 247–248 with n. 10 = Carlsen 2013, 143 with n. 10; Zaccaria 2007b, 324–325 with n. 83. That Ti(berius) Public(ius) Primitivos (no. 691) was a public freedman is also argued by Alfredo Valvo in SupplIt 25, 2010, 297–298 no. 109 bis. For the interpretation of T(itus) Publici(us) Terti(us), saltuari(us) (no. 711) as a public freedman, see Finke 1927, 200, no. 328; Lazzaro 1978–79, 249, 269 no. 67; Lazzaro 1979, 191, 196–197 no. 9; Lazzaro 1993, 106–107 no. 61, 407; Carlsen 1996, 247 = Carlsen 2013, 143; Lamoine 2009, 327.

188

Serving the Cities

The title saltuarius is explicitly mentioned in the last two inscriptions next to both individuals’ names. However, we can infer that P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio (no. 688) was also a saltuarius from the inscription engraved on the first century CE fragmentary limestone slab found at Ajdovščina (Slovenia),318 which mentions him (Fig. 12):

Fig. 12 Fragmentary limestone slab that mentions the saltuarius publicus P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio (no. 688) – Ajdovščina (Slovenia), first c. CE (Nova Gorica, Goriški muzej Kromberk; inv. no. AG 3981). P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio v(ivus) s(ibi) f(ecit) et coniugị kariss(imae) Voltịliae Satụnn(ae). 5 Duṃ saltus pu= ̣ blicos ˹c˺uro ḍe= cidi ḥoc in pri= vatọ agellọ.319 318 319

Gregorutti 1892, 48; Svoljšak – Žbona-Trkman 1986, 389. CIL V, 715 = Pais, SupplIt 1107 = ILS 6683 = InscrIt X, 4, 340 (P. Sticotti); cfr. SupplIt 10, 1990, 235–236 (C. Zaccaria).

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Land

189

P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio constructed (this) for himself and for his dearest wife Voltilia Satunna. While being in charge of saltus publici, I died hither, in a small private plot of land.320

In his work On the Agriculture, Varro used agellus to mean “a bit of land certainly not larger than one iugerum”.321 The expression privatus agellus thus references a small portion of land belonging to and for the exclusive use of P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio and his wife. That P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio was a saltuarius can be inferred from the expression saltos publicos curo. 4.6.1.2 What Was a saltus? The word saltus, which has various meanings in Latin, generally refers to a large estate.322 In literary sources, the term saltus is commonly used as a synonym for silva, and usually refers to a woodland in hilly or mountainous country, interspersed with passes.323 The word saltus rarely described woodlands near rivers or marshes that were far from human settlements.324 In the writings of Roman land surveyors (Gromatici veteres), the word saltus describes a wide portion of land consisting of woodland and rough pasture, which was under public or private ownership.325 Varro provides a detailed definition of private saltus in his work On the Latin Language written in the late first century BCE: […] quos agros non colebant propter silvas aut id genus, ubi pecus possit pasci, et possidebant, ab usu svo saltus nominarunt. The fields which they did not till on account of woods or that kind where flocks can be grazed, but still they took them for private use, they called saltus, “woodland-pastures”, from the fact that their use was salvus, “saved”.326

320 My translation. For a similar translation, in Italian, see Sticotti 1908, 286. Although the choice of words and structure of this epitaph are similar to an epigraphic poem engraved on an inscription from Rome (CIL VI, 10078, cf. p. 3903 = CIL VI, 33940 = CLE 399 = ILS 5300: Florus ego hic iaceo / bigarius infans qui cito / dum cupio currus cito decidi ad umbr(as) / Ianuarius alumno dulcissimo), the text is not metric, as it does not follow the rhythmic scheme of the hexameter. 321 Varro, Rust. 3.16. Cf. also Bruno 19692, 17; Andreau 2016. 322 Cf. Pupillo 1991; Soricelli 2004. 323 See, e. g., Caes. BCiv. 1.37.1–3; Livy 9.2.7–10; 9.3.6; 9.7.5; 9.11.3; 9.14.10; 9.36–38; 10.24.5; 28.5.8; 28.7.3; 36.15.5–7; 36.16.1; 26.17.11; 36.42.4; 45.22.7; Plin. HN 6.80; 10.132; Tac. Germ. 30.1; Flor. 1.5; 1.12; 2.30. 324 Tac. Ann. 12.39.2; 13.54.1. 325 For the occurrences of the term in the writing of the Gromatici veteres, see Campbell 2000, 548. 326 Varro, Ling. 5.36; translation by Roland G. Kent from LCL 333 (1938).

190

Serving the Cities

Varro also provides information about public saltus in his work On the Agriculture: Quattuor, centuriae coniunctae ut sint in utramque partem binae, appellantur in agris divisis viritim publice saltus. Four such centuriae, united in such a way that there are two on each side, are called a saltus in the distribution of public lands.327

Siculus Flaccus, one of the Gromatici veteres who lived in the second century CE, provided information about the size of a saltus: Qui cum viginti et quinque centurias includant, saltus appellatur.328 When the limites mark off twenty-five centuriae, this is called a saltus.329

It is impossible to ascertain the reasons for this discrepancy. It could reflect a change in size over time or the general size range in which a saltus could fall.330 In the second century CE, Festus provided further information about the meaning of the word saltus, based on the definition that Gaius Aelius Gallus had provided in his writings on various legal terms written in the late Republic: Saltus est, ubi silvae et pastiones sunt, quarum causa casae quoque: si qua particula in eo saltu pastorum, aut custodum causa aratur, ea res non peremit nomen saltui† […].331 A saltus is where there are forests and pasturage, for the sake of which small huts also lie. If any small portion of that saltus belongs to the shepherds, or is cultivated for the sake of the guardians, that part does not annul the designation of saltus.332

From all these primary sources and the relevant modern studies we can infer that: 1) the term saltus designated a portion of land with forests and pasturage, which was located in a hilly or mountainous area, often near various passes, but not suitable for largescale agriculture; 2) a saltus was usually an estate that could be owned by either private individuals or cities – and when owned by a city, the saltus was part of the civic territory and fell within the city’s boundaries; 3) a saltus probably ranged in area from four centuriae (i. e., 800 iugera or about 600 hectares) to 25 centuriae (i. e., 5,000 iugera or ca. 3,750 hectares); 4) some individuals were entrusted with the task of protecting the saltus,

327 328 329 330 331 332

Varro, Rust. 1.10; translation by William D. Hooper and Harrison B. Ash from LCL 283 (1934). Sic. Flacc. Cond. Agr. p. 158.20–21 (ed. Lindsay). Translation by Campbell 2000, 125. On this problem, see Soricelli 2004, 109–110. Festus, p. 392–394 (ed. Lindsay). My translation.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Land

191

presumably from misuse and/or damage: these guardians (custodes) were permitted to live on a small portion of land within the saltus and to cultivate it for their subsistence.333 This is also attested by the epitaph of P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio (no. 688). In addition to the term custos, which was used by Gaius Aelius Gallus, the Latin word saltuarius was also used to refer to the guardian of the saltus. The word saltuarius only occurs in a few epigraphic sources, which suggests that saltuarii were generally slaves or freedmen of the owner of the saltus. Saltuarii were servi or liberti Caesaris if a saltus was owned by the emperor.334 It is therefore not surprising that some public slaves or freedmen also held the title of saltuarii: they must have been in charge of guarding saltus that were publicly owned by the towns to which they themselves belonged or had previously belonged. This was the case for the above-mentioned public slave Primiti(v)us, who is mentioned as a publicus saltuarius of the townsfolk of Carsulae (no. 398). However, this was also likely the case for: Ti(berius) Public(ius) Primitivos, who was a saltuar(ius) of the pagus Venerius within the ager of Brixia (no. 691); T(itus) Publici(us) Tertius, who was a saltuari(us) in the territory of Divodurum Mediomatricorum (Gallia Belgica) (no. 711); and P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio, who was in charge of saltus publici near Ajdovščina (no. 688). Again, we can assume that these last three individuals must have been public freedmen who, after their manumission, continued to perform the duties they had previously performed as slaves.335 Being a saltuarius must have required a particular set of skills; for instance, saltuarii needed to be familiar with an area’s topography, adaptable enough to live in various climate and geographical conditions, and sufficiently authoritative in the eyes of local magistrates and shepherds. It would therefore be unsurprising if a public slave employed as a saltuarius, who demonstrated particular sought-after abilities in doing his job, would have been required to continue to perform those same duties even after he was manumitted. 4.6.1.3 The Working Environment While the findspot of the inscription from Carsulae is unfortunately unknown,336 we have more information about the origin of the other three inscriptions. The first century CE limestone monument – presumably an altar – that was offered by Ti(berius) Public(ius) Primitivos, saltuar(ius) pagi Veneri (no. 691) to the goddess Iuventus was reused as a building material in the bell tower of Vobarno (Brescia), a town on the river Chiese, at 246 metres above sea level. This implies that the stone was probably found in that vicinity. Scholars have assumed that the pagus Venerius was located in the moun333 334 335 336

Cf. also Soricelli 2004, 115–116. Cf. Carlsen 1996 = Carlsen 2013, 141–151. See also Maiuro 2012, 157–159. Cf. also Luciani 2017, 54–55. Roscini 2012–13, 445.

192

Serving the Cities

tain area on the north-eastern boundary of the civic territory of Brixia, along the river Chiese, which marked the border with the territory of Verona.337 The saltuarius may thus have been a former public slave of Brixia. He had likely been in charge of a public saltus located in the territory of the pagus Venerius, which belonged to the colony’s civic territory.338 The early third century CE limestone stele containing the laconic epitaph of the saltuari(us) T(itus) Publici(us) Terti(us) comes from the ruins of the Heidelsburg castle (Germany). The latter was located on a rocky ridge of the Drei-Sommer-Berg at 340 metres above sea level, north of the valley of Schwarzbachtal, on the western edge of the Palatinate forest. This area may have been in the territory of Divodurum Mediomatricorum (Gallia Belgica). The saltuarius was probably in charge of a saltus in this area, which would have been rich in woodlands.339 Finally, the first century CE funerary stele of P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio (no. 688) and his wife was reused as building material for the house of a tanner in Ajdovščina (Slovenia), a town located in the valley of the river Vipava (Vipavska dolina) at 246 metres above sea level.340 In the first three centuries of the Empire, on the spot where Ajdovščina was later built, there was a minor stopping place on the road from Aquileia to Iulia Emona, i. e., the mansio Fluvio Frigido, as is attested by the Itinerarium Antonini.341 This site was then transformed into the fortress of the Claustra Alpium Iuliarum – the defence system between Italy and Pannonia – and named Castra between the late third and early fourth centuries CE.342 The mansio Fluvio Frigido is thought to have served as a trade hub in the region for sales of important products coming from the surrounding woodland: not only timber and charcoal, but also pitch, resin, and tannin. These materials were used for heating, cooking, building boats, and tanning hides.343 The mountains surrounding the mansio Fluvio Frigido were rich in both forests and meadows; the meadows especially must have been viewed as crucial for stock farming, especially of sheep, and summer transhumance.344 That an inscription mentioning

337 338

339 340 341 342 343

344

Tozzi 1972, 107; Garzetti 1998, 281–282. Cf. also Luciani 2019b, 77. Public freedmen in Brixia received the nomen Publicius upon manumission: see P(ublius) Public[ius] Brixian[or(um) l(ibertus)] (no. 471), as well as Q(uintus) Pub[licius] Faustus (no. 472) and his partner Pub(licia) Quint[a] (no. 470), who were the parents of Faustinus Brixiano[r(um scil. servus)] (no. 469). Cf. also Halkin 1935, 128; Luciani 2021a, 196–197 nos. 15–20 (Tab. 1). Finke 1927, 200 no. 328 = Lazzaro 1993, 106–107 no. 61, 407. Cf. CIL V, 715; Gregorutti 1892, 48. It. Ant. p. 265 (ed. Parthey and Pinder). Cf. Löhberg 2006, 136 nos. 128–127. Vidrih Perko – Žbonam-Trkman 2003, 33. Cf. also Šašel 1980, 183 = Šašel 1992, 526. See Vidrih Perko – Žbona-Trkman 2003, 34; Santoro 2007, 850; Zaccaria 2007a, 405. The relationship between the saltuarius of Ajdovščina and timber is also highlighted by Petru 1977, 522. On saltus and the economy of wood production and trade, see Giardina 1997, 139–192; Soricelli 2004, 97–123; Harris 2017, 211–233. Šašel 1980, 183–184 = Šašel 1992, 526–527; Bonetto 1999, 96; Modugno 2000, cc. 66–67 with n. 45; Bonetto 2004, 59 with n. 28a, 63.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Land

193

saltus publici came from this area is therefore not surprising at all: indeed, this hilly and mountainous region around the mansio Fluvio Frigido, which was rich in forests and meadows had all the salient features of the Roman saltus. Not only were these portions of land exploited for the sake of logging and timber extraction, but they were also used for pasture, and were probably granted to a group of shepherds, who shared them.345 A Roman town would have had an interest in owning this land, and the local authorities thus employed a public slave (who was later manumitted) to guard it. However, it is difficult to ascertain which town actually owned these saltus publici or the corresponding saltuarius. Since the area stood at the edge of the civic territories of Tergeste and Aquileia, most scholars believe that the owner was one of these two communities.346 If one considers that public freedmen in Tergeste took the nomen Publicius, whereas the liberti publici in Aquileia bore the name Aquileiensis, Tergeste appears more likely to be the city that owned the saltus publici near Ajdovščina.347 However, if one bears in mind that the civic territory of Aquileia stretched to the northeast, up to Bevke (Slovenia), as a boundary stone that was found there seems to suggest, then Aquileia appears the more likely candidate, since the Vipava valley would fall within its territory.348 Moreover, public freedmen in Aquileia may also have been called Publicii, although no evidence for this exists so far; a double nomenclature for public freedmen is attested at Venafrum and Saturnia, where public freedmen assumed either the nomen Publicius or the nomen Venafranius and Saturnius respectively.349 Since no clear argument seems to support either possibility over the other, this remains an open question.350 Apart from the issues raised by all these three inscriptions that mention saltuarii with the nomen Publicius, they do seem to confirm what the inscription of Primiti(v)us p(ublicus) saltuarius Car(sulanorum) (no.  398) from Carsulae had suggested: public slaves could be employed by Roman communities as guardians of public saltus

345 Bonetto 2007, 716. On the ius compascendi in commune, see Laffi 1998, 536–537 = Laffi 2001, 384–385. 346 Tergeste: ILS 6683 (H. Dessau); Sticotti 1908, 286; InscrIt X, 4, 340 (P. Sticotti). Aquileia: Degrassi 1954, 25–26; Panciera 1957, 7; Panciera 1979, 398, 404 = Panciera 2006, 794, 797 (with caution); SupplIt 10, 164, 235 (C. Zaccaria); Zaccaria 2003, 323; Zaccaria 2007b, 324–325. 347 See, e. g., Q(uintus) Publicius Tergest(inorum) l(ibertus) Felix, at Tergeste (no. 491), and Aq(uileiensis) Demet(rius), at Aquileia (no. 447). Cf. also Halkin 1935, 129, 132; Luciani 2021a, 173, 198 nos. 28–31 (Tab. 1). 348 AE 2002, 532a-c (Augustan age): Finis // Aquileien/sium // Emonen/sium. For the interpretation of this boundary stone as evidence that Emona was part of Italy, see Šašel Kos 2015, 153, 163–164. Contra Cortés Bárcena 2015, 117–132, but see Šašel Kos 2016, 221–233. See also Luciani 2021a, 195 no. 12 (Tab. 1, s. v. Aquileia?). 349 See, e. g., Publicia vel Saturnia Fortunata, at Saturnia (no.  420) and M(arcus) Publicius coloniae l(ibertus) Philodamus (no.  295), Q(uintus) Venafranius col(oniae) l(ibertus) Felix (no.  296) and Sex(tus) Venafranius col(oniae) l(ibertus) Primogenius (no. 297), at Venafrum. Cf. also Halkin 1935, 131–132; Bruun 2008, 539 n. 8; Luciani 2021a, 173 with n. 16. 350 So did Theodor Mommsen (CIL V, 715), Ettore Pais (Pais, SupplIt 1107) and Marjeta Šašel Kos (Šašel Kos 2002a, 378, 382; Šašel Kos 2002b, cc. 255–256).

194

Serving the Cities

that were located within civic territories. In particular, the inscriptions suggest that public slaves who had been employed as saltuarii were required to continue performing their duties even after they were manumitted, as the tasks probably required specific and uncommon skills. 4.6.2 Public Slaves as mensores Two inscriptions, from Luceria and Sipontum respectively, may provide further evidence of other public slaves who dealt with public land. Both of these epigraphic sources mention a servus publicus who held the job title of mensor: − Felix s(ervus) p(ublicus) mensor (no. 323); − Augurinus rei p(ublicae) ser(vus) verna me(n)sor (no. 325).

Felix s(ervus) p(ublicus) mensor (no.  323) is attested by his own late first/early second century CE epitaph. Augurinus rei p(ublicae) ser(vus) verna me(n)sor (no. 325) is mentioned in the funerary inscription that his father Liberalis col(onorum) col(oniae) Sip(onti) ser(vus) ark(arius) (no. 326), who had been in charge of the finance department created as a result of the Trajanic alimenta, made for himself and his son in the mid second century CE.351 When combined with expressions such as frumentarius or aedificiorum, the term mensor may have referred to an individual who measured out grain or buildings. In these cases, however, the fact that the term mensor is not accompanied by any other specification seems to suggest that the meaning was intended in the narrow sense of the word – i. e., land measurer. Therefore, mensor in this case probably indicated a land surveyor.352 This would have accorded with the common tendency in literary, legal and epigraphic sources of referring to land surveyors with the simple term mensor.353 The volume of the grain supply and of the building activity may have been substantial in a large town like Luceria, so that further assistance to local aediles or possibly curatores annonae or operum publicorum was needed. Similar assistance may have seemed less likely necessary in a small town like Sipontum.354 However, if one considers that the civic territory of Sipontum seems to have frequently suffered from droughts and swamping events from the late Republican period until the late Empire, as some liter-

351 352

See Paragraph 4.4.2.2. For this interpretation, see Weiss 2004, 128–131; Sudi-Guiral 2010c; Grelle et al. 2017, 170; Ricci 2020, 75 (with caution). Cf. also Chelotti 2010, 28, 33, who did not rule out the possibility that Augurinus was a mensor frumenti. Contra Halkin 1897, 174–175, who interpreted the two mensores as surveyors of public buildings. On the possible meanings of the term mensor, see TLL VIII, s. v. mensor, coll. 753–754. 353 Arnaud 1995, 252–253. 354 On the size of Luceria and Sipontum, see de Ligt 2012, 327, 331.

Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers

195

ary and archaeological sources suggest,355 then it may have been necessary to entrust a public slave with the task of land surveying. Augurinus (no. 325) may have been in charge of measuring (or remeasuring) some land for cadastral purposes. The land’s boundaries may have become unclear due to a flood or some other reason. The me(n)sor Augurinus was a rei p(ublicae) ser(vus) verna (no. 325), i. e., an individual born as a public slave of the city of Sipontum, who died at twenty-three. This implies that he had received an education suitable for land surveying since his early youth, possibly by following the teachings of another public mensor. Land surveyors required knowledge of geography, topography, geometry, cosmology, astronomy and land law.356 Augurinus’ father Liberalis (no. 326) may have played a crucial role in his son’s education. Since Liberalis was a public slave who had been in charge of the cash department created for the alimenta and later became responsible for the public arca, he may have had close links with local magistrates who could have increased his son’s chances for a good education.357 Ultimately, these two short and isolated inscriptions are insufficient to determine whether public slaves employed as mensores were common in Roman towns or rather specific to these two towns in Apulia. This might sound like an argument ex silentio, but the uniqueness of these two sources, along with the fact that other cities probably resorted to private mensores, whether ingenui or liberti,358 seems to suggest that mensores were specific to the two towns in Apulia. 4.7 Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers 4.7.1 Public Slaves as plumbarii 4.7.1.1 The Available Evidence In a number of Roman cities, both in Italy and the Western provinces, public slaves produce lead pipes for communities to supply water for fountains, baths and other public buildings.359 Servi publici who produced these pipes were defined as plumbarii, i. e., “lead workers.” Plumbarii can be identified in various stamps on lead pipes from different regions of the Empire. Each slave was generally referred to on the stamp by his single

Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.27.71; Luc. 5.377; Chelotti 2010, 22, 27. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 131; Sudi-Guiral 2010c, 330. 356 Hinrichs 1974, 162–165. 357 Cf. also Weiss 2004, 131; Sudi-Guiral 2010, 331. 358 Cf. the list of sources in Hinrichs 1974, 161–162. 359 Halkin 1897, 174; Bruun 1991, 341–342; Weiss 2004, 122–125; Luciani 2021b. 355

196

Serving the Cities

name, the ethnonym of the community to which he belonged – sometimes combined with the word servus or the term publicus – and a reference to the act of manufacturing the pipe itself (the verb facio), or to the management of a workshop (officina). We have evidence for 17 public slaves whose names marked lead pipes: − Abascantus Saep(inatium scil. servus) at Saepinum (no. 367): he was then manumitted and became L(ucius) Saepinius Abascantus (no. 371); − Artemas c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) f(ecit) at Caesaraugusta (Tarraconensis) (no. 631); − Deme(trius) col(onorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus) at Aquileia (no. 450): he was then manumitted and became Aq(uileiensis) Demet(rius) (no. 447); − Eglect(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) Aquileia (no. 451); − Eutyches c(olonorum) C(oncordiensium scil. servus) at Iulia Concordia (no. 478); − Felix publ(icus) Terg(estinorum) at Tergeste (no. 489); − Felix ser(vus) municipi Falisci at Falerii (no. 415): he was then manumitted and became C(aius) Faliscus Felix (no. 414); − Fortunatus Saepinat(ium scil. servus) at Saepinum (no. 369); − Rufi[nus se]rvus Amit(erninorum) at Amiternum (no. 346); − Sallustianus rei p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) s(ervus) at Reate (no. 366): he was then manumitted and became Q(uintus) Reatinus Sallustianus lib(ertus) r(ei) p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) (no. 365); − [Se]cundus publicus Russellanoru(m) at Rusellae (no. 418); − Sedat(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) at Aquileia (no. 456); − September ser(vus) rei pub(licae) Faliscor(um) at Falerii (no. 416); − Silvan(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) 2 at Aquileia (no. 458); − Surio c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) at Aquileia (no. 460); − Verna c(olonorum) c(oloniae) se(rvus) f(ecit) at Caesaraugusta (Tarraconensis) (no. 632); − Verus Saepin(atium scil. servus) at Saepinum (no. 375).

Another public slave who may have done this type of work can be traced via two stamps on two different lead pipes from Rusellae, one of which already attests to the abovelisted public slave [Se]cundus publicus Russellanoru(m) (no. 418). In the best-preserved pipe, a stamp with a unique abbreviated formula (E S P R FVD) appears together with a stamp that mentions Secundus as someone responsible for the production of the lead pipe ([SE]CVNDVS PVBLICVS RVSELLANORV FEC), and another stamp that explicitly references the public status of the conduit itself (PVB COL RVS). The last part of the formula, i. e., FVD, is recognizable as the abbreviation of the perfect tense of the verb fundo, which clearly refers to the process of melting lead for the pipe.360 By

360 See TLL VI.1, s. v. fundo, col. 1563–1565. This formula is very unusual on Roman lead pipes: cf. Bruun 2010, 167 n. 96.

Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers

197

contrast, it is more difficult to interpret the first four letters, i. e., E S P R. Some scholars have associated these letters with the public slave mentioned in the other stamp on the same pipe, namely [Se]cundus publicus Russellanoru(m) (no. 418).361 However, interpreting the first letter E is difficult. I have suggested elsewhere that the E may have designated the first initial of the name of a second public slave, i. e., E(- - -), followed by the formula S P R, which would have indicated his status of public slave, i. e., s(ervus) p(ublicus) R(usellanorum) (no. 417).362 This second public slave would have been entrusted with the task of melting lead, not with that of manufacturing the conduit, which was instead the duty performed by [Se]cundus publicus Russellanoru(m) (no. 418).363 Some other plumbarii, attested by marks that mention only their single names, may also have been public slaves. However, references to the towns to which they belonged are missing. These individuals all signed lead pipes with stamps that recorded the public statuses of the conduits or indicating that they were used for public purposes. This was the case for the following instances: − − − −

Eutychius at Dyrrhachium (Macedonia) (no. 719);364 Hermes at Lanuvium (no. 649);365 Potitus ser(vus) at Spoletium (no. 671);366 Secundus c(urae) aq(uarum) c(oloniae) I(uliae) V(iennensium scil. servus?) at Vienna (Gallia Narbonensis) (no. 559).367

One of the 17 public slaves listed at the beginning of the section, i. e., Sallustianus rei p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) s(ervus) (no.  366) continued to produce conduits after his manumission. Indeed, he is clearly mentioned as a public freedman, Q(uintus) Reatinus Sallustianus lib(ertus) r(ei) p(ublicae) R(eatinorum), on the stamps on five lead pipes from Reate (no.  365). Similar cases were those of the public slaves Abascantus Saep(inatium scil. servus) (no.  367), Felix ser(vus) municipi Falisci (no.  415) and Deme(trius) col(onorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus) (no. 450), who were attested in stamps on lead pipes from Saepinum, Falerii and Aquileia. These public slaves were also mentioned as public freedmen in stamps on lead pipes from the same cities, namely as L(ucius) Saepinius Abascantus (no. 371), C(aius) Faliscus Felix (no. 414) and Aq(uileiensis) Demet(rius) (no. 447) respectively.368

361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368

Cf. Laviosa 1963, 57: E(- - -?) S(ecundus?) p(ublicus?) R(ussellanorum?) fud(it). Luciani 2021b, 169–170. On the process of making lead pipes, see Hodge 2002, 309. For this interpretation, see also Alföldy 1997, 46; Witschel 2001, 84 n. 167. For this interpretation, see also Bruun 2010, 313. Contra Weiss 2004, 123 n. 371. Cf. also Paci et al. 2021, 118. Cf. also Rémy et al. 2011, 241–242. For the same interpretation of the cases from Falerii and Aquileia, cf. also Weiss 2004, 123–124.

198

Serving the Cities

A stamp on a lead pipe from Iulia Dertona may be a further instance. It mentions a plumbarius with the single name Ianuarius (no. 684); however, he is not recorded as a slave or a public slave. However, the similarities between the name of this plumbarius and the one called C(aius) Iulius Ianuarius (no. 685) from a stamp on another lead pipe from the same city invites further discussion. The nomen Iulius could be related to the epithet of the colony of Iulia Dertona. Although no other evidence of public freedmen (and even of public slaves) has been discovered in that city, it is possible that public freedmen in Dertona took a nomen from the titulature of the colony, as was customary in many other cities of the Roman world.369 It is therefore also possible that Ianuarius (no. 684) was a public slave from the colony of Iulia Dertona, who had been employed as a plumbarius both before and after his manumission. The fact that both lead pipes are to be dated to the late first or early second century CE seems to support this hypothesis.370 In light of these instances of public slaves who continued to be employed as plumbarii after their manumission, a number of individuals attested by stamps on lead pipes, who bear the nomen Poblicius/Publicius or a name derived from the toponym of a self-governing town, may also have been public freedmen:371 − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Amiternius Aries at Amiternum (no. 663); Q(uintus) Amiternius Primigenius at Amiternum (no. 664); Q(uintus) Amiter[nius - - -] at Amiternum (no. 665); Aq(uileiensis) Iuvenal(is) at Aquileia (no. 686) (Fig. 13); M(arcus) Ostiensis Asclepiades at Ostia (no. 651); C(aius) Ostiensius Felicissimus at Ostia (no. 652); Ostiensis Her(mes) vel Herc(ula)n(eus) at Ostia (no. 654); Ostiensis Praetorinus at Ostia (no. 655); A(ulus) Ostiensis Trophimus at Ostia (no. 656); L(ucius) Publicius Asclepius at Bononia (no. 681); A(ulus) Reatin(us) Callimorphus at Reate (no. 667); [- - - Tibu?]rtius Plocamus at Tibur (no. 657); C(aius) Tiburtius Verna at Tibur (no. 658); T(itus) Treb[ulanus? - - -] at Trebula Mutuesca (no. 659).

369 Cf. Halkin 1935, 133–134; Luciani 2021a, 181–182. 370 For the date of the two lead pipes, see SupplIt 26, 2012, 151–152 no. 31a-b, 152–153 no. 32. 371 I did not include in this corpus the three plumbarii from Praeneste, who bear the nomen Primigenius (Abascantus, Anteros and Fortunatus), as they were freedmen (or their possible freedmen/ descendants) of the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, i. e., former temple slaves rather than former public slaves: Nonnis 2018, 99–100 with n.  90. On the distinction between temple slaves and public slaves see Reduzzi Merola 2017, 279 and Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.10.

Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers

199

Fig. 13 Lead pipe that mentions the plumbarius Aq(uileiensis) Iuvenal(is) (no. 687) – Aquileia, first c. CE (Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale; inv. 11579; courtesy of Ministero della cultura, Direzione regionale musei del Friuli Venezia Giulia).

Notwithstanding the possibility that all – or most – of them were in fact descendants of public freedmen, it is possible that they were public freedmen.372 After all, public slaves are already attested as plumbarii in some of the above-mentioned cities. One of the above-listed possible public freedmen, L(ucius) Publicius Asclepius, who is mentioned as a vilicus in the stamps on five lead pipes from Bononia (no. 681), is of particular interest. Since public freedmen in Bononia took the nomen Poblicius/Publicius upon manumission,373 both Aubert and Carlsen have identified him as a public freedman.374 Although the nomen Poblicius/Publicius is not sufficient evidence, by itself, to identify an individual as a public freedman, the public nature and function of the lead pipes from Bononia bearing this stamp suggest that the duties performed by L(ucius) Publicius Asclepius were related to the manufacture of public conduits on behalf of the city.375

372 Cf. also Weiss 2004, 124; Bruun 2008, 540, 549. 373 See [- P]oblicius [Bo]noniens(ium) l(ibertus) [- - -]ṭus (no. 430). Cf. also Halkin 1935, 128; Luciani 2021a, 195 no. 8 (Tab. 1). 374 Aubert 1993, 175; Carlsen 1995, 38. Contra Weiss 2004, 124 n. 377. 375 On the use of such lead pipes for public purposes in Bononia, see Susini 2001, 130–131.

200

Serving the Cities

If this hypothesis is correct, then the following nine vilici, whose single names are mentioned in the ablative on eight stamps on lead pipes from Bononia, may have also been public slaves:376 − − − − − − − − −

Acutus vilic(us) (no. 673); Aphrodisius vil(icus) (no. 674); Callistus vil(icus) (no. 675); Campanus vil(icus) (no. 676); Cinnam(us) vilic(us) (no. 677); Dignus vilicus (no. 678); Lausus vil(icus) (no. 679); Peculiaris vilicus (no. 680); Superus vil(icus) (no. 682).

The term vilicus may have referred to a manager appointed to the head of a managerial unit who oversaw skilled staff, as Aubert suggested.377 The use of the ablative case could indicate that the manufacture of each of the conduits occurred under particular circumstances – i. e., under the supervision of a vilicus.378 These vilici were presumably entrusted by a magistrate of Bononia with the task of coordinating the activities of all the plumbarii who manufactured lead pipes in a local public workshop. Considering the public status of all these lead pipes from Bononia, it would not be surprising if all the staff members involved in these activities were public slaves. A similar structure was likely established in other cities. Indeed, a first century CE altar from Verona attests to a public slave, named Phoebus, who was a vilicus plumbariorum (no. 499).379 This public slave was probably entrusted with the task of coordinating the activities of some plumbarii, who were likely all public slaves, too. In this regard, it is worth mentioning an Augustan-age inscription from Capua that cites two vilici of servile condition who were probably related to a lead pipe workshop: Evagogus a flam(mis) (no. 647) and Eutychus vilic(us) a plumbo (no. 648). Although their statuses are not explicitly stated, they may have been public slaves; one may have supervised the melting of lead, and the other may have supervised furnace-related activities.380 Returning to the previously discussed lead pipes from Bononia, it is remarkable that the name of a possible public slave as a vilicus, Cinnam(us) vilic(us) (no. 677), occurs alongside the names of two quaestores, L(ucius) Rufius and Sex(tus) Pontius, also in the ablative case. Further supervision by magistrates with formal responsibility for the 376 377 378 379

For this interpretation, see also Susini 2001, 116–117, 134. Aubert 1994, 324–407. Contra de Kleijn 2001, 124. Instead, for the interpretation of these stamps as chronological markers, see Susini 2001, 132. AE 1946, 136: Iovi Lustrali / Phoebus Veronens(ium scil. servus) / vilicus plumbarior(um), / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). 380 Cf. also Aubert 1993, 175; Carlsen 1995, 38. Contra Weiss 2004, 125. It is anyhow possible that they were slaves of private individuals.

Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers

201

local public treasury, such as quaestors, was likely necessary in their situation. This is understandable, especially considering the public status of the conduit, which had been funded by the aerarium of Bononia.381 References to local magistrates and public slaves on separate stamps of the same lead pipe were not uncommon. A stamp with the name of an aedile, M(arcus) Iul(ius) Antonianus, was found on a lead pipe from Caesaraugusta (Tarraconensis) alongside two other stamps mentioning two public slaves, Artemas c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) (no. 631) and Verna c(olonorum) c(oloniae) se(rvus) (no. 632). The manufacture of this public conduit may have required the supervision of a local magistrate who had overall responsibility for public buildings, i. e., an aedile. In the instances above from Iulia Dertona and Dyrrhachium, officials with a cura are mentioned (either on the same stamp or on separate stamps) alongside plumbarii who may have been public slaves. According to these stamps, Ianuarius (no. 684) in Iulia Dertona and the officinator Eutychius (no. 719) at Dyrrhachium manufactured the lead pipes under the supervision (sub cura) of P(ublius) Va(lerius) Sab(inus) and two other individuals, Tell(utius) Gaet(ulicus) and Avidius Camurian(us) respectively. These individuals’ role are not made explicit, but they may have all been local magistrates. 4.7.1.2 The Manufacture of Water Lead Pipes This collection of evidence presents an interesting perspective on how public lead pipes were manufactured in Roman cities. Many Roman cities used their own slaves to manufacture the lead pipes that supplied water to their communities. Moreover, many public slaves likely continued to perform these tasks even after their manumissions. As a result, many of the stamps that mention individuals with names derived from toponyms or epithets of self-governing towns, or the nomen Poblicius/Publicius, probably referred to public freedmen. A second important point is that the entire manufacturing process – from melting the metal, to rolling it into plates, to soldering those plates into pipes – was carried out in workshops (officinae), which were probably publicly owned or at least directly controlled by local authorities. According to Weiss, public slaves acting as plumbarii who continued these activities after manumission likely had their own workshops, where they would have either manufactured lead pipes for private individuals or provided their communities with spare parts for public conduits, to replace existing ones.382 Although this hypothesis seems plausible, we should bear in mind that workshops 381

Other lead pipes with stamps only mentioning quaestors in the ablative case were found in Bononia: CIL XI, 724, 727 and 729; cf. also Petraccia Lucernoni 1988, 242–243. I do believe that all these stamps are related to the responsibility for the manufacture of lead pipes, not to their installation. 382 Weiss 2004, 124.

202

Serving the Cities

managed by public freedmen could not operate independently from the cities that had manumitted them. Public slaves remained closely connected with their cities after their manumission. As was the case for private freedmen with their own patrons, former public slaves were required to offer some professional services (operae) to the cities that had freed them.383 As previously mentioned,384 the practice of requiring public freedmen to carry out (as operae) the same activities they performed while they were slaves seems to have been a common trend in Roman cities. Requiring public freedmen to do the job that they had done as slaves was a practical choice for civic authorities.385 It was especially advantageous for a job such as manufacturing lead pipes, which  – as attested by Vitruvius386  – was highly demanding and even dangerous to workers’ health. Cities would have profited from having their own expert and loyal freedmen available to produce lead pipes for public use.387 The explicitly stated public status of the lead pipe produced by L(ucius) Saepinius Abascantus (no. 371), i. e., the former public slave Abascantus Saep(inatium scil. servus) (no. 367) at Saepinum, was typical of this practice. The workshops in which public freedmen produced lead pipes were therefore likely under the direct control of civic authorities. The evidence suggests that in some cities, the process of manufacturing lead pipes was managed by various individuals in different capacities. At the highest level were local magistrates, such as quaestors (Bononia), aediles (Caesaraugusta) or other officials (Iulia Dertona, Dyrrhachium), who oversaw the manufacturing of public conduits. In an intermediate position there might have been the vilici, i. e., public slaves or freedmen who acted as managers and overseers (Bononia, Verona, Capua?). Vilici were probably entrusted with the task of supervising teams of plumbarii, who occupied the lowest level of the managerial hierarchy. Plumbarii were public slaves who physically worked lead, from melting the metal to manufacturing pipes. In other cities, the intermediate level of vilici may not have been necessary, and public slaves may have acted as plumbarii and been directly supervised by magistrates or other officials (Caesaraugusta, Iulia Dertona, Dyrrhachium). That said, publicly owned workshops, with or without this hierarchy in the production process, were probably neither widely nor permanently established. In Ostia, Vienna and Rome, for instance, private workshops were also commissioned to produce public conduits. Some stamps on public lead pipes mention plumbarii who were unrelated to the group of public slaves and freedmen.388 Nevertheless, as Christer

383 Cf. lex Irn. 72; Spichenko 2018, 622, 624. 384 See Paragraph 4.1.2. Cf. also Luciani 2017, 47–56. 385 On the importance of formalised operae in cases of ‘impersonal’ patrons, see Mouritsen 2011, 201 n. 361. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.7. 386 Vitr. De arch. 8.11. 387 Bruun 2003, 315. 388 Petrucci 1996, 204–205; Bruun 2003, 315–316; Geremia Nucci 2006, 461.

Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers

203

Bruun noted, plumbarii bearing the nomen Ostiensis signed about 15 % of the lead pipes from Ostia. Although we have no surviving stamps that mention public slaves in Ostia, the fact that individuals who may have been public freedmen were so widespread among plumbarii in Ostia seems to suggest the considerable involvement of local servi publici in this activity.389 Publicly owned workshops for the manufacture of lead pipes were likely established during certain periods, when a city needed an unusually large number of lead pipes for a particular public purpose.390 The lead pipes bearing the names of vilici (nos. 673– 682) and quaestors from Bononia, which date to the early first century CE, may be linked with the construction of the public aqueduct, that began and was completed in the Augustan age, when the Via Aemilia was also restored in the city.391 Similarly, the lead pipes signed in the Augustan age by servi and liberti publici in Saepinum (nos. 367, 369, 371, 375), were likely related to the construction of an aqueduct, as the urban area around Saepinum underwent a considerable development under Augustus.392 The conduits manufactured by the possible public slave Eutychius (no.  719) at Dyrrhachium were probably part of the Hadrianic project of constructing a new aqueduct in that city.393 The Ostienses who acted as plumbarii in Ostia in the second century CE (nos. 651–652, 654–656) may have been recruited for the construction of three or four public baths under the Antonines.394 Finally, the public lead pipes from Rusellae may provide further clues about this phenomenon, as they mention the names of two servi publici (nos. 417–418) and date all to between the second and third centuries CE, when several public works were carried out in that city.395 Weiss has stated that the production of lead pipes was not part of the system of the cura aquarum, as water service in the cities was organized differently than in Rome.396 However, the system for the manufacture of public lead pipes attested by the available evidence from Bononia, Verona, Caesaugusta and possibly Capua might bear similarities to the system used in Rome to manage the aqueducts. The lead pipes from Vienna, Iulia Dertona and Dyrrhachium (nos. 559, 684, 719) even mention the words cura or cura aquarum, which could suggest that in some cities, the production of pipes was organized according to a system somewhat similar to a cura.397 It is impossible to know

389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397

Bruun 2008, 548–549, 552. Similarly, Weiss 2004, 124. Ortalli 2005, 492–495. Gaggiotti 1982, 32. Shpuza 2014, 502–503. Meiggs 19732, 404–420; Cébeillac-Gervasoni et al. 2010, 43. SupplIt 16, 1998, 96. Weiss 2004, 119, 125. On municipal curatores aquae, see Eck 1995, 242.

204

Serving the Cities

whether the pipe production model derived from that of the cura aquarum of Rome, but this hypothesis should not be dismissed outright.398 However, an important difference must be acknowledged. Servi publici in Rome, who were massively involved in activities related to the maintenance or surveillance of aqueducts, seem not to have been employed in the manufacture of lead pipes.399 Conversely, while servi and liberti publici in the other cities throughout the Empire are extensively documented as plumbarii, they seem not to have been involved in the maintenance of local aqueducts.400 The only possible attestation of a public slave in a town who might have been employed in the management of an aqueduct is the late second century CE epitaph of Felix public(us) Brun(disinorum) ser(vus) from Brundisium. This public slave was recorded with the title of aqua[rius] (no. 311). Apart from generically designating a water-bearer, the term may also indicate someone who worked in the public water supply.401 In On Aqueducts, Frontinus does not precisely define the meaning of the expression aquarii that he uses.402 In an excerpt from the Code of Justinian, the aquarii (who must be branded with the name of the emperor on their hands so that they can be recognized if they attempt to run away) are compared to the aquarum custodes – the water or aqueduct guards.403 The aquarii, “water-men” or “water-workers”, may therefore have guarded the public aqueducts. They may have been in charge of guaranteeing a constant level of water supply and/or distributing water to private individuals.404 However, the uniqueness of the source from Brundisium suggests that public slaves in Roman cities were not extensively employed in the maintenance of the aqueducts – certainly not to the extent that they were involved in the manufacture of water lead pipes. 4.7.2 Public Slaves as tegularii In the Roman world, cities also owned workshops (figlinae) in which bricks and tiles for public buildings were manufactured. The products of these figlinae bear marks that indicate that they were ‘public’; for instance, the marks sometimes record the adjective (often abbreviated) publicus/-a, or reference the civic community (e. g., res publica), or mention the local magistrates who oversaw the production process, or the public

398 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 170; Petrucci 1996, 185; Luciani 2021b, 176–177. For other possible evidence and a general discussion, see Bruun 1991, 364; Bruun 2010, 163–164. 399 Cf. Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.3.3. 400 Weiss 2004, 121–122. 401 Cf. DE, I, 1895, 587; TLL II, s. v. aquarius, col. 366. 402 Frontin. Aq. 1.9.6; cf. Rodgers 2004, 173. 403 Cod. Iust. 11.43.10.4. 404 Rodgers 2004, 173.

Public Slaves and Freedmen as Specialized Labourers

205

slaves involved the manufacturing process.405 Monique Dondin-Payre collected an impressive dossier of bricks and tiles from all over the Empire that bear such “marques civiques”.406 Among them, only two instances reference public slaves: − Anteros publicus Ferentini (no.  192), who impressed his name on three public tiles at Ferentinum;407 − Vestigator p(ublicus) Iuvan(ensium) (no. 364), who is attested by both a mark on a late first/early second century CE public tile from Iuvanum and the relevant bronze stamp (signaculum).408

The two marks record the names of the public slaves in the nominative, with implied verbal forms like fecit or facit. Both public slaves were therefore in charge of tile manufacturing (tegularii) for their respective towns. Two tiles from Savaria (Pannonia superior) contain a mark that mentions L(ucius) Savar(i)ensis Ionius (no. 725), who may have been a local public freedman employed in the production of tiles.409 Since his nomen is clearly derived from the toponym of Savaria, he may have been a libertus publicus of that town. He would therefore be an example of a public slave employed in the manufacture of public tiles, who continued to perform these duties even after his manumission. If the interpretation of the mark EX. OF. L. S. I. on other three tiles from Savaria as Ex of(ficina) L(uci) S(avariensis) I(onii) is correct,410 L(ucius) Savar(i)ensis Ionius (no. 725) may also have managed his own workshop. No other firm evidence for servi and liberti publici employed in figlinae as tegularii is available. Only a few cases can be discussed. A tile from Bononia, which was published by Eugen Bormann in the eleventh volume of CIL in 1901 and is now lost, was inscribed with the following mark: [- - -]VEDIAN R P411

The text has been interpreted as: [- - -] Vedian(a scil. officina) r(ei) p(ublicae)?412

405 Cébeillac Gervasoni 2009, 25. In particular, bricks and tiles manufactured in public figlinae must have been used for the construction of temples: cf. Manacorda 2000, 139. 406 Dondin-Payre 2010. 407 Cf. also Dondin-Payre 2010, 444 no. 31. 408 For the tile, see AE 1995, 395: Vestigator / p(ublicus) Iuvân(ensium); cf. also Pellegrino 1984, 194; Buonocore 1994, 364; Dondin-Payre 2010, 444 no. 30. For the bronze stamp, see CIL IX, 6083,164: Vestigator / p(ublicus) Iuvân(ensium); cf. also Cébeillac Gervasoni 2009, 25 n. 19. 409 Cf. CIL III, 4692a-b: L. Savar̂(i)ensis Ion̂i(i); cf. also Dondin-Payre 2010, 445 no. 87. 410 Cf. CIL III, 4693a-c: Ex of(ficina) L. S(avariensis) I(onii); cf. also Dondin-Payre 2010, 445 no. 87. 411 Cf. CIL XI, 6675,4. 412 Cf. also Righini et al. 1993, 40.

206

Serving the Cities

According to this interpretation, the mark would have referred to a workshop that was formerly owned by a private individual with the nomen Vedius, and was then transferred to the property of the res publica of Bononia.413 This explanation seems plausible at first, because several inscriptions from the region also record individuals with the nomen Vedius, which was quite rare in Northern Italy.414 However, after studying the collection of marks on public bricks and tiles, Dondin-Payre noted that terms like officina and tegularia – or similar references to the workshop – do not occur in other instances; the case from Bononia would be unique. Dondin-Payre thus considered the interpretation above unlikely, though not impossible.415 With this in mind, we can suggest another interpretation. Unfortunately, it may not be any less problematic or hypothetical than the previous one: [- - -] Vedian(us) r(ei) p(ublicae scil. servus)? (no. 683).

This reading implies that the expression VEDIAN was an abbreviation of the agnomen of a slave of the res publica, whose name is lost in the gap. The nominative case would suggest that he made a tile in a public workshop, if we imply the verb fecit or facit as in the above-mentioned cases from Ferentinum and Iuvanum. The agnomen Vedian(us) would indicate that, before being transferred to the property of the res publica (i. e., Bononia), the slave had been previously owned by a certain Vedius. As noted in Chapter 1,416 one of the sources of servi publici in Rome and in the other towns was households (familiae) of private individuals, from which slaves were purchased (or given as gifts). Once they were made public property, these slaves received an agnomen (usually ending in -anus) that derived from the nomen or cognomen of their former master, which was added to their individual name. The simplex nomen of the slave would be lost in the gap at the beginning of the stamp. If this interpretation be correct, the tile from Bononia would refer to a private slave who had been purchased by the res publica and ordered to work in a public workshop. Two other marks, which are attested on a series of tiles from Patavium and its territory, may also reference public freedmen. The first mark mentions both P(ublius) Poblicius Nychius (no.  697) and P(ublius) Poblicius Alexander (no.  695),417 whereas

413

For the nomenclature of the workshops (officinae/figlinae) and of the relevant tiles, see Righini 1998, 32–33; Righini 2008, 280–281. 414 Cf. CIL V, 2440 (Ferrara); CIL XI, 180 (Ravenna). On the nomen Vedius and its diffusion in Northern Italy, see Schulze 1904, 251; OPEL IV, 150. On the name Vedianus, see Kajanto 1965, 158. 415 Cf. Dondin-Payre 2010, 446: “Jamais elles (scil. les marques civiques) ne comportent officina, tegularia, ni aucun autre mot en relation avec l’atelier; c’est pourquoi la restitution d’officina à Bologne (n° 77), qui en ferait un unicum, est peu vraisemblable, sans être exclue”. 416 See Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1.5–6. 417 CIL V, 8110, 282: P(ublius) Pobl(icius) Nyc[hius] / P(ublius) Pobl(icius) Ale[xander]. Cf. also Cipriano – Mazzocchin 2003, 54, 75; Cipriano – Mazzocchin 2007, 674.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Order

207

the second mark only records the name of P(ublius) Poblicius Xystus (no. 698).418 No evidence for public freedmen in Patavium is available so far; however, the inscription offered by T(itus) Poblicius Crescens (no. 696) to the Genius of his domini, who have been interpreted as the townsfolk of Patavium,419 seems to suggest that public slaves in Patavium received the nomen Poblicius upon manumission. One of the aforementioned tiles comes from the baths of Montegrotto, which were partly managed by the town of Patavium.420 Thus, it would not be surprising if the tiles that covered the roofs of these buildings were produced in a workshop where former servi publici worked. The fact that these attestations of public slaves and freedmen are so difficult to trace makes more sense if one considers that most marks on public tiles and bricks only reference the ‘publicness’ of the products or the magistrates who supervised their production;421 any public slaves or freedmen who made these products would likely have remained anonymous. Even so, it is possible that servi and liberti publici were not heavily involved in the production of public bricks and tiles in Roman cities; after all, the evidence suggests that the number of servi and liberti Caesaris employed in the Imperial brick industry was also relatively small.422 Furthermore, in Italy and the provinces, a public production of bricks and tiles must have occurred only in particular periods of each city’s history, and especially during the construction of significant buildings. As we have seen, this was also the case with workshops that produced lead pipes for public purposes.423 In normal conditions, bricks and tiles for public use would have been purchased in private workshops: this could explain the limited attestations of marks on bricks and tiles that refer to public slaves and freedmen.424 4.8 Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Order 4.8.1 Public Slaves as Prison Guards Valerius Maximus and Velleius provided compelling – though somewhat problematic – information about a German or Cimbrian public slave who may have been entrusted with the task of executing Marius at Minturnae in 88 BCE.425 If true, their evidence

418 CIL V, 8110, 283a-b: P(ublius) Poblicius Xys(tus). Cf. also Cipriano – Mazzocchin 2003, 53, 75; Cipriano – Mazzocchin 2007, 671, 674. 419 See Paragraph 4.5.4. 420 On the administration of the baths at Montegrotto (Padua), see Tosi 2004, 886. Cf. also Cipriano – Mazzocchin 2003, 53, who supposed the existence of a workshop of tiles in the Euganean region. 421 Dondin-Payre 2010, 446–449. 422 Weaver 1998, 245–246. 423 See Paragraph 4.7.1.2. 424 Cf. also Dondin-Payre 2010, 448–449. 425 Val. Max. 2.10.6; Vell. Pat. 2.19. See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.6.

208

Serving the Cities

suggests that servi publici in Roman cities may have been used to maintain public order and, more specifically, to put condemned people to death. A series of letters between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan provides more reliable information on this point; the letters suggest that public slaves in the cities of Bithynia were commonly employed as prison guards. In 110 CE, Pliny wrote a letter to Trajan to seek his opinion about the possibility of using soldiers as prison guards instead of the public slaves who normally occupied this role: Rogo, domine, consilio me regas haesitantem, utrum per publicos civitatium servos, quod usque adhuc factum, an per milites asservare custodias debeam. Vereor enim, ne et per publicos parum fideliter custodiantur, et non exiguum militum numerum haec cura distringat. Interim publicis servis paucos milites addidi. Video tamen periculum esse, ne id ipsum utrisque neglegentiae causa sit, dum communem culpam hi in illos, illi in hos regerere posse confidunt. My lord, I am writing for the guidance of your advice. I am in doubt whether I should maintain guard over prisoners by employing the public slaves of the cities, which has hitherto been the practice, or whether I should employ soldiers; for my fear is that the use of public slaves may result in less reliable supervision, but on the other hand this duty may divert a not inconsiderable number of soldiers from military tasks. Meanwhile I have reinforced the public slaves with a few soldiers, but I see that there is a danger that this practice may lead to neglect of duty by both, as each side feels sure that they can pin the guilt they share on the other.426

Pliny clearly admits that he does not trust the publici civitatium servi, and that he has already ordered some soldiers to work alongside them. However, Trajan rejects Pliny’s opinion, and suggests a return to the status quo: Nihil opus sit, mi Secunde carissime, ad continendas custodias plures commilitones converti. Perseveremus in ea consuetudine quae isti provinciae est, ut per publicos servos custodiantur. Etenim, ut fideliter hoc faciant, in tua severitate ac diligentia positum est. In primis enim, sicut scribis, verendum est, ne, si permisceantur servis publicis milites, mutua inter se fiducia neglegentiores sint; sed et illud haereat nobis, quam paucissimos a signis avocandos esse. There should be no need, my fondest Secundus, for more of our fellow soldiers to be diverted to guard duties over the prisons. Let us continue with the practice which obtains in your province of employing public slaves for guard-duties. Indeed, it lies with your discipline and careful attention to ensure that they do the job conscientiously; for, as you write, we must be especially apprehensive, if soldiers are mingled with public slaves, that they

426 Plin. Ep. 10.19; translation by Walsh 2006, 249.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Order

209

become more careless through relying on each other. We must rather abide by the practice that as few soldiers as possible should be called away from the standards.427

From Trajan’s reply we can infer that he did not trust public slaves much more than Pliny; however, he confines himself to reminding Pliny that the conscientiousness of public slaves was dependent on Pliny’s severitas and diligentia. This implied that Pliny was entitled to punish public slaves, if necessary, to correct any disobedience. Trajan’s apparent attitude towards the public slaves employed as prison guards seems to suggest that they could be bound by stricter rules and harsher punishments than would have applied if they had been soldiers. However, things seem to have change soon after that point. The use of soldiers in penal detention and punishment seems to have increased in frequency from the second century CE onwards.428 The situation described by Pliny demonstrates that public slaves may have been commonly employed as prison guards in Roman cities. If they showed promise, they may have also been required to perform their former duties after manumission. This may have been the case for a certain Tib(erius) Cl(audius) [C]hrestus clavic(ularius) carc(eris) p(ublici) Lug(uduni) (no. 713), who dedicated an altar and a statue between two trees with a small shrine to the God Silvanus at Lugdunum in the late first century CE. This man’s job title was clavic(ularius) carc(eris) p(ublici) Lug(uduni), i. e., “jailer of the public prison of Lugdunum”, and his nomenclature consisted of the nomen Claudius, which was derived from one of the epithets of the colony of Copia Claudia Augusta Lugdunum. Both his job title and his nomenclature suggest that he may have been a public freedman.429 If this interpretation is correct, as a slave clavic(ularius) carc(eris) p(ublici) Lug(uduni), Chrestus must have been so conscientious that local councillors not only decided to manumit him, but also they required him to continue in the same role of prison guard that he likely occupied when he was a slave. Apart from this inscription – whose interpretation, as we have seen, is not univocal – we have no other evidence of public freedmen (or possible ones) employed as prison guards. Nevertheless, it was still customary for provincial cities in the early third century CE to use municipal slaves (ministeria municipalia) as jailers, as well as soldiers (milites) and attendants of magistrates (statores). This is confirmed by the following passage from Ulpian, which was included in the Digest: In eadem causa sunt et qui a militibus statoribusque vel a municipalibus ministeriis adservantur, si probentur rei suae superesse non potuisse. In vinculis autem etiam eos accipimus, qui ita alligati sunt, ut sine dedecore in publico parere non possint.

427 Plin. Ep. 10.20; translation by Walsh 2006, 249–250. 428 See Fuhrmann 2012, 65–66. 429 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 177; Luciani 2017, 51. Contra Weiss 2004, 111–112. On the nomenclature of public freedmen and freedwomen in Lugdunum, see Halkin 1935, 134; Luciani 2021a, 182.

210

Serving the Cities

In the same position are also those who are kept in custody by soldiers, the attendants of a magistrate, or servants of a municipality, if they are shown not to have been able to look after their own business. Moreover, we also understand to be in bonds those who are bound in such a way that they cannot without disgrace appear in public.430

Employing public slaves as prison guards in a city was probably preferable to using soldiers, attendants, or even public freedmen, as local authorities could have total control over their own slaves. In this respect, public slaves who were in charge of prisoners seem analogous to servi publici employed as arcarii, i. e., guards of the chests of the cities.431 4.8.2 Public Slaves Involved in Public Policing and Security In addition to being employed as prison guards, public slaves could also be employed to ensure law and order. An Ulpian excerpt from the Digest suggests that, in the early third century CE, some publica ministeria (i. e., public slaves) were entrusted with the task of guarding captured runaway slaves: In publicum deduci intelleguntur qui magistratibus municipalibus traditi sunt vel publicis ministeriis. “To be produced in public” is taken to mean to be handed over to municipal magistrates or public servants.432

One also finds echoes of this scenario in chapters 97 and 98 of the mid-first century CE novel known as Satyricon, which is attributed to Petronius. After having an affair with his master’s friend Ascyltos, Giton – the sixteen-year-old slave and sexual partner of Encolpius himself – begs his master to take him back as his lover. Encolpius forgives Giton and hides him from Ascyltos, who looks desperately for him. As if Giton were a runaway slave, Ascyltos organizes an official search for him. A public slave is involved in this search, along with some apparitores: […] intrat stabulum praeco cum servo publico aliaque sane modica frequentia; facemque tumosam magis quam lucidam quassans haec proclamavit: “Puer in balneo paulo ante aberravit, annorum circa XVI, crispus, mollis, formosus, nomine Giton. Si quis eum reddere aut commonstrare voluerit, accipiet nummos mille”. Nec longe a praecone Ascyltos stabat amictus discoloria veste, atque in lance argentea indicium et fidem praeferebat.

430 Dig. 4.6.10 (Ulp. 12 ad ed.); translation by Watson 1998, 141. Cf. also Fuhrmann 2012, 66 n. 70. 431 See Paragraph 4.4.2.6. 432 Dig. 11.4.1.6 (Ulp. 1 ad ed.); translation by Watson 1998, 345. Cf. also Fuhrmann 2012, 34.

Public Slaves and Freedmen and Public Order

211

[…] a crier came into the inn with a public slave and quite a small crowd of other people, shook a torch which gave out more smoke than light, and made this proclamation: “Lost recently in the public baths, a boy aged about sixteen, hair curly, looks soft, of attractive appearance, answers to the name of Giton. A reward of a thousand pieces will be paid to any person willing to bring him back or indicate his where-abouts”. Ascyltos stood close by the crier in clothes of many colours, holding out the reward on a silver dish to prove his honesty.433

Encolpius hides Giton, and the public slave continues to look for him throughout the inn: Imperavi Gitoni ut raptim grabatum subiret annecteretque pedes et manus institis, quibus sponda culcitam ferebat, ac sic ut olim Vlixes pro arieti adhaesisset, extentus infra grabatum scrutantium eluderet manus. Non est moratus Giton imperium, momentoque temporis inseruit vinculo manus et Vlixem astu simillimo vicit. Ego ne suspicioni relinquerem locum, lectulum vestimentis implevi uniusque hominis vestigium ad corporis mei mensuram figuravi. Interim Ascyltos ut pererravit omnes cum viatore cellas, venit ad meam, et hoc quidem pleniorem spem concepit, quo diligentius oppessulatas invenit fores. Publicus vero servus insertans commissuris secures claustrorum firmitatem laxavit. […] servus publicus […] raptam cauponi harundinem subter lectum mittit, omniaque etiam foramina parietum scrutatur. Subducebat Giton ab ictu corpus, et reducto timidissime spiritu ipsos sciniphes ore tangebat. I told Giton to get under the bed at once, and hook his feet and hands into the girths which held up the mattress on the frame, and (as Ulysses of old clung tightly), stretched out under the bed instead of a ram, evade the grasp of searchers. Giton obeyed orders at once, and in a second had slipped his hands into the webbing, and surpassed even Ulysses at his own tricks. I did not want to leave any room for suspicion, so I stuffed the bed with clothes, and arranged them in the shape of a man about my own height sleeping by himself. Meanwhile Ascyltos went round all the rooms with a constable, and when he came to mine, his hopes swelled within him at finding the door bolted with especial care. The public slave put an axe into the joints, and loosened the bolts from their place. […] the public slave […] took a cane from the inn-keeper, and pushed it under the bed, and poked into everything, even the cracks in the walls. Giton twisted away from the stick, drew in his breath very gently, and pressed his lips even against the bugs in the bedding.434

Since this section of the text is somewhat fragmented, it is difficult to reconstruct the subsequent events. Moreover, the novel’s fictional content, which involves many paradoxical situations, requires us to exercise extreme caution before drawing any conclu-

433 Petron. Sat. 97; translation by Michael Heseltine from LCL 15 (1913) with some adaptations. 434 Petron. Sat. 97–98; translation by Michael Heseltine from LCL 15 (1913) with some adaptations.

212

Serving the Cities

sions. However, although the author probably intended for this passage to be comical, a scenario in which some apparitores – namely a praeco and a viator – were assisted by a public slave in their search for a runaway slave must have been perceived at least plausible. The above-mentioned passage from Ulpian appears to confirm this.435 Public slaves may have also occasionally been employed as stationarii, a term that usually designated soldiers with police or guard duties.436 Some servi stationarii (no. 710) are mentioned in a second century CE statue base from Nescania (Baetica) honouring a prominent individual called Gaius Marius Clemens. The monument was set up by the decurions of Nescania. As a token of her gratitude, the mother of the dedicatee, Fabia Restituta, gifted one denarius to each servus stationarius and two other denarii to the extended townsfolk (cives atque incolae). She also offered a banquet to the decurions and their children (decuriones et filii eorum). Since this group of servi stationarii is mentioned along with the ordo decurionum, the cives and the incolae of the city, we can reasonably infer that it consisted of public slaves.437 Although these slaves may have been the staff of an unknown statio of the city of Nescania,438 it seems likelier that they played a role in public security.439 In a third century CE inscription from Intercisa (Pannonia inferior), the public status of a stationarius who set up a small votive altar to the Deus Sol Au[g(ustus)] is explicitly mentioned: stat(ionarius) [p]ub(licus). Notwithstanding the monument’s fragmentary state, the dedicator seems to have borne a single name, [- - -]limus (no. 725), which suggests that he was a slave, arguably a public one. At any rate, we have only two possible attestations of public slaves employed as stationarii, and both give way to equivocal interpretations. Therefore, extreme caution is required, and any general conclusions should be considered conjectural.

435 436 437 438

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 42; Weiss 2004, 105–106; Fuhrmann 2012, 37–38. Petraccia Lucernoni 2001, 28–41; Fuhrmann 2012, 207–220. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 239. Cf. Petraccia Lucernoni 2001, 41, 55. Navarro Caballero 2017, 477 supposed that they were in charge of the statio of the cursus publicus. 439 Cf. also Halkin 1897, 95–96; Mommsen 1899, 307–308 with n. 2; Fuhrmann 2012, 207 n. 21.

5. Being Freed by the Community The Manumission of Public Slaves 5.1 Public Freedmen in Rome1 5.1.1 The Official Procedure for Manumitting Public Slaves in Rome Besides being public property and performing duties for common use, the third essential feature of public slaves’ predicament was the possibility of being granted freedom through an official act of manumission.2 Although we have no direct evidence for any formal procedure of manumitting public slaves in Rome,3 we are fairly certain that public slaves could be manumitted there, too. A passage from Varro’s On the Latin Language, which discusses the nomenclature of public freedmen, clearly references the manumission of public slaves both in Rome and in other towns: […] nomina habent ab oppidis […] plerique libertini a municipio manumissi, in quo, ut societatum et fanorum servi, non servarunt proportione rationem, et Romanorum liberti debuerunt dici ut a Faventia Faventinus, ab Reate Reatinus sic a Roma Romanus, ut nominentur libertini orti a publicis servis Romani, qui manumissi ante quam sub magistratuum nomina, qui eos liberarunt, succedere coeperunt. Most freedmen set free by a free town get their names from the town; in this matter, those who were slaves of guilds and temples have not observed the rule in the same way; and the freedmen of the Romans ought to have got the name Romanus, like Faventinus from Faventia and Reatinus from Reate. In this way the freedmen whose parents were public slaves

1 2 3

As noted in Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.5, there is no evidence for female public slaves or freedwomen in Rome, and hence one can legitimately use the male noun ‘freedman/-men’. For the specifics of public slaves, see Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.7. On the official procedure for manumitting public slaves at Irni and in the other cities of the Roman Empire see Paragraph 5.2.1 below.

214

Being Freed by the Community

in Rome would be named Romanus, who had been set free before they began to take the names of the magistrates who set them free.4

Varro argues that, like most of the freedmen of municipia or colonies, who got their nomina from the names of their towns, the freedmen of the Romans (Romanorum liberti) – i. e., the servi publici populi Romani who had been manumitted – received the name Romanus. However, Varro himself admits that this rule must have changed over time: at some point, Roman public freedmen began to take the names of the magistrates who had set them free. This arrangement was thus in use in Varro’s times. Apart from issues of nomenclature, which I will discuss below, this excerpt suggests that in late first century BCE Rome, manumitting public slaves was the prerogative of magistrates. The magistrate involved in a manumission was likely one of the consuls. Furthermore, the entire act of manumission, from its proposal to its conclusion, likely required authorization from the Senate. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the procedure described for manumitting the volones, i. e., the eight thousand slaves who had been purchased at public expense and supplied to the Roman army in 216 BCE.5 Two years later, in 214 BCE, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was permitted to manumit the volones in his capacity as consul, after his colleague Marcus Claudius Marcellus gave his consent and the Senate issued a specific decree on the matter.6 This formal process of manumission, involving one of the highest magistrates acting on the Senate’s authority, probably existed since at least the late third century BCE, and may have even remained in force during later periods. 5.1.2 The Nomenclature of Public Freedmen in Rome When discussing public freedmen in Rome and other towns, Varro’s main insights are about public freedmen’s nomenclature, not about the formal procedure for manumitting public slaves. As already noted, Varro identified two different ways of naming a public freedman in Rome: he was either given the name Romanus or the nomen of the magistrate who had set him free. We may find a trace of the first – and presumably most ancient – nomenclature pattern in an episode described by Livy about the year 405–404 BCE7 (although Livy’s reliability regarding such an archaic period must be carefully assessed, as he could have anticipated a slightly later practice). Livy writes that, during a battle against the Volsci, the Roman army struggled to capture the citadel of Artena. It was only thanks to a 4 5 6 7

Varro, Ling. 8.82–83; translation by Roland G. Kent from LCL 334 (1938) with some adaptations. Livy 22.57.11; 22.61.1–2; 23.32.1; 23.35.5–6; 24.14–16. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2. Livy 24.14.3–9; 16.6–19. Livy 4.61.7–10.

Public Freedmen in Rome

215

slave, who let some soldiers in through a steep passage, that the Romans were able to enter the fortress and destroy it. The slave who helped the Romans was given properties from two families as a reward; he was also granted freedom and was named Servius Romanus upon manumission. An example of the second nomenclature rule, whereby public freedmen received the name from the magistrate who had granted them freedom, may be found in a passage from Appian’s Roman History, which referred to events from 82 BCE.8 Appian writes that when Sulla became a dictator at the end of the civil war, he proscribed his political opponents and ordered that their property be confiscated. More than 10,000 slaves of private individuals were freed by Sulla in these confiscations: the new freedmen received the nomen Cornelius and thereby became Sulla’s own clients. One can interpret this act as an official manumission (granted by a magistrate) of slaves who, having been confiscated by the Roman State, became public property and hence servi publici. A mid-first century CE inscription from Rome suggests that freed slaves of the Roman people continued to receive the praenomen and the nomen of the magistrates who manumitted them during the empire: the epitaph of Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus publicus a subsellis tribunorum (no. 45), set up in Rome by his son Primitivos (sic) in the mid first century CE.9 The nomenclature of this public freedman suggests that: 1) as a servus publicus, his single name Melipthongus was combined with the agnomen Obultronianus, derived from the nomen of his former master; and 2) upon manumission, he took the praenomen (Tiberius) and the gentilicium (Claudius) from the magistrate who set him free. This magistrate could only have been an emperor, either Claudius or Nero, in his capacity as consul. It is impossible to say whether the official procedure for manumitting public slaves, which dated to Republican times, was still in force. We can assume that the emperor was free to decide to manumit a public slave by himself; however, formal ratification from the Senate should have been required. At any rate, the nomenclature custom was the same one recorded by Varro. Other sources seem to suggest the existence of a third rule, which was not mentioned by Varro but was presumably in use well before the first century BCE. Both Cicero, in the Pro Balbo of 56 BCE, and Pomponius, in his books Ad Quintum Mucium (written in the second century CE and excerpted in the Digest)10 record the case of an official interpreter during a diplomatic mission in the late third or the mid second century BCE, either before the Hannibalic war,11 or after the battle of Pydna of 168 BCE, or possibly even after the destruction of Corinth in 146 BCE.12 While Cicero mentions

8 9 10 11 12

App. B Civ. 1.100. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.3. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.4. Cic. Balb. 11.28; Dig. 49.15.5 (Pomp. 37 ad Q. Muc.). Münzer 1959, 1902 no. 24. Gardner 1958, 660; Bellardi 1975, 694.

216

Being Freed by the Community

the complete name of the interpreter as Cn(aeus) Publicius Menander (no. 9), Pomponius simply refers to him by his cognomen Menander; however, Pomponius specifies that he had been manumitted among the Romans (apud nos manumissus erat). Therefore, it seems likely that Menander was a Greek prisoner of war, who had been enslaved and made the public property of the Roman State, and assigned a role as an interpreter. Menander was then manumitted and became a public freedman. From this evidence we can infer that, at some point, public freedmen in Rome could also receive the nomen Publicius, as could public freedmen in a number of other cities.13 On the other hand, it is impossible to say which nomen the volones received when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus formally manumitted them in 214 BCE.14 We cannot rule out the possibility that they took the same praenomen and nomen as the magistrate who manumitted them, which would have given each of them the name Ti(berius) Sempronius, plus their servile names as cognomen. Nevertheless, we can assume that they also received the nomen Publicius, if not the name Romanus. 5.1.3 The Number of Public Freedmen in Rome Apart from the 8,000 volones manumitted by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in 214 BCE and the more than 10,000 slaves set free by Sulla, the available evidence for public freedmen in Rome is extremely limited. Only two inscriptions mention public freedmen. The first one is the previously mentioned epitaph of Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus, who is recorded as a former public slave attached as servants to the tribunes in the lawcourt (publicus a subsellis tribunorum) (no. 45).15 We have already noted that he may have been manumitted by an emperor, either Claudius or Nero, in his capacity as consul. The second inscription of a public freedman is a fragmentary marble slab that mentions a public slave named [Secun]dus ser(vus) pub(licus) (no. 128) and one [- - - Fe]lix lib(ertus) pub(licus) (no. 142), whose praenomen and nomen are unfortunately lost in the missing part of the monument. Tracing any other potential instances of public freedmen in inscriptions from Rome proves to be very difficult. Within the many attestations of Tiberii Claudii, only two possible cases of public freedmen can be found: the first one is that of Ti(berius) Claudius Velox (no. 642), who is recorded as a hymnologus primus M(atris) D(eum) I(daeae) e[t] Atti[n]is publicus in his lost epitaph dating to the mid first century CE. The second is that of Ti(berius) Claudius Glyptus (no. 641), who was a hymnologus de campo Caelemontano, and is also attested by a mid-first century CE funerary inscrip13 14 15

Halkin 1897, 39, 150–152; Eder 1980, 116–117; Luciani 2021a, 174. See Paragraph 5.1.1 above, and Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.2. See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.4.

Public Freedmen in Rome

217

tion. As we have already seen,16 both the attribute of publicus for Ti(berius) Claudius Velox (no. 642) and the link to the cult of Magna Mater, which seems to have applied to both hymnologi, may support an interpretation of them as former public slaves, although this identification is by no means conclusive. Indeed, both Ti(berius) Claudius Velox (no. 642) and Ti(berius) Claudius Glyptus (no. 641) may well have been Imperial freedmen, along with many other Tiberii Claudii whose statuses are not explicitly stated in their inscriptions. Similarly, no evidence of public slaves can be traced among the numerous Poblicii/Publicii of uncertain condition, attested in the inscriptions from Rome. Rather, these Poblicii/Publicii should be identified as former slaves of the gens Poblicia/Publicia. In theory, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that some public freedmen were among them – although it would be strange, at the very least, for a former servus publicus to conceal his previous condition of publicus or his subsequent status of public freedman. If a public freedman took the name of a magistrate who was not an emperor and his status was not explicitly recorded, it would be even more difficult – if not impossible – to identify him as a potential public freedman; he may have wound up in the same category as potential freedmen of senatorial families. In those cases, again, one must not forget the likely reasons for these individuals’ possible ‘camouflage’, which may have been related to their low-ranking social positions.17 The many funerary inscriptions from the Imperial period in Rome that mention public slaves who died in conditions of servitude (a total of at least 62 public slaves out of the total of 167 public slaves)18 seem to suggest that manumitting servi publici in Rome during the Empire was an extremely rare practice. This might also explain the apparent imbalance in numbers between public slaves and public freedmen in Rome. It seems that servi publici in Rome had very few opportunities to gain freedom during the Empire,19 unlike during the Republican period.20

16 17 18

19 20

See also Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.5. For this issue, see Luciani 2020 and Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.6. The total amount also includes the numerous occurrences of public slaves in the Arval Brethren proceedings and in the lists of those attached as servants to the sodales of the Imperial cult. Public slaves employed in the religious sector in Imperial Rome must have been numerous; Jörg Rüpke and Anne Glock considered 50 public slaves per priesthood a considerable underestimate: Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1464. Cf. also Mommsen 18873, 322. Jörg Rüpke. Eder’s estimate of 40–60 manumissions of public slaves in Rome per year, based on Cicero’s wellknown remark that slaves might expect to be manumitted after seven years of enslavement (Cic. Phil. 8.11), only refers to the Late Republic (Eder 1980, 120). But anyway, it seems largely exaggerate. See indeed Bradley 1987b, 85, who argued that there are no grounds for believing Cicero’s statement to be generally valid.

218

Being Freed by the Community

5.1.4 Serving the State After the Manumission: The operae On the topic of manumission, it is also important to discuss operae, i. e., the services that Roman freedmen were generally obliged to perform for their former masters after the manumission.21 As we shall see below, and as Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana makes clear, public slaves in Italian and provincial cities were certainly required to perform operae.22 However, we have no similar evidence to infer whether servi publici in Rome were obliged to perform services for the State after their manumission. Therefore, both Rouland and Eder suggested that public slaves in Rome were exempted from operae.23 However, two public freedmen attested by the sources may challenge this view. The first one is Cn(aeus) Publicius Menander (no. 9), who seems to have been employed as an official interpreter during a diplomatic mission of Rome in Greece in the mid-second century BCE.24 This role may have been a service (opera) imposed by the Roman government on a former public slave, but we cannot confirm this with any certainty. The second case, that of Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus (no. 45), may be more conclusive. The fact that his son Primitivos (sic) evidently wanted to record his father as a publicus a subsellis tribunorum on his tombstone may suggest that Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus (no.  45) remained in this role after his manumission. After all, it seems conceivable that public freedmen in Rome may have been obliged to offer services to the State in the rare event that they were manumitted. Henrik Mouritsen convincingly argued that “formalised services [i. e., operae] may have been more important in cases of ‘impersonal’ patrons”.25 5.1.5 Legal Status of Public Freedmen in Rome Due to lack of evidence, it is similarly difficult to ascertain whether public slaves in Rome could obtain Roman citizenship upon manumission. Once again, the case of Cn(aeus) Publicius Menander (no. 9) may provide information a in this regard. Both Cicero and Pomponius mention this man as an example of someone to whom the principle of postliminium – whereby a prisoner of war who returned within the boundaries (limina) of his fatherland regained his previous status  – did not apply. Specifically, Cicero and Pomponius say that Cn(aeus) Publicius Menander did not lose his Roman citizenship, although he temporarily went back to

21 22 23 24 25

On the operae of Roman freedmen, see Waldstein 1986. See Paragraph 5.2.4. Rouland 1977; Eder 1980, 122. See Paragraph 5.1.2 above. Mouritsen 2011, 201 n. 361.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

219

his native country, Greece, before returning to Rome. Cicero refers to him as a civis, “citizen”, while Pomponius says that he would have remained in nostra civitate, “in our citizenship”. From these sources we can infer that Cn(aeus) Publicius Menander (no. 9) was a Roman citizen. The previously mentioned more than 10,000 slaves of proscribed individuals, who became public freedmen at Sulla’s behest in 82 BCE, may also provide further evidence on this point. Appian clearly tells that Sulla gave those slaves freedom and Roman citizenship (ἐλευθερώσας ἐγκατέλεξε καὶ πολίτας ἀπέφηνε Ῥωμαίων), thereby securing himself over 10,000 clients ready to obey his commands. If we do not interpret Sulla’s granting of Roman citizenship as an abuse of his position as a dictator, this source might support the idea that public freedmen in Rome were entitled to receive Roman citizenship. After all, their manumission must have been a formal act, involving a magistrate and the Senate. However, again, the scarcity of evidence calls for great caution before drawing any conclusions. 5.2 Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities 5.2.1 The Official Procedure for Manumitting Public Slaves in Italy and the Provinces The lex Irnitana is the main source of information on the manumission of public slaves in cities other than Rome. Chapter 72, entitled De servis publicis manumittendis (“Concerning the manumission of public slaves”), discussed the standards and official procedures for granting freedom to public slaves (no. 526): R(ubrica). De servis publicis manumittendis. / Si quis [duovir i(ure) d(icundo)] servum publicum servamve publicam ma/numittere volet, is de eo deve ea ad decuriones conscrip/tosve, cum duae partes non minus decurionum conscripto/rumve aderunt, referto censeantne eum eam{q}ue manumit/ti. Si eum qui aderunt non minus duae partes manumitti / censuerint et si is eave eam pecuniam, quam decuriones / ab eo eave accipi censuerint, in publicum municipibus mu/nicipi Flavi Irnitani dederit solverit satisve fecerit, tum / {i}is IIvir{is} i(ure) d(icundo) eum servom eamve servam manumittito, / liberum liberamve esse iubeto. Qui ita manumissus li/berve esse iussus erit liber et Latinus esto, quaeve ita / manumissa liberave esse iussa erit libera et Latina esto, / ei[dem]que munici[pes] municipi Flavi Irnitani sunto, neve / quis ab is amplius quam quod decuriones censuerint ob / libertatem capito, ne[ve] facito quo quis ob eam rem eove / nomine quid capiat, inque eius, qui ita manumissus ma/numissaue erit, hereditate{m} bonorum possessione pe/tenda operis dono munere idem iu{ri}s municipi Flavi Irni/tani esto, quod esset, si municipi Italiae libertus liberta / esset. Qui adversus ea quid fecerit sciens d(olo) m(alo), is, quanti / ea res erit, tantum in publicum municipibus muni/cipi

220

Being Freed by the Community

Flavi Irnitani d(are) d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae deque / ea pecunia municipi eius municipi qui volet, cuique / per h(anc) l(egem) licebit, actio petitio persecutio esto. Rubric. Concerning the manumission of public slaves. If any [duumvir] wishes to manumit a male or female public slave, he is to raise with the decuriones or conscripti when not less than two thirds of the decuriones or conscripti are present, concerning him or her, whether they believe that he or she should be manumitted. If not less than two thirds of those who are present decide that the manumission should take place and if he or she gives and pays to the public account for the municipes of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum the sum which the decuriones decide should be received from him or her or gives security for it, then that duumvir in charge of the administration of justice is to manumit that male or female slave and order him or her to be free. Whatever man or woman has been manumitted and ordered to be free in this way is to be free and a Latin and they are to be municipes of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum, nor is anyone to receive from them for their freedom more than the decuriones decide nor act in such a way that anyone receives anything for this reason or on this account; and the rights of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum in claiming the inheritance or the possession of the goods of the man or woman who has been manumitted in this way or over their operae or gifts or services are to be the same as if he or she were a freedman or freedwoman of a municipium of Italy. Whoever knowingly and with wrongful intent does anything contrary to these rules is to be condemned to pay to the public account for the municipes of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum as much as is at issue and the right of action, suit and claim of that money and concerning that money is to belong to any municeps of that municipium who wishes and who is entitled under this statute.26

It was for a duumvir, one of the highest magistrates in Irni (Baetica), to propose the manumission of a public slave. The duumvir’s proposal had to be submitted to the majority (two thirds) of the local councillors (decuriones). If the decuriones agreed to the request and decided the sum of money that the public slave had to pay or for which he had to give security, the duumvir could set him or her free. Chapter 72 explicitly declares that any male or female public slave manumitted in this way would be free and have a Latin status (liber et Latinus, or libera et Latina). These public freedmen or freedwomen also became municipes of Irni (munici[pes] municipi Flavi Irnitani). The law included a measure to protect the newly manumitted slaves: it forbade anyone from receiving more than what the decurions demanded from them in exchange for their freedom. At the same time, it confirmed that the rights of the municipium of Irni to claim the inheritance (hereditas) or possession of goods (bonorum possessio) of each public freedman or freedwoman, or his/her work (operae) or gift (donum) or service (munus), had to be the same as if these individuals were freedmen or freedwomen of a

26

Lex Irn. 72 (no. 456); translation by González – Crawford 1986, 192–193.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

221

municipium of Italy. This clause suggests that identical or very similar rules were probably followed in other cities of the Empire too, whether in Italy or in the provinces.27 5.2.2 The Nomenclature of Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities References to public freedmen and freedwomen occur quite frequently in inscriptions dating to the first two centuries CE from both Italy and the provinces. The status libertatis of each public freedman or freedwoman was generally expressed by conventional (and often abbreviated) formulas, such as LIB PVB, i. e., lib(ertus/-a) pub(licus/-a), or COL/MVN/R P/POP/LIB or L, i. e., col(oniae) or col(onorum)/mun(icipii) or mun(icipum)/r(ei) p(ublicae)/pop(uli) lib(ertus/-a) or l(ibertus/-a). Another formula, with the ethnonym of the inhabitants of a city in the genitive case followed by LIB/L, is also common.28 Once manumitted, they received either the nomen Poblicius/ Publicius (derived from the adjective publicus), or a nomen derived from the toponym or the titulature of the self-governing town that set them free.29 Like all male Roman individuals of non-servile status, public freedmen also usually received a praenomen, although it is unclear what naming conventions governed this practice. The status libertatis of individuals who bore these nomina was not always explicitly recorded in their inscriptions, but they can still be identified as public freedmen if they are mentioned alongside public slaves (with whom they evidently had a close relation), or if they performed public tasks for their cities (freed public slaves often continued to be employed in public services).30 By contrast, it is methodologically incorrect to assume that all other Publicii/Poblicii, or individuals with a nomen derived from the toponym of a town, whose statuses were not explicitly stated in the available sources, were liberti publici: they may simply have been freeborn descendants or manumitted slaves of members of the gens Poblicia/Publicia or of other public freedmen. It is therefore methodologically inappropriate to identify them as liberti publici.31

27 28 29

30 31

Cf. also Luciani 2017, 46. See, e. g., C(aius) Poblicius municipum Mediolaniens(i)u(m) l(ibertus) Alexsander (no. 510). Cf. also Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.3. See, e. g., P(ublius) Ostiensis coloniae libertus Acutus at Ostia (no. 233), Claudia Suavis colonor(um) lib(erta) at Colonia Copia Claudia Augusta Lugdunum (no. 542). On the nomenclature of freed public slaves, see Varro, Ling. 8.82–83 (transcribed at Paragraph 5.1.2 above). Cf. also Halkin 1935, 127–137; Luciani 2021a, 171–186. See Paragraph 5.2.4 and Appendix 4 (incerti). Cf. also Weiss 2004, 191. See also Introduction, Paragraph 2.

222

Being Freed by the Community

5.2.3 The Number of Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities The number of public freedmen and freedwomen in cities of the Empire was likely around one third smaller than the number of public slaves. There is evidence of 179 liberti publici or libertae publicae, whereas 550 individuals are attested in the condition of public slaves, whether male or female.32 In addition, at Ameria, Brundisium, Capua, Ostia, Patavium, Tarracina, Venafrum (in Italy), and in Corduba (Baetica), Segobriga (Tarraconensis), and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Dacia), there are references to public slaves and/or freedmen and freedwomen as a collective, e. g., the corpus or collegium of the familia publica libertorum et servorum (see nos. 188, 278–279, 281–282, 290–291, 298, 317, 395, 483, 523, 539, 638). The precise composition of these groups was usually not defined. However, we do know the makeup of the familia publica from Ostia (no. 280): the group consisted of 35 public freedmen, 22 public slaves (a space was intentionally left next to their names where the nomen Ostiensis could be added in the event of manumission) and 24 other individuals of unspecified statuses, who were not liberti publici. The fact that other individuals could be members of this group at Ostia suggests that being a public slave or a public freedman was not an essential requirement of the familia publica. This, in turn, implies that the purpose of this guild was likely funerary rather than professional.33 The same was likely true of other collective bodies in the above-listed cities, although most of them seem to have consisted exclusively of public slaves and freedmen.34 The surviving inscriptional evidence for public slaves and freedmen does not necessarily provide an accurate representation of the overall composition of their population, especially if one considers the impact of the epigraphic ‘habit’ throughout the Empire. The number of public slaves and freedmen in every Roman city was probably substantial, but it is impossible to reliably estimate their average numbers from the available sources.35 Leaving aside the exceptional case of the familia publica from Ostia mentioned above (whose composition was not necessarily typical for a Roman city), servi publici must have been more numerous than liberti publici, as the volume of evidence for public slaves far exceeded the evidence for public freedmen. A considerable number of the group of freed public slaves were women. In the Latin West, 38 inscriptions attest to 18 servae and 23 libertae publicae.36 This figure is remarkable, considering that the total known number of manumitted public slaves is 179. This 32 33 34 35 36

These figures also include the incerti. Cf. also Sudi-Guiral 2007; Easton 2021. Cf. also Easton 2021. Leonard Schumacher estimated a rough average of 15 to 50 public slaves per town, depending upon its size (Schumacher 2011, 598), although there is no proof to support such an estimate. A complete list is available in Luciani – Urbanová 2019. Previous studies on female public slaves and freedwomen are: Dardaine 1999; Cimarosti 2005, 450–456.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

223

evidence suggests that female public slaves were more frequently manumitted than their male counterparts. This pattern may have been related to the main duty of female public slaves, which was giving birth to new public slaves for their cities.37 Indeed, a well-known passage from Columella, mentions a number of female slaves who were granted freedom after bearing at least three children.38 This suggests that female public slaves may have been granted freedom by civic authorities in return for delivering a certain number of children and hence providing their cities with new servi publici. This possibility would explain the higher number of attestations of public freedwomen than of female public slaves, a situation opposite to that of their male counterparts. Attestations of a public freedwoman, recorded along with their partners and children who were also public slaves, are common. Conversely, it is rare to see a public freedman attested with a woman who was still a serva publica.39 An early first century CE opisthographic curse tablet (defixio) from Nomentum seems to illustrate this scenario. The text on side A (Fig. 14) reads: Malc(h)io Nicon˹i˺s oculos, manus, di˹g˺itos, brac(h)ia{s}, un˹gue˺s, capil(l)o(s), caput, pedes, femus, vent˹re˺(m), nat˹e˺s, um(bi)licu˹m˺, pectus, mamil(l)as, 5 coḷḷu˹m˺, os, buc(c)as, dentes, labias, mẹ[nt]ụ˹m˺, oc(u)los, fronte(m), supercili(a), scap̂ (u)las, umerum, nervia{s}, ossu(um) me˹du˺l(l)as, vent˹re˺(m), mentula(m), crus, qua(e)stu(m), lucru(m), vaḷetudines defi˹g˺o 10 iṇ (h)as tabel(l)as. Malchio, (son or slave) of Nico: (his) eyes, hands, fingers, arms, nails, hair, head, feet, thigh, belly, buttocks, navel, chest, nipples, neck, mouth, cheeks, teeth, lips, chin, eyes, forehead, eyebrows, shoulder blades, shoulder, muscles, bone marrow, belly, cock, shin, profit/business, fortune, and health I do curse in this tablet.

37 38 39

See Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.1.1. Columella, Rust. 1.8.19 (freedom for female slaves after four children). Cf. also Dig. 34.5.10.1 (Ulp. 6 disp.) (freedom for a female slave after one child). See Cimarosti 2005, 450–451 n. 11; Luciani – Urbanová 2019, 432–442.

224

Being Freed by the Community

Fig. 14 Lead curse tablet that mentions Malchio – Mentana, early first c. CE (Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano; inv. no. 52186; facsimile of side A: © Franco Luciani).

The text on side B (Fig. 15) reads: Rufa pu(b)lica mạnụs, de(n)tes, oc(u)los, brac(h)ia, vent˹re˺(m), mamil(l)a(s), pectus, os(s)u(um) m˹edu˺l(l)as, vent˹re˺(m), crus, os, pedes, fronte˹m˺, 5

un˹gue˺s, di˹g˺itos, vent˹re˺(m), um(bi)licu˹m˺, cun(n)u˹m˺, v(u)lva˹m˺, il(i)a{e} vel quas il(l)ae Rufa˹e˺ pub(l)ica(e), de˹f˺i˹g˺o in (h)a(s) tabel(l)as.

Rufa, the public slave: the hands, teeth, eyes, arms, belly, nipples, chest, bone marrow, bowels, shin, mouth, feet, forehead, nails, fingers, womb, navel, cunt, vulva?, loins? – or all these organs – of Rufa, the public slave, I do curse in this tablet.40

Someone, whose name was purposely left anonymous, put a curse on both a man (presumably a slave, called Malchio) and a female public slave, Rufa (no. 212), by providing a detailed list of the parts of their bodies that were to be cursed. The final targets of the author’s curse were the two individuals as a couple. The author of the defixio did not confine him- or herself to merely cursing Malchio’s body and health (valetudo); his or her aim was also to affect Malchio’s economic status (quaestus and lucrum). In the case of Rufa, the author seemed to want to curse her future as well as her health. However,

40

Translation by Daniela Urbanová: Luciani – Urbanová 2019, 428.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

225

Fig. 15 Lead curse tablet that mentions Rufa pu(b)lica (no. 212) – Mentana, early first c. CE (Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano; inv. no. 52186; facsimile of side B: © Franco Luciani).

the author seems to focus exclusively on Rufa’s body, especially her abdomen and genitals, which are listed several times on the curse tablet. Considering that the main function of female public slaves was to give birth to new public slaves, in repeatedly cursing her private parts, the curser may have aimed to deprive the female public slave of her reproductive function, the only thing that could have provided Rufa with a realistic prospect of freedom.41 5.2.4 Serving the Community After the Manumission: The operae As seen above, Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana also refers to the operae that could be required of public slaves upon manumission. We have already noted that the practice of requiring public freedmen to perform – as operae – the same duties they performed while they were slaves was probably common in all Roman cities. This supports the assumption that public slaves were also subject to operae, like all the other slaves in the Roman world.42 Not only do we have various epigraphic sources of servi publici who continued to perform their former jobs for their cities after their manumission, as with several plumbarii,43 but we can also trace a number of inscriptions that mention public freedmen as workers in other public sectors 41 42 43

See Luciani – Urbanová 2019, 431–442. Luciani 2017, 47–56. For the idea that public slaves in all the cities of the Empire were required to perform operae, see also Weiss 2004, 164–166. Cf. Luciani 2010, 276–279; Luciani 2017, 48–49. See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.7.1.

226

Being Freed by the Community

(43 out of 179 public freedmen attested in the cities of Italy and the western provinces). This figure is remarkable, considering that most attestations of public freedmen are epitaphs that only provide information about each libertus publicus’ nomenclature; any reference to the job of the deceased was evidently perceived as unnecessary. There is evidence for four tabularii (nos. 195, 258, 429, 620),44 three financial assistants (an arcarius, a vilicus summarum, and a summarum dispensator, nos. 423, 448, 486), one possible clavicularius (no. 713), one marmorarius signuarius (no. 729), three possible saltuarii (nos. 688, 691, 711), eight aeditui, both known and possible (nos. 240, 284a, 653, 660, 690, 702, 712, 720), one possible horrearius (no. 687), 18 plumbarii, both known and possible (nos. 371, 414, 447, 663–665, 685–686, 651–652, 654–659, 667, 681), and four possible tegularii (nos. 697, 699–700, 727). Most of these tasks required technical expertise and a certain degree of specialization, which seems to have led cities to ask public freedmen to continue in their previous occupations as operae. This was the case for the plumbarii, but also probably for the tabularii and saltuarii. In other specialized sectors, like the financial administration and prison guarding, however, recourse to operae from public freedmen was probably less common. City authorities likely preferred to employ public slaves in these sectors, over whom they could exert much more control. We can infer from Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana that operae were also required of libertae publicae, although the types of services they offered are unknown.45 Since public freedmen were generally required to perform for the city the same duties that they had carried out as public slaves, public freedwomen may also have been entrusted with some of their previous tasks. These tasks may have included looking after the accommodation of male public slaves and managing their own households. 5.2.5 Legal Status of Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities 5.2.5.1 Freed Public Slaves at Irni: Latin Citizens, Not Junian Latins Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana should also be the starting point for any discussion of the legal status concerning public freedmen. As mentioned above, when prescribing the procedure for the manumission of public slaves in Irni, this section also declares that any man or woman who was manumitted according to this procedure would be considered a free man or a free woman, and a Latin (liber et Latinus, or libera et Latina).

44 45

Cf. nos. 723, 727 for other two possible public freedmen tabularii. See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.1.2.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

227

The public freedmen or freedwomen also became citizens of the municipium of Irni (munici[pes] municipi Flavi Irnitani). Since the discovery of the lex Irnitana in 1981, many scholars have debated the legal condition of manumitted public slaves in Irni. This question is closely intertwined with the issue of the diffusion of Roman and Latin citizenship in the municipia in Baetica. The fact that, under the provisions of the Irni’s municipal law, a public slave became Latinus/-a upon manumission raises the question of whether that term designated the status of a Latin citizen or the condition of a Junian Latin. Scholars have been polarized between these two competing positions. Under the so-called ‘traditional’ view, many scholars have asserted that when they became free municipes upon manumission, public freedmen and freedwomen in Irni were then granted Latin citizenship. This would also imply that the municipes in Irni had Latinitas.46 By contrast, several scholars have interpreted the term Latinus/-a used in Chapter 72 of the Lex Irnitana as ‘Junian Latin’, because they reject the possibility that freeborn Latini (i. e., citizens with Latin right) existed in the provinces, including Baetica. These scholars’ main argument is that the ius Latii either entailed the right of magistrates to obtain Roman citizenship at the end of their term in office (Latium minus) or, in the most favourable scenario, the right of the entire local council to receive Roman citizenship (Latium maius). According to the latter view, public freedmen simply became Junian Latins upon manumission.47 Although the entire argument is circular, and there is no conclusive evidence for either position, the ‘traditional’ view seems preferable. If one accepts that the citizens (municipes) of Irni had been Latini since the Flavian granting of the ius Latii to them and to other communities in Spain, which seems plausible,48 then public slaves, when manumitted, may have also benefitted from the ius Latii. This would have made them Latini and municipes of the municipium of Irni, as is clearly stated in chapter 72 of the Lex Irnitana. The same should apply to Chapter 28 of the Lex Irnitana, which concerns the manumission of private slaves before a magistrate.49 Francesca Lamberti convincingly argued that the aim of Chapter 28’s provisions was to provide a Latin citizen with the opportunity to formally manumit his slave, not to allow him or her to create a new Roman citizen via manumission. Indeed, the law explicitly stated that the freedman or

46

47 48 49

Giménez-Candela 1981; D’Ors 1986; Gonzalez  – Crawford 1986, 223; Schulze-Oben 1989, 42; López Barja de Quiroga 1991, 51, 58; Kränzlein 1991, 45–51; Lamberti 1993, 110; Lebek 1995, 182–83; López Barja de Quiroga 1998, 148; Fear 1996, 134–136, who completely revised his previous position (see below n. 47); Weaver 1997, 65; Dardaine 1999; Koops 2013, 118 n. 90; Le Roux 2014, 472. Halkin 1897, 22–32, 142–145 (who studied public slavery before the discovery of the Lex Irnitana); Fear 1990; Gardner 2001, 225–226; Spichenko 2018. On the idea that there were no freeborn Latin citizens throughout the Empire, see Millar 1977, 485–486, 630–635; Chastagnol 1995, 53–54, 101–104. On this, see also González – Crawford 1986, 148–149, 206; Vitali 2004, 412–413; Russo 2018, 488 n. 25. González – Crawford 1986, 156–157, 184 (Chapter 28, Tablet IIIC).

228

Being Freed by the Community

freedwoman would obtain the same status as his or her former master or mistress. In other words, he or she would become a Latin citizen and remain so even in the event that his or her patron subsequently obtained full Roman citizenship. Conversely, the Roman citizens of Irni, who wanted to set their slaves free and grant them full Roman citizenship, presumably had to follow the requirements of ius civile and go before the governor of the province.50 The fact that both Chapters 72 and 28 contain full legal details of the entire procedure, along with references to the active role of one of the highest local magistrates (and, in Chapter 72, to the qualified majority of the decurions as an essential requirement), suggests that both processes were considered cases of formal manumission, although there is no explicit reference to the vindicta.51 Camilla Vitali went further and suggested that two formal procedures of manumission can be identified in the disjunctive proposition ita manumissus liberue esse iussus erit, which is mentioned both in Chapters 72 and 28: the manumissio vindicta (manumissus … erit) and the manumissio testamento (liberue esse iussu erit).52 The explicit reference in Chapter 72 to the inheritance (hereditas) of public freedmen and freedwomen rather than to their peculium seems to point away from the possibility that a public slave in Irni became a Junian Latin upon manumission. Latini Iuniani had neither testamentary capacity nor the possibility for intestate succession, because, on their death, their previous masters took possession of their property, which was literally treated as peculium.53 Finally, when one considers the other terms employed in Chapter 72 of the Lex Irnitana – bonorum possessio, operae, donum, and munus – it seems clear that the municipium of Irni, in its capacity as manumitter, was entitled to the same formally defined rights as any other patronus. Indeed, liberti publici and libertae publicae in Irni had the same obligations and duties to their manumitter (the city) as any other formally manumitted slave had to his or her individual patron – namely operae, obsequium and bona.54 A passage from Ulpian attests that municipia were legally equivalent to ordinary patron.55 This argument further supports the theory that public slaves in Irni were formally manumitted, and freed public slaves were thus Latin citizens, not Junian Latins.

50 51 52 53 54 55

Lamberti 1993, 54–55, 285 n. 28. See also López Barja de Quiroga 1998, 148, and, most recently, García Fernández 2020, 70. Cf. also Giménez-Candela 1981, 50; Lamberti 1993, 55–56; Weaver 1997, 65; Dardaine 1999, 220; Mouritsen 2011, 189 n. 313. Vitali 2005, 391–398, 404–409, 414–415. Gai. Inst. 3.72; Inst. Iust. 3.7.9. Luciani 2017, 46–47. See also Paragraph 5.2.6 below. Dig. 38.3.1 pr. (Ulp. 49 ad ed.).

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

229

5.2.5.2 Freed Public Slaves in Italian Communities: Roman Citizens The fact that liberti publici in Irni obtained the Latinitas is not particularly surprising.56 It is especially unsurprising if one considers that public freedmen in Italian cities were also likely granted the highest possible degree of citizenship, i. e., the civitas Romana. Although there is no inscriptional evidence of public freedmen in Italy who were enrolled in a voting tribe, which would be by far the clearest mark of them being Roman citizens, other evidence supports this theory. The first piece of evidence in support of this theory is a first century CE inscription from the municipium of Asisium: the epitaph for C(aius) Publicius municipum Asisinatium libertus Verecundus (no. 396), who is designated as pater pientissimus. This epitaph was set up by his possibly freeborn son C(aius) Publicius Allius Pr[- - -].57 The son seems to bear two nomina, Publicius and Allius, the first of which clearly derives from that of his father. The fact that the nomenclature of C(aius) Publicius Allius Pr[- - -] followed customs of patrilineality could indicate that both he and his father, i. e., the public freedman C(aius) Publicius Verecundus, were Roman citizens. An early second century CE inscription from the municipium of Saepinum may provide further evidence in this regard. It is a funerary slab that was set up by Oriens, a slave of the inhabitants of Saepinum, who probably performed a public activity related to the Trajan’s food programme, given his title of alimentarius (no. 370). He ordered the monument for his daughter Felicula and his conserva (and possibly partner) Thalia, who were also public slaves (nos. 368, 374), for his father L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens, who had been an Augustalis and given him his own name, and for his brother L(ucius) Saepinius Orestis, who had been a quattuorvir aedilicia potestate. The legal status of the last two individuals is not specified in the inscription, but unlike Oriens they were not of servile condition. Since Saepinius was the nomen that public slaves in Saepinum took upon manumission,58 it is possible that these two individuals were liberti publici. This may have been the case for Oriens’ father, i. e., the Augustalis L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens (no. 373). The circumstances of Oriens’ brother L(ucius) Saepinius Orestis were different, as he had been a local magistrate. The lex Visellia of 24 CE prevented freedmen from holding any municipal office. Therefore, unless this was one of the very rare cases of a ‘freedman magistrate’,59 he was likely a freeborn individual rather than a libertus publicus. The difference in legal status among these three individuals – L(ucius) Saepinius Orestis (= ingenuus), his father L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens (= libertus publicus) and his brother Oriens (= servus

56 57 58 59

Full Roman citizenship was only reserved for individuals who held local magistracies under the provisions of the so-called ius adipiscendae civitatis Romanae per magistratum. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 239: “C. Publicius Allius ist möglicherweise freigeboren”. Halkin 1935, 131; Luciani 2021a, 173. For the 17 magistrates of libertine status in colonies and municipia in Italy and the provinces, see Coles 2017.

230

Being Freed by the Community

publicus) – can only be explained by assuming that the mother of Orestis and Oriens, who is not mentioned in the inscription, was a liberta publica. Since children born into a non-legal marriage (i. e., any union between persons of different legal statuses, such as a freedman and a slave, or two slaves) inherited their mother’s status, the only possible solution is that Oriens was born when his mother was still a public slave.60 Conversely, his brother L(ucius) Saepinius Orestis was born when his mother – and presumably his father too – had already been manumitted. If one assumes that his mother was a Roman citizen as a public freedwoman (and that his father was a Roman citizen, when he also became a freedman), L(ucius) Saepinius Orestis would have been born a full Roman citizen and could legitimately have held a local office. On the contrary, if his parents were Junian Latins, he would have been a Junian Latin. In that case, he would not have been a citizen, and could not have been elected as a local magistrate.61 This further supports the idea that liberti publici in Italy were granted full Roman citizenship upon manumission. In any case, it was rare for the son of a libertus publicus to become a local magistrate, as attested by this inscription from Saepinum. Only a handful of magistrates who bore a nomen derived from the toponym of a city and might be identified as descendants of public freedmen, are known in Italy and throughout the Empire.62 A final argument in support of this theory is the fact that a few public freedmen, including the above-mentioned L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens, entered the group of the *Augustales in some Italian cities, as seen in Chapter 4.63 The rare honour of being gratuitus (and thus exempted from the payment of the summa honoraria) was even bestowed upon some of them. Lindsey Vandevoorde recently analysed a large body of inscriptional evidence about the *Augustales from the Italian peninsula. She argued that it was unlikely there were Junian Latins among them, as *Augustales had the right to inherit, draw up testaments, and display insignia. Therefore, she concluded that *Augustales in Italy were mostly Roman citizens.64 In sum, public freedmen in Italy seem to have been granted the highest status possible, i. e., full Roman citizenship. This was similar to liberti publici in Irni, who obtained the highest legal status to which municipes of Irni (holding no office) could aspire, i. e., the Latinitas. After all, the granting of citizenship was the outcome of a formal manumission. Although there is no reference to vindicta in Chapters 72 and 28 of the Lex Irnitana, the manumission procedure described in those chapters was likely a formal one. A similar procedure was probably required to manumit public slaves in the other cities of Italy, too.

60 61 62 63 64

On the status of children in mixed marriages see Weaver 1986. Children of Junian Latins faced difficulties in becoming full Roman citizens: Weaver 1997, 66–67. Cf. Gordon 1931, 72; Weiss 2004, 178–179 with n. 54. See Paragraph 4.3.4. Vandevoorde 2017, with a useful review of previous scholarly views on the legal status of *Augustales.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

231

5.2.6 Paying Honour to the City: Freed Public Slaves and the obsequium The obsequium was a consequence of the deference paid by a slave to his or her master (dominus). It was also the duty of respect and devotion that any freed slave was expected to show to his or her former dominus, or patron (patronus), after manumission.65 Obsequium was comparable to the respect owed by a son to his father, but it came with legal obligations.66 Although there is no specific reference to the obsequium in Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana, public freedmen and freedwomen in Roman cities were probably also obliged to pay respects to their patroni, i. e., the townsfolk and the main authorities.67 An already-mentioned passage from Ulpian’s commentary On the Edict seems clear on this point: Qui manumittitur a corpore aliquo vel collegio vel civitate, singulos in ius vocabit: nam non est illorum libertus. Sed rei publicae honorem habere debet et si adversus rem publicam vel universitatem velit experiri, veniam edicti petere debet, quamvis actorem eorum constitutum in ius sit vocaturus.68 One who is manumitted by some guild or corporation or city, may summon the members as individuals; for he is not their freedman. But he ought to consider the honour of the municipality, and, if he wishes to bring an action against a municipality or a corporation, he ought to seek permission under the edict although he intends to summon a person who has been appointed their agent.69

A freedman of an organized body (corpus), a guild (collegium), or a city (civitas) was obliged to ‘pay’ honour (honorem habere debet) to all the members of the community to which he belonged (the res publica). If he intended to take legal action against a municipality or a collective body of people, he had to ask permission from a magistrate. The obligation to rei publicae honorem habere can be interpreted as the duty of obsequium that a freed public slave was required to pay to the townsfolk of his or her city. Gérard Boulvert analysed dedications set up by Imperial slaves and freedmen to emperors or the Imperial Genius or Numen, or to other deities on behalf of the well-being and safety of emperors and their family (e. g., pro salute, pro incolumitate). Boulvert interpreted these dedications as expressions of loyalty to the dominus or as obsequium

65 66 67 68 69

See Treggiari 1969, 68–81; Fabre 1981, 317–330; Boulvert – Morabito 1982, 123–124; Waldstein 1986, 214–217; Masi Doria 1993, 52–81; Mouritsen 2011a, 51–65; MacLean 2018, 135. Cf. Dig. 37.15 (De obsequiis parentibus et patronis praestandis). See also Waldstein 1986, 51–69; Masi Doria 1993, 111–115. Cf. also Halkin 1897, 216. Dig. 2.4.10.4 (Ulp. 5 ad ed.). Translation by Watson 1985, 46 (vol. 1).

232

Being Freed by the Community

to the patronus.70 Public slaves and freedmen also made frequent dedications to the Genius of a public locus of a city, to the Genius of the ordo decurionum or the populus, or, more generically, to the Genius of their collective masters (domini), as well as to other deities but on behalf of the well-being (pro salute) of the decuriones, the populus and/ or the domini. One could interpret these dedications as acts of showing loyalty to the masters or obsequium to the patrons, which servi and liberti publici were obliged to pay to the townsfolk or authorities of their cities. In Imperial times, Calomallus, a servus publicus tabularius at Vasio (Gallia Narbonensis) (no. 550), erected a small slab for the Genius of the forum (Genius forensis) of that city, where the public tabularium in which he worked probably stood. The Genius of a locus is mentioned, along with the numen of Ceres, in the dedication of Concordius, who was a public slave horr(earius) of the colony of Beneventum (no. 303) in the second century CE. This locus may have been the public warehouse for grain and cereals (horreum), where Concordius performed his duties; this would also explain his special devotion to Ceres.71 At Tifernum Mataurense, in the mid first century BCE, a servus vilicus publicus, whose name is mostly lost in the gap (no. 411), gave a small temple or aedicula as a gift to the Genius ordinis, i. e., the Genius of the entire order of the decurions, to Fors Fortuna and to the Lares, with the decuriones’ permission (permissu decurionum).72 Similarly, a dedication to the Genius of the decuriones and of the populus was set up by T(itus) Pollioniu[s] T(iti) f(ilius) Laetitia(nus) at Brundisium in the early first century CE. The dedication served as a token of gratitude for having been appointed augur without being required to pay the summa honoraria. It is remarkable that Titus Pollioniu[s] T(iti) f(ilius) Laetitia(nus) made this offer cu[m] lib(ertis) et famil(ia) pub(lica?) (no. 317), i. e., together with the entire group of slaves and public freedmen who seem to have assisted him during the performance of some public duties. In the second century CE, a public slave called Sabinus (no. 535) set up an altar in Titelberg (Luxembourg) in honour of the Genius of the polity to which he belonged. This polity was the Vosugones, a Gallic community that was probably organised in a pagus or vicus in the territory of Augusta Treverorum (Belgica).73 A similar case may be that of Q(uintus) Pub(licius) Abascant(us) (no. 689), who dedicated an altar to the Genius of the populus of the pagus Iulius at Inzino (near Brescia) in the Trompia Valley in the late first or early second century CE. The pagus lay in a territory occupied by the Trumplini, an indigenous population annexed to the city of Brixia for administrative purposes (gens adtributa). The nomenclature of the dedicator consisted of a Greek cognomen and the nomen Publicius, which was commonly taken by public freedmen in 70 71 72 73

Boulvert 1974, 89–90, 101–102. See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.5.1. Cf. also Catani 2004. Cf. also Oxé 1938, 240; Raepsaet-Charlier 2002, 114.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

233

Brixia. This is not sufficient, by itself, to suggest that this man was a former public slave of Brixia.74 However, the fact that the altar is dedicated to the Genius of the populus of a pagus further supports the idea that Q(uintus) Pub(licius) Abascant(us) was a former public slave who paid the obsequium to a res publica. An inscription from Patavium, dating to the Imperial age, can also be interpreted as an expression of an obsequium to a res publica from a former public slave. The inscription is on a limestone base dedicated to the Genius dominorum and Ceres, and was made by T(itus) Poblicius Crescens (no. 696), who also gave two silver statues of the Lares publici with a value of 2,000 sesterces. The domini mentioned in the inscription should be interpreted as the res publica of Patavium, not as emperors or members of the Imperial family; similarly, the Lares publici should be interpreted as the guardian deities of the city, not as the Lares Augusti.75 A similar use of the term dominus to designate the townsfolk (and civic authorities) of a city can be found in an inscription from Asisium, for which a public slave, Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus (no.  397) gave a temple with porches dedicated to Jupiter Paganicus at his own expenses in return for the bounty of the domini’s bounty (ex indulgentia dominorum). It would not be surprising if this public slave made this benefaction to thank the magistrates and decurions who presumably promised manumission.76 Considering that the dedicator of the base from Patavium bears the nomen Publicius, which was usually taken by public freedmen (although no attestations of liberti publici from Patavium are currently available), and the cognomen Crescens, which was frequent among slaves,77 the base may have been set up by a former slave of the city of Patavium in honour of Ceres and the Genius of his masters (domini), i. e., the city’s townsfolk (and its main authorities). The monument may have been placed in the shrine of the Lares publici, i. e., the temple of the protectors of the city, which served as ‘his’ family shrine. Another inscription from Patavium records a dedication made by the members of a household of public slaves to some ‘generic’ domini.78 This monument, which is now lost, was set up pro salute et perpetuitate dominorum by the familia thermensis, i. e., a group of public slaves employed in the management of the public baths (no. 483). Again, the term domini likely designated the townsfolk of Patavium, as well as its magistrates and decurions. This implies that this dedication was a way for the public slaves employed in the civic baths to show respect to the res publica. 74 75

76 77 78

On the nomenclature of the public freedmen at Brixia (Regio X), see Halkin 1935, 128; Luciani 2021a, Luciani 2021a, 196–197 nos. 15–20 (Tab. 1). Cf. also Gradel 2002, 372; Luciani 2017, 59–60. The inscription has mostly been related to the Imperial cult: cf. Cesano 1906, 459; Vitucci 1946, 404; Pascal 1964, 73; Bassignano 1981, 215–216; Bassignano 1987, 341–342; Modonesi 1995, 36; Zaccaria 2000b, 180 n.  88–89; Zaccaria 2008, 225 n.  16, 227–228. See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.5.4. Kajanto 1965, 234. See also Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.5.4.

234

Being Freed by the Community

Two dedications pro salute ordinis et populi were also set up by Apronianus, a servus publicus arcarius at Aequiculum (no. 337), in the late second century CE. Both were made at his own expenses and with the permission of the decuriones (permittente ordine). The first inscription concerned the restoration of a shrine (sacellum) in honour of Mithras; the second one concerned the erection of two statues of Serapis and Isis with workshops (ergasteria), as well as a niche (aedicula) in a particular meeting place (schola). It is remarkable that Apronianus made the latter donation with his daughter Aequicula Bassilla (no. 335) and his son Aequiculus Apronianus (no. 336). The latter took his father’s name. Both the son and the daughter had probably been manumitted, as the nomen they bore derived from the toponym of the city,79 whereas their father was still a public slave. Apronianus’ generosity was not limited to these two acts: two other inscriptions from Aequiculum record that he gave two reliefs in honour of Mithras as gifts, and again at his own expense. Although other cases contain no direct references to either the Genius, or the wellbeing of the people, or the ordo of the decurions, the fact that the beneficiaries of the acts of euergetism or honours made by certain public slaves and freedmen were all members of a community suggests that these gifts should be interpreted as expressions of deference or respect to masters or patrons. At Nescania (Baetica) in the second century CE, C(aius) Publicius Fortunatus libertus m(unicipii) F(lavi) Nesca[n(iensis)] (no.  532) dedicated an altar (ara) to the numen of two Augusti, likely the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The inscription explicitly mentions that the ara was built on public land – solo pub(lico) – at the public freedman’s expenses, which implies that the monument was intended to be used for public sacrifices. A similar case may be an inscription on a limestone architrave from Torre de’ Passeri (near Pescara), which records the complete reconstruction of the office of weights (ponderarium) of the pagus Interpromium from the base up (a solo), after it collapsed following an earthquake ([vi] terrae motus dilapsum). The monument was re-built by C(aius) Sulmonius Primus (no. 669) and C(aius) Sulmonius Fortunatus (no. 668) at their own expenses: the two individuals bear a nomen derived from the toponym of the city of Sulmo.80 Michael H. Crawford identified the individuals as two former public slaves and used this inscription to support the theory that the rural district of the pagus Interpromium was part of the territory of Sulmo.81 The nomen Sulmonius is not sufficient by itself to argue that these individuals were two public freedmen; however, the fact that they had a public ponderarium rebuilt at their own expense provides further support for this theory. Similar cases of benefactions from public slaves for their community are also attested in the Greek-speaking part of the Empire. The most significant case is that of 79 80 81

Cf. also Halkin 1935, 133; Luciani 2021a, 173. Cf. Halkin 1935, 136; Luciani 2021a, 173. Crawford 2006, 142. The exact location of the pagus Interpromium and the civic territory to which the pagus belonged to is still an open question: cf. Buonocore 2002, 561, 578.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

235

Ὀνήσιμος, a public slave (δημόσιος) in the city of Balbura, in the province of Lycia et Pamphylia. In the late second century CE, Ὀνήσιμος paid for the construction of a temple dedicated to Nemesis, which was built in the agora and some statues, in honour of the local assembly (βουλή) and the people (δῆμος). Both the assembly and the people were referred to as ἑαυτοῦ δεσπόται, which corresponds to the Latin eius domini.82 Another inscription records that Ὀνήσιμος also made a donation of 352 grain modii to the same δεσπόται.83 Similarly, Φίλιππος, a δημόσιος in Metropolis (Ionia), gave a triclinium as a gift to a gymnasium of the presbyteroi in the early first century CE.84 Moreover, Εὐέλπιστος, a δημόσιος in Thespiae, was among a number of people who donated an unknown amount of money to a gymnasium in the first century CE.85 Finally, public slaves may also have resorted to special actions to pay tribute to magistrates and possibly build patron-client relationships with them. The aim of a second century CE statue base from Verona, which was offered to M(arcus) Gavius Squillianus by the group of the limocincti (no. 505) and the apparitores of his tribunal, may have been to gain favour with the magistrate to whom they were attached as servants.86 Another potential example of this type of patron-client relationship is found in an early second century CE bronze tablet found at Montebelluna (near Treviso), which can be identified with the municipium of Berua.87 Two individuals of unknown statuses, who bore the nomen Publicius, C(aius) Publicius Anteros (no. 693) and L(ucius) Publicius Perennis (no. 694), offered this tablet to a quattuorvir iure dicundo, named L(ucius) Horatius Longus, who was designated as a patronus. The two individuals may have been former public slaves paying tribute to the local magistrate to whom they were attached as servants. The reason may have been that the quattuorvir played an active role in the process that led to their manumission.88 If this interpretation is correct, this inscriptional evidence further demonstrates that some public slaves and local magistrates were linked by patron-client relationship. From all the evidence in this section, we can infer that, like all other freedmen, liberti publici in Roman towns also owed obsequium to their patrons – i. e., the townsfolk and especially the decurions and magistrates of the city to which they belonged. In addition to not suing the res publica in court, public freedmen could also pay the obsequium by making dedications to the Genius or on behalf of the well-being of the townsfolk

82 83 84 85 86 87 88

SEG, 38 (1988), 1444: Τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δεσπόταις Ὀνήσιμος δημόσιος | κατεσκεύασεν τὸν ναὸν τῆς Νεμέσεως | σὺν τοῖς ἀ̣γάλμασιν. Cf. Weiss 2004, 171, 233 no. 295. SEG, 38 (1988), 1445: Βαλβουρέων | τὴν Βουλὴν | καὶ τὸν Δῆμον | τοῦς ἑαυτοῦ ‖ δεσπότας | Ὀνήσιμος δη|μόσιος δ(οῦλος) | οἷς καὶ προσ‖έθετο εἰς τὸ | σειτομέτρι|ον κατ’ ἔτος | μο(δίους) τνβʹ. Cf. Weiss 2004, 171, 233 no. 296. Engelmann 1999, 139–142 no. 2: Φίλιππος δημόσιος τρίκλεινον. Cf. Weiss 2004, 171, 230 no. 275. IG VII, 1777, col. 2, l. 11: Εὐέλπιστος δημόσιος. Cf. Weiss 2004, 171, 226 no. 252. Cf. Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.2.1.1. For this interpretation see Luciani 2016. Cf. Luciani 2015.

236

Being Freed by the Community

(populus) or local councillors (ordo). These acts would have demonstrated respect for their domini, as they sometimes called them. As we have seen, public slaves also seem to have showed deference and respect to their masters through offerings to either the Genius of a community, a specific public place or the decurions. Public slaves equally made dedications pro salute of the ordo and the populus and paid tributes to the magistrates they served. In some cases, such benefactions may have been attempts by public slaves to obtain the favour of magistrates and decurions with a view to future manumission or to thank them for granting freedom to their family members. 5.2.7 The Price of Freedom: Freed Public Slaves Paying for Manumission As many of the cases discussed in the previous section show, public slaves and freedmen did not confine themselves to merely paying deference and respect to masters and patrons in an abstract manner. Dedications to the Genius or to the salus and perpetuitas of the townsfolk and decurions are often combined with other benefactions, such as donations of money (the amount of which was always specified) or acts of euergetism, such as funding public buildings, temples, statues, etc. Authorization from the ordo decurionum was undoubtedly required for these latter contributions, as was sometimes specified in the inscriptions that accompanied each benefaction. Other cases contain evidence for acts of euergetism in the interests of the entire community or tributes paid to public magistrates. These were probably slightly different ways to show respect and obsequium, which – although not necessarily linked to dedications to people or decurions – nevertheless produced tangible results. Weiss did not consider the possibility that these benefactions may have been expressions of deference and obsequium that public slaves and freedmen had to pay to their masters and patrons. He included some of the above-mentioned attestations in a list of sources that also included occurrences of public slaves who had vicarii at their disposal and others who provided donations to guilds (collegia) or expressed their personal devotion to deities by dedicating altars or statues that did not reference the public sphere. In doing so, Weiss aimed to demonstrate both that public slaves could have had considerable liquid assets, and that they shared many of the local elites’ social values.89 Weiss ultimately interpreted these benefactions as attempts at self-representation from individuals seeking social validation. The sponsors of these benefactions could only have been the most affluent public slaves and freedmen, i. e., those who worked closely with magistrates and therefore had highly paid roles that included a range of responsibilities. It is not surprising that

89

Weiss 2004, 170–172.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

237

evidence about public slaves and freedmen who made these donations and acts of euergetism suggests that they were arcarii, tabularii, limocincti, and not, for instance, plumbarii, who were among the lowest-ranking public slaves and freedmen. This issue will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.90 It is also evident that, in making these benefactions for their communities and for decurions and magistrates, public slaves and freedmen conformed to the dominant set of values, i. e., those codified and upheld by local elites. It would have been impossible for them to have acted differently. In fact, public slaves and freedmen may have made such benefactions in the interests of their communities not only to declare their loyalty and show due respect to the townsfolk, the magistrates and the local councillors, or to perform acts of euergetism. All these benefactions may well have served as substitute payments for their manumissions. As we saw, Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana establishes that a male or female public slave could be manumitted only after he or she had given and paid to the public account (in publicum) the money that the decurions decided that he or she had to pay, or after he or she had given security for it. This idea is contained in the expression pecuniam dare, solvere satisfacereve, which implies that the public slave might have made a payment (pecuniam dare) and thereby paid his debt (pecuniam solvere) or, alternatively, he may have discharged the debt via a substitute payment (pecuniam satisfacere). By making a benefaction such as constructing a public building in the interests of the community or providing a donation in the interests of decurions and magistrates, or simply either of these, a public slave may have met the decurions’ requirements in return for his or her freedom.91 These benefactions may have occurred either before or after the act of manumission itself. 5.2.8 A Very Disrespectful Public Slave: The “sceleratissimus servus publicus” from Tuder All the sources discussed so far attest to public slaves and freedmen who did their best to show deference and respect to their masters and patrons, i. e., the townsfolk, decurions and magistrates. The surviving evidence mostly shows public slaves making benefactions in the interests of their communities and displaying affection to cities and their institutions. In most cases there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of that feeling. However, the realities of everyday life of Roman public slaves and freedmen must have been more complex. In spite of what the evidence suggests, we should not just envisage a crowd of loyal and respectful servi publici; we should also consider those

90 91

See Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.5. For this interpretation, see also Luciani 2017, 63–64. Ricci 2020 also came to the same conclusion.

238

Being Freed by the Community

who may have had deep grievances against the city and its representatives, for various reasons. A document from Tuder that may shed light on this ‘other side of the coin’ is a limestone altar dedicated to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Custos Conservator on behalf of the well-being of the entire community of the city. The altar references a sceleratissimus servus publicus (no. 412), whose name was apparently not worth mentioning. The text reads as follows: Pro salute / coloniae et ordinis / decurionum et populi / Tudertis. Iovi Opt(imo) Max(imo), / Custodi, Conservatori, / quod is sceleratissimi servi / publici infando latrocinio / defixa monumentis ordinis / decurionum nomina / numine suo eruit ac vindi/cavit et metu periculorum / coloniam civesque liberavit. / L(ucius) Cancrius Clementis lib(ertus) / Primigenius, / sexvir et Augustalis et Flavialis, / primus omnium his honoribus / ab ordine donatus, / votum solvit. // C(aio) Vibio [- - -] / Iulio [- - -] / co(n)ss(ulibus). On behalf of the well-being of the colony, the decurion order and the people of Tuder. To Jupiter Best and Greatest, Protector, Saviour, because, by his divine powers, he unearthed the names of the decurion order, which had been cursed and attached to (funerary) monuments as a result of the unspeakable banditry of a most wicked public slave, avenged (this act) and freed the colony and the citizens from fear of danger. Lucius Cancrius Primigenius, freedman of Clemens, a sexvir both Augustalis and Flavialis, the first of all to be granted these honours by the (decurion) order, fulfilled his vow. In the consulship of Gaius Vibius … and Iulius …92

The altar was therefore set up because a most wicked public slave (sceleratissimus servus publicus) had committed an abominable crime, which is described by the expression defixa monumentis ordinis decurionum nomina in lines 8–9. This public slave had put a curse on the local decurions, by engraving all their names in one or more lead curse tablets, which he then hid somewhere among the tombstones in a necropolis near the town, possibly under the threshold or the floor of the tombs.93 José Miguel Serrano Delgado suggested that the use of monumentum in the plural implies that the curse was repeated more than once or, alternatively, that the public slave selected several tombs of decurional families, where he hid a curse tablet for each decurio.94 However, the plural could also simply be a reference to the fact that the slave needed several curse tablets to record the names of all the decurions, and was thus forced to disseminate them throughout the whole necropolis.95 In a Roman city, the local council could have

92 93 94 95

Translation adapted from MacRae 2018, 54. In this case, the past participle of the verb defigo was used in its technical sense: cf. Gager 1992, 245–246 no. 135. Serrano Delgado 1996. Cf. also Marco Simón 2010, 415.

Freed Public Slaves in Italian and Provincial Communities

239

consisted anywhere from 30 to 100 members. In a medium-sized town like Tuder,96 the decurions probably numbered far fewer than a hundred. Collecting their names may have been a relatively easy task, considering that a list of the local councillors was probably displayed in every Roman city, as suggested by the albums from Canusium and Thamugadi.97 The public slave who put the curse on the decurions of Tuder may also have been a tabularius, i. e., someone entitled to access public records, including the list of the decuriones.98 This public slave’s misdeed was probably eventually discovered: the verb eruo suggests that one or more curse tablets were physically dug up and brought to light. It has also been suggested that a thunderbolt may have struck the necropolis and damaged one or more tombs where the curse tablets were hidden, which would have brought them into the open.99 The discovery was attributed to Jupiter Best and Greatest (whose connection with lightning is well established), here mentioned as Custos and Conservator of the salus of the colony of Tuder, its decurions and townsfolk. The expression metu periculorum coloniam civesque liberavit (l. 11–12) suggests that a curse on the ordo decurionum was perceived as a dangerous threat to the well-being of the entire community, and that the intervention of the deity was therefore of paramount importance. The altar had been set up by L(ucius) Cancrius Primigenius, a freedman of a private individual who should have been called L(ucius) Cancrius Clemens. L(ucius) Cancrius Primigenius had strong ties to the ordo decurionum, and had been appointed a sexvir Augustalis and Flavialis by the decurions. He was therefore in charge of promoting the Imperial cult of deified emperors, namely Augustus, Vespasian, and Titus. Officials like him were normally required to pay a sum of money, the so-called summa honoraria, to the public treasury; however, the term donatus (l. 17) seems to indicate that L(ucius) Cancrius Primigenius was exempted from paying any money. It is also recorded that he was the first of all (l. 16: primus omnium) to be entitled to something, although it is unclear whether the expression refers to the fact that he was the first to be appointed a sexvir Augustalis and Flavialis or the first to be granted the special honour of being a sexvir Augustalis and Flavialis without paying the summa honoraria. L(ucius) Cancrius Primigenius may have been struck by the entire episode, considering that he made a vow to Jupiter, which he eventually fulfilled, when the crime was uncovered. In setting up an altar with this inscription, he was probably attempting to obtain the favour of the decurions and townsfolk of his city. However, to assume that the inscription was a “witchcraft accusation”, i. e., a rhetorical text that L(ucius) Cancrius Primigenius created to propagate a fictional story that “would ring true for readers in Roman Tuder”

96 97 98 99

On the size of Tuder, see de Ligt 2012, 316. CIL IX, 338 = ILS 6121 (Canusium, Regio II; 223 CE); CIL VIII, 2403 (Thamugadi, Numidia; fourth c. CE). Cf. Mouritsen 1998; Salway 2000. See Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.4.1. For this interpretation, see Fear 1998, 125.

240

Being Freed by the Community

and allow him to claim his position in the local society, seems to extend this argument too far.100 If one considers the procedure for manumitting a public slave, which was discussed earlier,101 then it is unnecessary to envisage a purposely created “witchcraft accusation” to explain this episode. As we saw, Chapter 72 of the lex Irnitana established that a public slave could not be manumitted without the approval of the qualified majority (two thirds) of the decurions; this was the indispensable condition without which the act of manumission was not possible. The same requirement likely existed in all the cities of the Empire. Therefore, it is possible that a magistrate in Tuder submitted to the decurions his proposal of manumitting the anonymous servus publicus. For unknown reasons, the ordo decurionum may have voted against the manumission, which would have left the public slave with no hope of freedom, and arguably crushed the greatest desire that any slave, whether public or private, could have had. As a consequence, the servus publicus may have harboured a deep resentment towards the decurions for not granting his manumission, which may have led him to exact his harsh revenge102 and curse them all.103 When the curse tablets were discovered, although their author remained anonymous, it was probably easy for the decurions to deduce the identity of the culprit, i. e., the public slave to whom they had denied manumission, and bring the sceleratissimus servus publicus to justice. The inscription from Tuder evokes a story that reveals certain harsh and cruel elements of Roman civic society. This source urges us to remember that the world of slavery often involved animosity and violence. Public slavery was probably no exception, even though the available evidence is biased towards public slaves and freedmen/ -women who had fully conformed with the values of the local elites.

100 101 102 103

For this interpretation, see MacRae 2018 (quotation from p. 59). See Paragraph 5.2.1 above. Cf. also Schumacher 1988, 134; Beard et al. 1998, 268. Cf. also Serrano Delgado 1996; Fear 1998, 125.

6. “The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”? Public Slaves in the Society 6.1 State of the Art The question of the public slaves’ role in society has been long debated. Modern scholars tend to believe that public slaves were distinguished from the rest of the slave population, both in Rome and in other towns, and regardless of when they lived, because they benefitted from a relatively high status and good social conditions. I have recently reviewed all the literature assessing the position of servi publici within the slave society.1 The investigation suggested that scholars have basically been polarized between two competing positions. Under the so-called ‘traditional’ view, a number of scholars have argued that, due to a series of entitlements (the rights to an accommodation, food, and clothing, and to bequeath half of their peculium) and a set of conditions (possibility of making benefactions and partnering free or freed women), public slaves would have enjoyed exceptional social mobility, which set them apart from other slaves.2 On the other hand, a rather small minority of scholars have reassessed this view, by relativizing the issues according to time, place, and duties performed by each public slave.3 If one only considers certain factors, such as the fact that public slaves were legally entitled to receive lodging, board, and clothing, to bequeath part of their property, and to cohabit with free women, it seems possible to argue that the legal and social rank of public slaves was different from – or even superior to – that of ordinary slaves. However, if we interpret these factors in light of the status of the servi publici, who were slaves without individual masters, we may infer that certain legal measures were necessary to regulate the everyday lives of the servi publici. Moreover, if one also consid1 2

3

Luciani 2020, 369–371. Mommsen 18873, 323 (vol. 1); cf. 836 (vol. 2); Halkin 1897, 112, 120, 135; Buckland 1908, 321; Barrow 1928, 130–132; Boulvert 1970, 11; Weaver 1972, 215; Rouland 1977, 276; Eder 1980, 122; Morabito 1981, 177; Fear 1990, 163; Rodríguez Neila 1997, 223; Weiss 2004, 163–179; Silvestrini 2005, 550; Zlinszky 2006, 323; Sudi-Guiral 2007, 426; Schumacher 2011, 598; Gamauf 2016, 387 n. 9. Louis 1912, 61; Serrano Delgado 1996, 344; Bruun 2008, 549–553; Luciani 2020, with regard to public slaves in Rome; Luciani 2021a. On the idea of public slaves as “ultimate slaves”, see Patterson 1982, 299–333.

242

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

ers that public slaves had no right to legitimate marriages and that their children were therefore illegitimate and incapable of inheriting property, then it seems that at least a partial reassessment of the dominant view on the social position of public slaves is necessary. Finally, the prospect for a public slave to emerge from the shadow of his or her servile condition and be granted manumission probably depended heavily upon each city and the social connections each public slave had with civic authorities (magistrates and senators or the emperor in Republican and Imperial Rome, and local magistrates and decurions in other cities). The prospect of ‘social success’ was therefore not shared by all public slaves. 6.2 Providing for Public Slaves: Lodging, Board and Clothing at Public Expense Under the provisions of the municipal charter engraved on the bronze tables from Heraclea in Lucania, public slaves were required to use whatever places had been assigned to them by the censors for habitation or use (no. 330).4 Since the charter included regulations that were in force in all other municipia throughout Italy, accommodations were likely assigned to public slaves everywhere, including the colonies. In the city of Rome, things must have been similar. When analysing public slaves employed as aeditui,5 we discussed an episode of 68 CE recorded by Tacitus, in which the public slave in charge of the temple of Vesta in the Forum (no. 20) hid Piso, who was escaping from the praetorians Otho hired to kill him, in his chamber (contubernio eius).6 Tacitus’ passage suggests that the public slave employed as an aedituus had a guarded room attached to the temple. Although no other evidence is available,7 all public slaves employed in Rome may have had some accommodation at their disposal, which – in most cases – must have been near the place where they performed their main duties.8 It is not surprising that civic authorities provided a place in which public slaves could live. All masters normally provided rooms within which their own slaves could sleep.9 The main difference between the accommodations of private slaves and public

4 5 6 7

8 9

See Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.6. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2.6. Tac. Hist. 1.43. But see Tac. Hist. 3.74 and Suet. Dom. 1: again, in 68 CE, 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 (no. 643). Cf. also Halkin 1897, 68–69. Archaeological traces of rooms found under the Forum of Nerva, in a public building dating to the Late Republican age, have been interpreted as chambers for public slaves even though no firm evidence survives: Rinaldi 2015, 23. See Edmondson 2011, 343–346; George 2011, 388.

Providing for Public Slaves: Lodging, Board and Clothing at Public Expense

243

slaves were probably the locations: while private slaves typically lived under the same roofs as their masters, the servi publici were likely assigned rooms in public spaces of the city, probably next to or within public buildings.10 Tacitus’ use of the term contubernium seems to suggest that several servi publici may have shared each space.11 Other fundamental necessities of servi publici, such as food and clothing, also seem to have been supplied at public expense, both in Rome and in other cities. The evidence is somewhat sporadic, but we do have certain clues. Chapter 79 of the lex Irnitana states that part of the public budget had to be allocated to provide those who served the municipes, i. e., public slaves, with vestitum (clothing) and cibaria (no. 528). The expression cibaria probably did not refer to food or meals, but rather to a sum of money paid to public slaves for their food-related needs. Similar provisions regarding the supply of food and clothing to public slaves were likely included in the charters of all Roman towns, both in Italy and in the provinces. There are a few traces of a similar practice for public slaves in Rome too. A passage from Frontinus’ On Aqueducts suggests that the three servi publici who assisted the public water commissioners inside and outside Rome received a yearly food allowance (cibaria annua) in the form of money (pecunia), as required by the provisions of a senatus consultum of 11 BCE (no. 15).12 In another passage from this work, Frontinus states that the 240 public slaves employed to maintain the conduits (familia publica aquaria) also received a form of remuneration (commoda) paid from the State treasury (aerarium) (no. 14):13 commoda may have referred to the payment of money for expenses related to basic subsistence.14 The two different expressions used by Frontinus – cibaria for public slaves attached as servants to the water commissioners, and commoda for members of the familia publica – seems to suggest that the allowances were different, higher for the first, lower for the latter. There is no evidence that other public slaves in Rome received such contributions, although the alimentary needs of all public slaves should have been satisfied in one way or another. The economic treatment may have also depended on the role and duties of each public slave. However, it is difficult to accept Eder’s suggestion that these cibaria and commoda were proper forms of remuneration, and that servi publici populi Romani in Rome were salaried slaves for all intents and purposes.15 No direct evidence for a centralised supply of clothing to public slaves from the Roman State is available. The scattered references to the limus/-m worn by public slaves16 do not say that this garment was provided at public expense. However, it is possible 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Cf. also Eder 1980, 107–108. Pliny’s young slaves also slept together in the paedagogium: Plin. Ep. 7.27.13. Frontin. Aq. 2.100. See also Chapter 3, Paragraphs 3.1.2.2 and 3.3.3. Frontin. Aq. 2.118. Cf. also Rodgers 2004, 302. Eder 1980, 108–109. Similarly, Rüpke 2005, 1464. Contra Rodgers 2004, 271. It is known that public slaves in most cities of Bithynia drew a yearly emolument (annua), too; cf. Plin. Ep. 10.31–32. See Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.1, and Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.2.1.2.

244

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

that the tunic and the limus/-m worn by public slaves were supplied by the State. The money used to feed and clothe servi publici populi Romani in Rome may have also come from the public treasury, as it did in Irni.17 That public slaves were provided with food (or a food allowance) and clothing at public expense is not surprising. Indeed, every master was incentivized to supply food and clothing to his slaves; the productivity – and loyalty – of his slaves would have suffered from the lack of these primary necessities. A passage from Seneca’s On Benefits suggests that supplying cibaria and vestiarium was not considered a beneficium; on the other hand, indulging one’s slave and giving him a degree of education was certainly regarded as such.18 6.3 Managing and Bequeathing Property: Public Slaves and their peculium With regard to accommodation facilities and the supply of food and clothing, public slaves may not have been very different from other privately owned slaves. The fact that some public slaves may have received a monetary allowance might be their only distinct characteristic.19 However, because public slaves did not have personal masters who could supply them with food, they needed the means to obtain it for themselves. Receiving cash payments may have led a number of public slaves to put aside a certain – perhaps even substantial – amount of money (peculium). That public slaves had a peculium at their disposal is attested by an excerpt from Papinian’s Replies from the early third century CE, which was included in the Digest of Justinian.20 Again, though, this should not be regarded as an exclusive ‘benefit’ for public slaves; it is well known that private masters could also grant their slaves the possibility of managing a peculium.21 It is difficult to say how independently servi publici could manage this peculium. The real difference between private and public slaves was that public slaves could bequeath part of their peculium. Indeed, Ulpian explicitly states that public slaves of the Roman people had the right to dispose of half their peculium in their testament.22 The expression servus publicus populi Romani used by Ulpian seems to suggest that he was referring to public slaves in Rome.23 Another excerpt from Papinian’s Replies, which was collected in the Digest suggests that the slave of a civitas who had lawfully been 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cf. also Halkin 1897, 15–16, 108, 140–141; Luciani 2017, 47. Sen. Ben. 3.21. Private slaves were also supplied with food and clothes from the master: cf. Arr. Epict. diss. 4.1.37; Juv. 3.166–167; Dig. 7.1.15.2 (Ulp. 18 ad Sab.). And yet some private slaves could also receive a sort of salary: see Bradley 1987b, 108. Dig. 16.2.19 (Pap. 11 resp.). Cf., e. g., Sen. Ep. 80.7. For the peculium of slaves, see Watson 1987, 90–101. Ulp. 20.16. On this passage, see Avenarius 2005, 394–395. For such an expression, see Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.2.

Managing and Bequeathing Property: Public Slaves and their peculium

245

manumitted was also entitled to keep his peculium.24 This suggests that public slaves in other cities also had this right, although some scholars disagree.25 Apart from a marble stele from Rome set up by the public slave Bithus Paullianus (no. 39) for a woman, Aemilia Prima, who is mentioned as his concubine and heir (concubina eius et heres), evidence for public slaves in Rome who exercised the right to keep their peculium is rare. Among the 93 funerary inscriptions that mention public slaves from Rome, there is only one instance of the expression h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredes) e(xteri) n(on) s(equetur), “the funerary monument does not follow to the heirs external to the family”.26 This expression was intended to protect the deceased’s closest heirs. One cannot find any evidence at all of formulas such as T. F. I., which stands for testamento fieri iussit, i. e., “[The deceased] ordered [a funerary monument] to be made in his will”. A funerary monument from Cales, which was made for Primogenes publicus minor (no. 178) by Primogene(s) maio[r] (no. 177) and Urbanus (no. 179), who wished to be referred to as his he[redes], is the only inscriptional evidence of heirs of public slaves in other towns. Moreover, there is no mention of any of the above-mentioned epigraphic formulas that could imply a bequest of property to an individual. A clear indication that some public slaves had a peculium they could use for their own interests is the fact that some of them possessed their own slaves (vicarii).27 Halkin and Weiss demonstrated that public slaves had vicarii in both Italian and provincial towns.28 From our collection of sources, we can say that among 550 public slaves, only nine owned vicarii (nos. 328, 377, 406, 413, 461, 468, 508, 512, 549). Among these, the case of Verecundus Urv(inatium) vil(icus) ab alim(entis) (no. 413) is remarkable, as he had three vicarii. Again, however, it is unclear whether a public slave was entirely free to manage his peculium as he saw fit, or if – before purchasing a vicarius – he needed authorization from magistrates or decurions. The latter scenario seems likelier, although the lack of evidence means we should exercise caution before trying to give an answer one way or the other. Having vicarii seems to have been more common for public slaves involved in the financial administration, such as arcarii, actores and vilici. This is not especially surprising. Indeed, in analysing various benefactions of public slaves and freedmen,29 we have

24 25 26 27 28 29

Dig. 40.3.3 (Pap. 14 resp.). Cf. also Halkin 1897, 114 n. 3; Weiss 2004, 170. Contra Buckland 1908, 328; Serrano Delgado 1996, 341–342. CIL VI, 2345 = ILS 1975 (no. 84). On the vicarii of the public slaves, see Nicoletti 1984–85, 1483–1487; Reduzzi Merola 1990, 176–179. On vicarii in general, see Erman 1896; Berger 1957; Labruna 1984–85; Labruna 1985; Morabito 1993; Reduzzi Merola 2005. Cf. Halkin 1897, 220; Weiss 2004, 170–171. See Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.6.

246

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

seen that they were mostly carried out by arcarii, tabularii and limocincti. This was also the case for several public slaves who provided donations to guilds. The first – and most remarkable – case is that of Rufus, a public slave of the colony of Asculum, who was employed in the financial administration of the city as a disp(ensator) arc(a)e summar(um) (no. 384). Rufus set up a marble slab to record that he paid for the erection of a statue of Fortuna Redux at his own expense. He also mentioned the fact that he oversaw the construction of a small temple, probably dedicated to the same deity, from the base up: the latter work was paid for by public subscription, and Rufus made the largest contribution. He eventually paid 20 sesterces to each of the members of an unspecified collegium. The date of this benefaction, 21st July 172 CE, was explicitly recorded in the inscription. The benefaction may have been a request for the safe return of the emperor Marcus Aurelius from the campaign against the Marcomanni, which began that year.30 Silvia Maria Marengo noted that Rufus’ benefaction was not meant to be received by the city, as the slab does not reference the townsfolk or the decurions; rather, the benefaction seems to have been left to the anonymous college, of which Rufus himself should have been a member.31 Another instance is that of Primigenius r(ei) p(ublicae) Aricinorum ser(vus) arc(arius) (no. 172), a two-time curator of the collegium of the lotores, who gave a statue of Diana Augusta as a gift to this collegium. Both Rufus and Primigenius were public slaves involved in their cities’ financial administrations, as a dispensator and an arcarius respectively. The public slaves who possessed vicarii, made benefactions to their cities, or left donations to collegia must have been the wealthiest ones. They seem to have been employed in the financial administration (as arcarii, dispensatores and actores) or to have had close relationships with public magistrates (as tabularii in the archives or limocincti in the courts). They presumably received the highest pay and could therefore set aside money for savings or to pay the sum required for manumission.32 On the other hand, not even one attestation of a vicarius or vicaria of a public slave can be traced in the inscriptional evidence mentioning public slaves from Rome. The 93 funerary inscriptions mentioning public slaves from Rome were epitaphs made by either the public slaves themselves, or by them and their female partners. From this one may infer that public slaves in Rome tended to use their savings to purchase (or contribute to the purchase of) funerary monuments with inscriptions for themselves or their families, rather than to buy their own vicarii or made benefactions or donations.

30 31 32

Cf. also Cristofori 2004, 129. For the military campaign of Marcus Aurelius against the Marcomanni in 172, see Birley 2000, 173–175. Cf. Marengo 2014, who also proposed the reading Rufus col(legii) disp(ensator) arc(a)e summar(um) instead of Rufus col(onorum) disp(ensator) arc(a)e summar(um). See Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.7.

Having A Family: Public Slaves, their Partners and their Children

247

The vast majority of these epitaphs appear to be engraved on very simple plaques, which suggests that the peculium of public slaves in Rome was not particularly large. Ultimately, the possibility for public slaves to bequeath half their peculium in their wills may be regarded as a sort of ‘privilege’. As we have seen, some public slaves in Italian and provincial cities – the wealthiest ones, such as limocincti, tabularii, and those employed in the financial administration – may have been able to set aside a non-trivial amount of money, as their allowances were probably higher than those of other public slaves. In addition to bequeathing property to their heirs, some of them decided to use their resources to purchase their own slaves (vicarii). Others may have even been able to make benefactions or donations to the townsfolk and the decurions, as a token of their loyalty or gratitude for having been promised or granted manumission. Again, this would only have been possible for the more fortunate public slaves. The picture offered by the inscriptional evidence from Rome is very different. Besides bequeathing their possessions to their heirs, it seems that public slaves generally used the rest of their savings to purchase funerary monuments for themselves and their families, rather than to buy vicarii or perform acts of euergetism. The peculium that public slaves in Rome were able to set aside was probably not large, although we cannot know for sure. 6.4 Having A Family: Public Slaves, their Partners and their Children Both in Rome and other cities, public slaves tended to partner with women who were either freeborn (ingenuae), freedwomen (libertae), or of uncertain status (incertae). Such unions are significantly attested both in Rome (49 occurrences) and Italian and provincial towns (29 attestations), all of which date to Imperial times.33 Eder and Weiss interpreted the possibility of partnering free (or freed) partners as proof of the privileged status of public slaves in Rome and other communities.34 One should keep in mind that partnerships between slaves and free (or freed) partners were not necessarily rare in the Roman world, although these always depended on the approval of the masters.35 Among the female partners of public slaves in Rome, we have evidence for only one freeborn woman: Asinia C(ai) f(ilia) Sabina, the partner of Victor publicus Fabianus a censibus p(opuli) R(omani) (no. 138). Similarly, we know of only one instance of a union between a public slave and an Imperial freedwoman: Philippus Rustian(us) publicus ab sacrario divi Augusti (no. 112) partnered Claudia Lachne, who was a freedwoman of Antonia, the daughter of Claudius (cf. Fig. 8). All the other partners were of unclear statuses or, in many cases, freedwomen, as their Greek names seem to suggest. It there33 34 35

See also Herrmann-Otto 1994, 201; Simonis 2017, 86–87. Eder 1980, 112; Weiss 2004, 166–167. Treggiari 1991, 53.

248

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

fore seems that servi publici in Rome cohabited with libertae much more frequently than with ingenuae or Imperial freedwomen who, like all members of the familia Caesaris, constituted the elite among the slave and libertine sectors of Imperial society.36 Although some public slaves designated their female partners as coniuges in inscriptions, these partnerships were not legitimate Roman marriages.37 These unions had the status of contubernia, as did any concubinage between a servus and a free or freed woman.38 Six out of the 55 inscriptions from Rome mentioning unions between public slaves and free women attest that the children born in these unions took the same nomen as their mothers,39 which implies that they also took the same status as their mothers, according to the ius gentium.40 These children were freeborn but illegitimate, and therefore incapable of inheriting property.41 This was the case for M(arcus) Herennius Sp(uri) f(ilius) Esq(uilina) Fatalis, the son of Herennia Bonitas and Andronicus publicus Fulvianus (no. 27): he clearly took his mother’s nomen, and the fact that he was an illegitimate son is highlighted by the expression Sp(uri) f(ilius).42 Other inscriptions do not record this type of formula; the fact that the sons bore the same nomen as their mothers would be sufficient to indicate that they were equally illegitimate. However, some of these sons may even have born when their mothers were still servae, which would have made them servi as well. They may simply have been manumitted by their mother’s masters at the same time as their mothers or soon after. This possibility forces us to reassess the initial assumption that public slaves in Rome frequently formed partnerships with free or freed women. The evidence for libertae or incertae who partnered 36 37 38 39

40 41 42

Weaver 1972, 295. 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 like concubina or contubernalis, which would have been the more lawful ones, are recorded once each. Cf. Paulus, Sent. 2.19.6. Cf. Andronicus publicus Fulvianus (no. 29) + Herennia Bonitas = M(arcus) Herennius Sp(uri) f(ilius) Esq(uilina) Fatalis (early first century CE); Magnus Publicianus (no.  89) + Ancharia Felicula = L(ucius) Ancharius Priscianus and Ancharia Felicissima (early first century CE); Pamphilus Caesianus (no.  106) + Aemilia Euchnis = Aemilia Antiochis (early first century CE); Lucrio publicus Annianus (no. 88) + Vettiena Sabina = L(ucius) Vettienus Primitivus (second century CE); Threptus (no. 136) + Claudia Spes = Ti(berius) Claudius Threptus (first century CE); Epagathus (no. 53) + Attia Felicitas = Attia Epagatho (second century CE). The case of Helius Afinianus (no.  73) and his partner Sextia Psyche is remarkable: in the first century CE, they set up a funerary monument to Vivenia Helias, who is recorded as L(uci) f(ilia), i. e., “daughter of L(ucius)”, and mentioned as filia pientissima, i. e., the “most dutiful daughter”. Apparently, she was given a feminine form of the name of her father as a cognomen, but she did not take the nomen of her mother, as one would expect; moreover, the presence of the patronymic is inexplicable. Another unusual case is that of Laetus, a workman of the public water supply (no. 84), and Flavia Dionysia, presumably his partner, in the second century CE, they set up a monument to their daughter Aulia Argyris, who did not take the nomen of her mother. See also Herrmann-Otto 1994, 200–205. Gai. Inst. 1.80. See also Weaver 1986, 145–147. Edmondson 2014, 574–575. On the situation of illegitimate children in Roman law from Augustus to Diocletian see Evans Grubbs 2015.

Having A Family: Public Slaves, their Partners and their Children

249

with public slaves consists of funerary inscriptions that were set up at the moment of these women’s deaths, or of their partners’, or both. Therefore, another possibility emerges: the libertae or incertae may have been slaves when they began their relationships with the public slaves and been manumitted only later. Similar issues arise when analysing the evidence of public slaves’ families in Italian and provincial towns. Weiss demonstrated that ‘mixed marriages’ between servi publici and women who were not (or were no longer) of servile condition was common both in Italy and the provinces. The epigraphic evidence suggests that public slaves in Italian and provincial towns often had partners who were freeborn women or, more frequently, libertae or women of uncertain status (incertae).43 Among these there were many public freedwomen, but not Imperial ones. The attestations of unions between public slaves and public freedwomen may be nothing more than evidence that some male and female public slaves had relationships within their own households, or that female public slaves were more frequently manumitted than their male counterparts.44 After all, Weiss also noted that a large number of inscriptions from Italy and the provinces suggest that partnerships between male and female public slaves were frequent as well.45 Civic authorities probably did not oppose cohabitations between male and female public slaves; on the contrary, they likely encouraged them. According to the ius gentium, the children born from these unions were public slaves for all intents and purposes, and, as we have seen, a system of natural reproduction of public slaves may have been the main source of public slaves in Roman towns.46 In addition to carrying and giving birth to children, female public slaves in cities of the Empire were likely entrusted with the task of bringing up these young public slaves until they reached an age that was either suitable for work (males), or having children (females).47 As we already noted, after giving birth to a certain number of children, female public slaves may have been rewarded by civic authorities with freedom.48 There is no evidence for female public slaves from the city of Rome. Slave breeding was not, after all, the most common way that Rome was provided with servi publici. Public slaves in Rome were either purchased on the slave market or given as gifts by private individuals; the second name (agnomen), which was a distinctive feature of the nomenclature of most servi publici populi Romani, derived from the nomen or the cognomen of their former masters.49 Mommsen argued that public slaves in Rome had two names because they enjoyed a relatively high social status among the slave population, 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Weiss 2004, 166–167. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.3. Weiss 2004, 24. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.6. When not involved in the natural process of reproduction, female public slaves must have performed a variety of other domestic tasks. See Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.3. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.5.

250

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

which placed them in a hybrid position between freedom and enslavement.50 However, the agnomen was not included in all public slaves’ nomenclature: 36 out of 124 public slaves and one public freedman, whose nomenclature is certain or can be restored with sufficient certainty, are attested in epigraphic sources without an agnomen. There could be two explanations for this: either public slaves without the agnomen were of a lower status, which seems unlikely, or they did not have a previous master who had sold or given them as a gift to the State. Public slaves without agnomen could have been supplied through other means; for example, they may have been purchased on the slave market at public expense or been public slaves at birth under the provisions of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum.51 The agnomen would therefore have had legal rather than social significance, merely indicating the previous private master of the slave before the latter became public property.52 Ultimately, the fact that public slaves occasionally partnered ingenuae or freedwomen, in addition to female slaves, does not seem to have been regarded as a significant privilege; other slaves could also form relationships with freeborn women or libertae, provided their masters approved. Moreover, the possibility that at least some of the female partners were freed after they formed relationships with public slaves cannot be ruled out. Neither in Rome nor in other towns did public slaves partner Imperial freedwomen: this suggests that these groups did not associate much with one another. Finally, children born from these unions were either illegitimate or, under the provisions of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum, they became public slaves. 6.5 Ranking Public Slaves: The Hierarchy within the Group of the servi publici When analysing public slaves’ social positions, it is also worth assessing whether there was any sort of hierarchy among the group of the servi publici. The most relevant cases from Rome are the public slaves mentioned by Frontinus, i. e., the three publici who assisted the curatores aquarum publicarum (no. 15) and the group of the familia publica aquaria (no. 14). The remuneration that these public slaves received for their services depended on the types of duties they performed: as we have seen,53 the three public slaves who assisted the water commissioners were entitled to a yearly food allowance (cibaria annua), whereas the larger group of public slaves entrusted with task of maintaining water conduits and aqueducts only received a basic subsistence income (commoda). We can therefore infer that assisting an official in his 50 51 52 53

Mommsen 18873, 323 n. 2. Similarly, Weaver 1972, 214–215. See Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.5. Contra Weaver 1972, 214–215. See Chapter 3, Paragraphs 3.1.2.2 and 3.3.3, and Paragraph 6.2 above.

Ranking Public Slaves: The Hierarchy within the Group of the servi publici

251

daily administrative job was perceived as a higher-status position than being a simple servant with menial manual jobs in the water supply service. The example of [Car]pus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42), a publicus Fratrum Arvalium who was “promoted” (promotus) to the post of copying documents for the quaestors in 155 CE, is significant in this respect. Carpus Cornelianus’ situation suggests that being attached as servant to a magistrate such as a quaestor was perceived as a higher-status position than assisting a priesthood like the Arval Brethren. Another factor that seems to confirm the status difference in Rome between public slaves attached to magistrates and other public slaves was the right to wear the limus/-m. Contrary to what Mommsen and Eder assumed, this garment could not be worn by the entire class of public slaves;54 the limus/-m was a distinctive item of clothing worn only by the public slaves who assisted magistrates. The limus/-m was therefore representing a visual representation of the authority of public officials. The information from these cases seems to confirm the existence of some sort of hierarchy among the servi publici populi Romani. Public slaves who attended magistrates and/or curatores, i. e., the only public slaves who wore the limus/-m, were at the top of the hierarchy. Immediately below them were public slaves assisting priests, while the rest (and the majority) of the servi publici, who performed menial tasks, were the lowest-ranking public slaves. A clear-cut internal hierarchy among public slaves also existed in other cities, both in Italy and the provinces. On the bottom rung were public slaves who performed menial tasks and received lower remunerations, such as the plumbarii or those involved in public policing and security.55 Other groups, such as the limocincti who assisted the highest magistrates, the tabularii or those involved in the financial administration (arcarii, actores, dispensatores and vilici), were the only ones who made benefactions, and were therefore the wealthiest.56 They were also at the top of the hierarchy of the public slave population. In this regard, it is remarkable that four arcarii, Felix col(onorum) ark(arius) (no.  200), Felixs col(onorum) ark(arius) (no.  201), Hermes col(onorum) ark(arius) (no. 202), Vitalis col(onorum) ark(arius) (no. 205), as well as a tabularius, Puteolanus Puteolanor(um) ser(vus) tabularius (no. 204), were the only servile members of the corpus of the Augustales at Liternum. Similarly, it is worth noting that two arcarii are mentioned at the top of the list of the members of the familia publica (no. 280) at Ostia along with a public freedman who held the title of tabularius, whereas none of the other servi or liberti publici’s occupations are specified. These cases demonstrate that tabularii and arcarii, who performed crucial duties in close association with local magistrates and decurions and therefore received the highest allowances, enjoyed wealth

54 55 56

Mommsen 18873, 323–324; Eder 1980, 102, 106–107. Cf. also Serrano Delgado 1996, 343; Weiss 2004, 179. See Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.6–7.

252

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

and status that placed them on the top rungs of the group of public slaves. Sometimes, their social position in a city could even compared to that of rich freedmen. One should recall that public slaves were occasionally permitted to be members of professional or religious associations (collegiati), and may have even held posts of responsibility within these groups. See: − Euphrosynus (no. 183): magister of the familia limata at Capua; − Hedomacus pub(licus) (no. 464): tresvir and mag(ister) of an anonymous collegium at Atria;57 − Ianuarius Sent(inatium scil. servus) (no. 408): member of the cultores d(ei) s(olis) i(nvicti) Mithrae of Sentinum; − Primigenius r(ei) p(ublicae) Aricinorum ser(vus) arc(arius) (no. 172): curator of the collegium of the lotores at Aricia; − Rufus col(onorum) disp(ensator) arc(a)e summar(um) (no. 384): member of an anonymous collegium at Asculum.

An excerpt of the third century CE jurist Aelius Marcianus, which was included in the Digest, suggests that if slaves had their masters’ consent, they could be admitted into collegia.58 However, as stated by Nicolas Tran, the paucity of evidence for slaves among the collegiati suggests that this was a “phénomène minoritaire”.59 The five abovementioned instances suggest that this was also rare for public slaves. Nevertheless, we must consider the possibility that being members of associations may have been an avenue that enabled public slaves to emerge from the shadows of their current statuses as public slaves and seek recognition and prestige. This was even more true for the formalized group (corpus or collegium) of the public slaves (and freedmen), who – as we have seen – are attested in several cities: Ameria, Brundisium, Capua, Ostia, Patavium, Tarracina, Venafrum in Italy, Corduba (Baetica), Segobriga (Tarraconensis), and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Dacia) (see nos. 188, 278–282, 290–291, 298, 317, 395, 483, 523, 539, 638). Aside from the inscription from Ostia recording the list of the members of the group (no. 280), a few other inscriptions from Ostia (nos. 279, 282) and two more from Brundisium and Ameria (nos. 317, 395) mention the familia publica along with members of the elite such as local magistrates or priests. Membership in such an association may have given public slaves (and freedmen) a certain degree of visibility as a group within the urban society. Whether a formalized group of public slaves and freedmen existed in every Roman city remains an open question. Similarly, the function and aims of these groups are unclear: as Françoise Sudi-Guiral and Jeffrey Easton have argued,60 we cannot rule out the possibility that the corpora or 57 58 59 60

Cf. also Buchi 1986. Dig. 47.22.3.2 (Marc. 2 iudic. publ.). Cf. also Liu 2009, 176. Tran 2006, 50–55 (quotation at p. 50). Sudi-Guiral 2007; Easton 2021.

Hoping for Manumission: Public Slaves and the Chances of Being Freed

253

collegia of the familia publica gathered their members together for funerary rather than professional purposes, as did many other guilds in the Roman world.61 However, this point is far from certain, and does not help us understand whether public slaves and freedmen (besides the most prominent ones) had realistic chances of climbing their local social ladders. 6.6 Hoping for Manumission: Public Slaves and the Chances of Being Freed Besides reviewing the evidence for the existence of a hierarchy within the public slave population, it is also useful to assess how realistic the chances of a public slave obtaining manumission actually were. As we have already noted, manumission was not granted to public slaves indiscriminately.62 The available evidence from the city of Rome suggests that public slaves were rarely set free, at least during Imperial times. The fact that only two public freedmen are attested, whereas many public slaves died as such, suggests that manumission of public slaves in Rome was infrequent. Public slaves seem to have been manumitted more frequently in other towns in Italy and the provinces, although certain groups had more opportunities to be manumitted than others. As discussed,63 female public slaves presumably had proportionally more chances to obtain freedom than male ones. Male public slaves who performed duties that required technical expertise and a certain degree of specialization (e. g., tabularii, saltuarii, plumbarii) seem to have been manumitted more frequently than those who were entrusted with delicate tasks, such as managing public money (e. g., arcarii, actores, dispensatores and vilici). On one hand, the positive relationships that some public slaves built with local magistrates and decurions through their daily interactions, together with the possibility to continue performing, as operae, their former duties after their manumission were probably essential to obtaining freedom. On the other hand, the possibility of maintaining their authority over public slaves may have incentivized officials to withhold their freedom. Two indispensable elements of the manumission process were also displaying loyalty to the res publica and, more importantly, having the financial means to pay for manumission. Meeting all the requirements for manumission would not always have been easy for a public slave, which could explain the similarly low rate of manumission in some towns. To conclude, internal hierarchy and manumission seem to have been independent from one another. In Rome, manumission of public slaves was so rare that it is almost 61 62 63

On the role of collegia and collegiati in Italy and Gaul, see Tran 2006. See Chapter 5, Paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.2.3. See Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.3 and Paragraph 6.5 above.

254

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

impossible to identify which types of public slaves were granted freedom at higher rates than others. In other cities, one could argue that being at the top of the social ladder of the public slave society did not necessarily correspond with a higher rate of manumission or vice versa. Public slaves involved in the financial administration probably received the highest pay and were therefore able to set some money aside: benefactions or donations made by arcarii and vilici are not rare occurrences. Nevertheless, arcarii and vilici are not commonly attested among public freedmen; the nature of their duties may have affected their opportunities to be manumitted.64 Other members of their families likely benefitted from the donations they made in the interests of their communities. The case of Apronianus r(ei) p(ublicae) Aequicul(anorum) ser(vus) ark(arius) (no. 337), who restored a shrine, erected statues and built a niche devoted to the wellbeing of the decurions and townsfolk of his town, Aequiculum, is especially significant: one of his benefactions was made with his children, Aequicula Bassilla (no. 335) and Aequiculus Apronianus (no.  336), who were a public freedwoman and a public freedman respectively. The entire set of benefactions was probably linked to the children’s manumission. Another case might involve the public slaves who manufactured water lead pipes (plumbarii). The high rate of manumission among plumbarii should not be interpreted as a sign of their superior position relative to other public slaves; it was probably a consequence of the dangerousness of their activities, which were also highly necessary. They may have been granted manumission more easily than other public slaves because of their operae (i. e., the same dangerous duties). Female public slaves, who were manumitted more frequently relative to other public slaves, might also be no exception. The more frequent manumission of female public slaves was a natural consequence of the importance of their role: giving birth to a certain number of children meant providing a town with new public slaves. Such an indispensable ‘service’ could not go unrewarded. 6.7 Life After Freedom: Freed Public Slaves and their Social Position Assessing how well freed public slaves were able to integrate into local societies is not easy. The lack of evidence makes it difficult to contextualize the social role of public freedmen.65 As already noted,66 we know of only 14 instances of public freedmen who held the prestigious position of *Augustalis. The most remarkable (and unique) example is that of the Augustalis L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens (no. 373). His son L(ucius) Saepi64 65 66

See Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.3. Cf. also Weiss 2004, 179, who noted that public freedmen completely elude any broad social classification: “[d]ie städtischen Freigelassenen entziehen sich einer sozialen Einordnung weitgehend”. See Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.3.4.

Life After Freedom: Freed Public Slaves and their Social Position

255

nius Orestis was a quattuorvir aedilicia potestate at Saepinum, whereas his other child was still a public slave. Information about the occupation of public freedmen who became Augustales is only available in three of the 14 cases: 1) Volsinius Victorinus, a former public slave of the city of Volsinii (no. 429), who was an archivist (tabularius) both at Volsinii and in the nearby city of Ferentium; 2) L(ucius) Publicius Aper (no. 620), a former slave of Iulia Emona (Pannonia superior?), who was also a tabularius; and 3) M(arcus) Venerius coloniae lib(ertus) Secundio (no. 285), a freedman of Pompeii, who was an aedituus Veneris. These cases seem to confirm that, among public slaves, those employed as archivists may have had the most realistic chances of becoming *Augustales once they were manumitted. This would have been a significant social promotion for freedmen in the Roman world.67 It is therefore no coincidence that a public freedman tabularius is recorded at the top of the list of members of the familia publica at Ostia. In any case, only few fortunate public freedmen were able to be appointed as Augustales.68 Similarly, only a handful of public freedmen are attested as members of professional or religious associations: − M(arcus) Arrecinus Gellianus (no. 170): curator of the collegium of the lotores at Aricia; − A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus (no. 521): magister perpetuus of the familia publica at Corduba (Baetica); − Sentin(as) Ianuarius (no. 409): pater leonum of the cultores d(ei) s(olis) i(nvicti) Mithrae of Sentinum; − Sentin(as) Velentin(us) (no. 410): member of the cultores d(ei) s(olis) i(nvicti) Mithrae of Sentinum; − Volsinius [V]ictorinus (no. 429): quinquennalis of the collegium fabrum at Volsinii.

Once again, the possibility of gaining visibility and social recognition through the membership to collegia seems to have been reserved to a small number of public freedmen. It is worth considering one final argument regarding the social mobility of public freedmen. As demonstrated by Christer Bruun, notwithstanding the presence of the familia publica in Ostia and the many epigraphical attestations of Ostienses, which seem to demonstrate a good rate of manumission of public slaves, no descendants of public freedmen have been traced among the local magistrates or members of the elite. By contrast, many Ostienses are attested by stamps on lead pipes. This suggests that the number of public freedmen who continued to be employed as plumbarii in Ostia was substantial, and that their descendants were also denied any higher social distinction.69 Similar cases of limited social mobility are attested elsewhere in Italy. For example, at Aquileia, Aquileienses are well attested among the plumbarii but not among the mem67 68 69

See Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.3.4. On the Augustales, see Laird 2015; Vandevoorde 2017. Cf. also Easton 2019. Bruun 2008, 552.

256

“The Lowly Hands of Public Slaves”?

bers of the local elite.70 It is possible that there were more opportunities for upward social mobility in smaller towns like Saepinum than in larger cities like Ostia and Aquileia.71 The fact that only few local magistrates are attested among the Poblicii/Publicii or individuals bearing a nomen derived from a city’s toponym,72 suggests that, despite being Roman or Latin citizens, freed public slaves and their descendants did not have a realistic prospects of upward social mobility in the cities of Italy and the Western provinces. 6.8 Opinions about Public Slaves: Voices from the Sources When trying to assess – or reassess – the social position of public slaves (and freedmen) in Rome and in the other cities during ancient times, it is worth examining evidence that might provide information about the public’s attitude towards public slaves. A first noteworthy point is that ancient authors tend to focus much less on public slaves than on slaves who belonged to emperors.73 Imperial slaves and freedmen were the real elite among the slave and freed population, and ancient sources clearly acknowledge this fact. In this respect, a case analogous to that of Claudius Etruscus’ father, an Imperial freedman worthy of praise for his extraordinary rise and fall in the Silvae of Statius,74 is not attested for any public slave or freedman. However, a few authors refer to public slaves in ways that may provide clues about how the latter were perceived in ancient times. A relevant example is the episode recorded by Livy and Valerius Maximus about the transfer of the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima from the gentes Potitia and Pinaria to the State via some public slaves (no. 4), allegedly in 312 BCE.75 Livy uses direct speech to report that Appius Claudius Caecus’ proposal prompted the indignation of the tribune Publius Sempronius: he has Sempronius use the contrasting expressions ab nobilissimis antistitibus … ad servorum ministerium. This highlights the striking difference between the noble priests of the two ancient families and the simple service of (public) slaves. Similarly, Valerius Maximus says that Appius Claudius Caecus transferred the cult of Hercules to the humile servorum publicorum ministerium, or “the lowly hands of public slaves”. The cultural and political context of this episode is clear: since the ‘nationalization’ of the cult of Hercules was detrimental to the interests of several individuals, it was necessary to highlight

70 71 72 73 74 75

Luciani 2010, 276–279; Luciani 2017, 47–56. On the size of Italian cities during the early imperial period, see de Ligt 2012, 289–336. Cf. Gordon 1931, 72; Weiss 2004, 178–179 with n. 54. See also Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.5.2. On imperial slaves and freedmen in literary sources, see Weaver 1972, 281–295. Stat. Silv. 3.3. Cf. Weaver 1965, 145–154; Newlands 2004, 220–223. Livy 1.7.14; 9.29.9–11; 9.34.17–19; Val. Max. 1.1.17. See also Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.1.

Opinions about Public Slaves: Voices from the Sources

257

the difference between noble families and public slaves. The tribune Sempronius was also arguably trying to compel Appius Claudius Caecus to step down from the censorship. In any case, however, such disparaging remarks about public slaves may have reflected wider attitudes towards them. Other authors depict public slaves as the ‘armed wing’ of authorities. Relevant instances can be found in three of the sources discussed in Chapter 2. The first instance is the (possible) public slave who was entrusted with the task of killing Marius in 88 BCE at Minturnae (no. 650). The second instance is the reference to the public slaves who were employed by aediles to disperse the people during the late Republic (no. 10). The final instance is Cicero’s reference to the public slaves who were ready to obey any order from Antony, even the one that involved flogging Lucius Varius Cotyla in 44 BCE (no. 11). In all these cases, whether deliberately or not, public slaves were parties to essentially wrongful acts. One more document seems worthy of discussion for the purpose of this investigation into ancient attitudes towards public slaves. A clause of the lex Aelia Sentia of 4 CE reduced private slaves who had been punished or condemned for ignominious crimes – and subsequently manumitted – to the lower rank of foreigners who had capitulated (peregrini dediticii). These slaves would never be granted Roman citizenship, they were forbidden from being in or within 100 miles of Rome, and they could never make a will or inherit property. This condition was defined as the lowest sort of freedom (pessima […] libertas).76 In the event that those who had been punished under these provisions contravened these rules, they would be enslaved all over again. They would also have no chance of being manumitted in the future, and would still have been prohibited from being in or within 100 miles of Rome. Finally, any slaves who were unlawfully set free would have been returned to a condition of servitude. What is more, they would have become servi populi Romani.77 The purpose of this clause was to punish masters who did not observe the laws of their slaves rather than to degrade the slaves themselves. In any case, it is remarkable that this legal text presented the condition of public slavery as the lowest rung of a ladder of degradation for people who had already been enslaved (twice) and experienced the ‘lowest sort of freedom’.

76 77

Gai. Inst. 1.13–15, 25–26. Gai. Inst. 1.27. Cf. also Buckland 1908, 544–546.

Conclusions Roman Public Slaves: Distinctive, not Necessarily Advantaged The investigation of the evidence introduced in this study leads to a number of conclusions. Public slaves can be defined as unfree individuals who were owned by a formally defined body of people who shared governing institutions or common rules. This body might have been the whole Roman people (the populus Romanus), the townsfolk of Italian or provincial cities (either colonies or municipia), or the citizens of independent administrative entities such as the provinces (provinciae). Furthermore, since the members of associations (societates) and guilds (collegia) were legally equivalent to communities of citizens (civitates), their slaves could also be considered ‘public’. In addition to being public property, unfree individuals had to perform duties in the interests of all the members of the communities to which they belonged, who collectively benefitted from their labour. Finally, public slaves could be manumitted through an official procedure that rendered them public freedmen or freedwomen. However, only a small number of public slaves were actually set free; the vast majority of them died in slavery, especially (though by no means exclusively) in Rome. The evidence for slaves of the provinces and of associations or guilds is too limited in this regard to draw any conclusions, but the fact that more freedmen than slaves are attested for these groups may indicate a higher rate of manumission. In general, the evidence suggests that after being manumitted, freed public slaves maintained strong ties with their patrons, i. e., the communities to which they belonged, and especially the authorities in those communities (decurions, magistrates, governors, or chiefs of associations and guilds). Furthermore, the available sources demonstrate that freed public slaves were often entrusted with the same duties that they had performed while they were (public) slaves. Similar to the rest of the slave population, servi publici were supplied through: a) the enslavement of prisoners of war (especially during the Republican age, but also under the Principate); b) purchase on the market at public expense; c) donations or inheritances from private individuals (hence the agnomina in the nomenclature of various public slaves); and d) natural reproduction. The children of a female public slave became public slaves at birth (vernae publici). This phenomenon was probably frequent

Roman Public Slaves: Distinctive, not Necessarily Advantaged

259

in Italian and provincial cities, where households with servae publicae and young public slaves are well attested. The presence of vernae publici among slaves of provinces, associations and guilds is also attested. By contrast, in Rome, there is no evidence for female public slaves so far. In mid-first and early second century CE Rome, some children may have been public slaves at birth only according to the provisions of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum, which was issued under Claudius in 52 CE and remained in force until Hadrian’s reign. This decree established that any children born from a union between a free woman and a slave were also slaves. As a result, the children of public slaves and freeborn (or freed) women may well have been public slaves since birth. At any rate, for its supply of public slaves, Rome must have relied upon the means listed above rather than on natural reproduction. From an historical point of view, public slavery as an institution was deeply rooted in the Republican system. Although the concept of slaves who were not the property of private individuals but of a collective body was not unique to Rome (having existed in the Greek world for centuries), the special link in the Roman world between the populus and the public slaves – especially the definition servi publici populi Romani – made public slaves a clear product of the Republican culture. Public slaves were attached as servants to public magistrates and priests, employed in public facilities such as buildings, temples, and aqueducts, and served public utilities, such as the firefighting service. Therefore, servi publici in Rome were – for all intents and purposes – part of Republican politics, religion and society in a broad sense. This is even more evident if one considers that when Augustus decided to revive certain Republican magistracies and priesthoods that had fallen into neglect or to create new offices and services, he also recreated or instituted ex novo a cohort of public slaves to assist officials and priests or look after specific facilities. For instance, when Augustus appointed new public officials – either by assimilating them to proper magistrates (as with the praefecti frumenti dandi) or appointing them directly (as with the curatores aquarum and the praefecti aerarii militaris, and possibly the so-called curatores operum publicorum) – some public slaves were always included as part of their retinue of assistants, according to a well-established Republican practice. This practice also applied to the public priesthoods of Republican origins that had long since fallen into disuse: not only did Augustus revive these priests and their religious functions, but he also restored the cohort of public slaves attached to them as servants. The most illustrative example in this regard is the Arval Brethren: a substantial number of public slaves assisted the members of this priestly college with both ritual performances and clerical activities. This Augustan policy of attaching public slaves to public officials, though seemingly insignificant, likely contributed to the spread of the idea that the Republican order had been maintained: as the property of the populus Romanus, public slaves represented the existence of the Roman people. When assigned to public officials, they may have given the impression that the people were still closely involved in the government and public life, as was – or should have been – the case under the Republic. After

260

Conclusions

all, Augustus could not have brought his own slaves into service for administrative and religious purposes unless he appeared to be appropriating Republican institutions that belonged to the Roman people. Public slavery was therefore revitalized under Augustus and was not reduced or replaced until at least the third century CE. Rather, the Augustan practice served as a model. For instance, when Tiberius created a priestly college that was entrusted with the task of worshipping of the Deified Augustus, i. e., the sodales Augustales, a number of public slaves were chosen to assist them. Likewise, all the priests of the Imperial cult who were instituted later – for instance, the sodales Augustales Claudiales, Flaviales, Hadrianales, Antoniniani – had public slaves as attendants. And when Claudius established the new office of the praefects to collect debts owed to the State, he also decided to assign public slaves to be their servants. Like traditional magistracies and priesthoods, public slavery endured for centuries as a relic of a Republican system that no longer existed in practice. The Republican governance model applied to colonies and municipia in Italy since at least the fourth century BCE, and remained largely unvaried throughout the Empire until the sixth century CE. Notwithstanding the lack of relevant evidence, it is possible that public slavery was also an integral part of the administration of self-governing communities, both in Italy and in the provinces, since the earliest times. However, public slaves in Italian and provincial cities are only attested from the early first century BCE. Other administrative districts, such as provinces, and self-regulated corporate bodies, such as associations and guilds, followed the same model, and therefore also owned, used, and manumitted slaves since their origins. Apart from its historical and political significance, the deployment of public slaves and freedmen for a variety of administrative and religious duties in communities, both in Rome and elsewhere, also reflected the expertise, skills, and reliability of those public slaves. To perform clerical duties in administrative or religious sectors – such as producing and filing official documents and reports (a commentariis, tabularii), being in charge of a library (a bibliotheca), keeping the accounts of the public treasury (arcarii, dispensatores, actores, vilici aerarii or summarum or ‘nude dicti’), managing public estates (saltuarii), or surveying land (mensores) – public slaves needed literacy and numeracy skills as well as a high degree of technical know-how. Labour skills were crucially important for public slaves who performed other kinds of duties, such as maintaining and manufacturing water conduits (aquarii and plumbarii). Special abilities were also required for public slaves entrusted with very specific tasks – for instance, those of a sculptor of marble statues (marmorarius signuarius) or an ornamental gardening specialist (topiarius). On the contrary, public slaves employed as bodyguards of magistrates or in policing and security services must have exhibited other virtues, such as obedience to authority and trustworthiness, besides (of course) strength and other physical qualities. The same applied to public slaves employed as guardians of temples (aeditui) or public buildings. Finally, although public slaves acting within the religious

Roman Public Slaves: Distinctive, not Necessarily Advantaged

261

sector as attendants of priests merely helped execute the rituals and were not independent religious actors, they still needed a basic knowledge of the formulas according to which public religious ceremonies were conducted.1 All these considerations imply that public slaves, in addition to being chosen for their know-how, expertise or physical abilities, could also be trained in specific skills at the behest of public authorities. This makes sense given that many public slaves in Roman cities were born into public slavery, and could therefore be trained in particular activities, possibly by other public slaves, starting at a very young age. Paulin Ismard’s view of skilled public slaves (δημόσιοι) – whom he defined as “experts” and who dealt with the public administration in classical Athens – can be applied to Roman servi publici too.2 Authorities in Rome and in the other cities similarly assigned tasks that were crucial to the life of the community to public slaves who must have been skilful in the relevant areas. However, the reasons for this in Rome and in the Roman world may have been different from those in Athens. According to Ismard, the Athenians were suspicious of expert elites, which is why they employed highly skilled public slaves for the day-to-day responsibilities of running the State: as slaves, δημόσιοι were prevented from taking part in democratic government and were therefore unable to subvert it. Whether or not this interpretation is correct, it cannot have been true for Rome and the other cities of the Empire. Apart from the above-mentioned ideological explanation, which is linked to the essentially Republican character of public slavery as an institution, other more practical reasons may have influenced Rome’s decision to use public slaves for administrative and religious purposes. As unfree individuals owned by the Roman people or by the townsfolk of self-governing communities, servi publici acted at the behest of the Senate or local councillors and performed their duties in a condition of bound servitude. This subordinate position made it possible for authorities to exercise full control over them, and this control sometimes included punishment.3 This was especially true for public slaves employed in the financial administration. Public slaves employed as arcarii, dispensatores, actores or vilici who were in charge of the public treasury had considerable liquid assets as a result of the relatively high pay they received; however, they were also among the least frequently manumitted public slaves. In other sectors, public slaves were more likely to be rewarded with manumission, with the proviso that they would continue to carry out, as operae, the same duties they had previously performed for their communities. This was especially true of public slaves who had been entrusted with tasks that either were dangerous or required highly specialized skills: it is no coincidence that one can trace numerous attestations of public freedmen employed as tabularii, saltuarii or plumbarii. In other cases, local magistrates may have advocated for the manumission of certain public 1 2 3

On the knowledge of public slaves employed in religious activities see Padilla Peralta 2017, 334. See Ismard 2015 and Ismard 2017 (English translation). Cf. also Padilla Peralta 2017, 335.

262

Conclusions

slaves in order to secure new clients who would be bound into subservient relationships with them. Therefore, it was not that Roman authorities were suspicious of expert elites and preferred public slaves over private citizens for the management of public administration so that the latter were excluded from political life: private citizens were fully involved in the government of the res publica. Entrusting public slaves with certain tasks was simply the most cost-effective choice. In addition to being a cheap option, public slaves could also be closely controlled and conveniently punished, or rewarded with manumission so that they would pay a sum to the public treasury or make a benefaction. Moreover, public slaves remained bound to public authorities as clients and frequently continued to perform duties for their communities. Many public slaves, especially in Italian and provincial cities, had been public slaves since birth, and deference toward civic authorities would have been instilled in them from a very young age. This was a powerful means of disseminating public rules and standards, whether these were related to the Republican ideology in Rome or the civic values of Roman public life in other cities. Numerous inscriptions, after all, attest to public slaves and freedmen who, in making benefactions for their communities to show loyalty toward and respect for the townsfolk, magistrates, and local councillors, or to pay for manumission, conformed with the dominant values of the elite. However, these sources probably do not present a full picture: from certain isolated sources, such as a passage from the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan and an inscription from Tuder, one can also infer that the authorities sometimes treated public slaves sternly or refused them manumission. This may have evoked serious and potentially extreme reactions. Despite what the surviving evidence seems to suggest, public slavery was not immune from coercion, violence, and resentment. Another insight that can be drawn from the sources analysed in this book is that a sort of hierarchy existed within the group of public slaves. In Rome, the members of the familia publica aquaria in charge of maintaining the water conduits received a lower salary than the three public slaves attached as servants to the water commissioners (curatores aquarum) who were in charge of the familia publica aquaria itself, as explained by Frontinus. A passage from the proceedings of the Arval Brethren implies that assisting priests was also regarded as a less distinguished role than attending upon quaestors. Moreover, public slaves who were attached as servants to magistrates or curatores were the only ones who had the opportunity to wear the limus/-m. All other publici were presumably dressed in a much less distinctive way. The limus/-m therefore should not be interpreted as a status symbol for all public slaves; it was an attribute of only the highest-ranked servi publici, i. e., those who attended upon magistrates. Other public slaves seem to have experienced poorer conditions in life and reputation. One can envisage a pyramid-like structure with public slaves employed as technical workers at the bottom, public slaves attached as servants to priests in the middle, and public slaves who assisted magistrates at the highest levels. A type of hierarchy also existed among the group of public slaves in Italian and provincial towns, where three main

Roman Public Slaves: Distinctive, not Necessarily Advantaged

263

factors made the living conditions of certain public slaves better than those of others: 1) performing essential duties for the administration of the town; 2) possessing good financial means; and 3) working closely with local magistrates and decurions. These factors made a public slave more likely to be granted manumission and be appointed to prestigious post like that of an *Augustalis. Those who, like the tabularii, met all the above-mentioned ‘requirements’ could more easily rise above the rest of the public slave population and had the highest chances of manumission. The children of these individuals could also undertake political careers in town (although this circumstance was uncommon). Public slaves who met few or none of these ‘requirements’ met a different fate. For instance, despite the substantial peculium and close contact with local magistrates from which public slaves involved in the financial administration (arcarii, dispensatores, actores, vilici aerarii or summarum or ‘nude dicti’) could benefit, these individuals had fewer chances of obtaining freedom due to their delicate duties. By contrast, others, like the servi publici plumbarii, who had good chances of being manumitted but did not benefit from high social prestige because of their menial tasks, were probably barred from any higher status, along with their children. The same applied to servae publicae, who enjoyed good rates of manumission as they could give birth to children who were public slaves since birth, but did not enjoy particularly high statuses. In this regard, many scholars have argued that public slaves generally enjoyed a better social position than other slaves, as they were allegedly entitled to certain ‘privileges’ that were not granted to other non-free individuals. However, any differences between servi publici and the rest of the slave population existed by legal right. The entitlement of public slaves to basic needs such as lodging, board, and clothing, as well as their rights to receive remuneration and dispose of half their peculium in their wills, must have been formalized by official laws. Since public slaves were owned by communities rather than private individuals, legal rules were helpful, as they could be applied consistently. After all, slaves of any status were provided with board, lodging and clothing, and it was not unusual for private masters to offer a wage or peculium to their slaves. The slaves’ productivity heavily depended on such factors. As for public slaves, the available evidence suggests that they lived in small rooms or dormitories in public buildings. Nothing is known about how they were provided with their clothes, except for the fact that some of them were entitled to wear the limus/-m. In most cases, the remuneration to which public slaves were entitled (cibaria) must only have covered their food-related expenses and was presumably a way for communities to avoid providing food to their slaves directly through grain distributions or an organization such as a public refectory. Since they had some money at their disposal, public slaves could provide for themselves. This may have let them enjoy relative independence; however, this independence would not necessarily have made their lives safer or more stable than those of other slaves.

264

Conclusions

The considerable number of funerary inscriptions from Rome and other cities of the Empire that mention public slaves, freedmen and freedwomen demonstrates that these individuals and their families could usually set aside enough money (peculium) to afford epigraphic commemorations.4 However, the simple nature of these funerary monuments also suggests that these individuals had no exceptional liquid assets on average. Owning substitute slaves (vicarii), which has been interpreted as a sign of affluence,5 was not common among public slaves: the absence of any attestations of vicarii of servi publici in Rome and the presence of only nine vicarii of public slaves in other cities seem to confirm that public slaves could rarely afford the cost of substitute slaves. Whatever the amount of the peculium of public slaves, it is to be acknowledged that the right to dispose of half of it testamentarily and to retain it after manumission was a special privilege that was exclusively granted to them and not to other slaves. However, the evidence for heirs of public slaves is limited, both in Rome and other cities. The possibility of partnering free or freed women has also been acknowledged as a status symbol for servi publici. Indeed, public slaves are often recorded in association with libertae or incertae, especially in Rome, or with public freedwomen in other cities. However, private slaves could also cohabit with non-slave women, provided they had their masters’ permission. The relative independence of public slaves may have made these kinds of unions more frequent among them, and public authorities did not oppose the practice. Yet one should not forget that unions between public slaves and freeborn (or freed) women are almost exclusively attested by funerary inscriptions, which represent final moments of these individuals’ lives. Therefore, these unions may have begun when the women were slaves, and the women may have been manumitted at a later time. In any case, unions between public slaves and non-slave women were not legal marriages, as their children were illegitimate. Finally, the available evidence shows that very few public slaves enjoyed the privilege of associating with Imperial household partners, who ranked highly among the slave population. If one then considers the image of public slaves conveyed by literary and legal sources, as well as all the argument above, it seems evident that comparing public slaves or freedmen and freedwomen to those of Imperial households is inappropriate or even misleading. When ancient authors mention public slaves or freed ones, which is not a frequent occurrence, they mostly reference their legal status or the menial tasks and violent deeds that they were sometimes forced to perform. Public slaves seem to have represented an interesting case from a legal standpoint because of their unique status, but they also seem to have been held in generally low regard in ancient times. Public slaves’ role was certainly not perceived as comparable to the role played by Imperial 4 5

It is well known that, in Rome, epigraphic commemoration was most common among freed population, but some slaves – such as imperial ones and house-bred slaves (vernae) – are also considerably present: McInerney 2019, 156–162. Cf. Weiss 2004, 170–171.

Roman Public Slaves: Distinctive, not Necessarily Advantaged

265

slaves and freedmen in Imperial Rome and throughout the Empire. Servi Caesaris had opportunities for legitimate career advancement, which could have led to significant improvements in their status, increased affluence, and eventually to manumission. Once manumitted, servi Caesaris may have been able to influence certain aspects of politics, as acknowledged by literary and epigraphic sources.6 In this respect, one can trace the radical change in the mechanism of power introduced by Augustus’ creation of the Principate. Under the Republic, certain public slaves in Rome may have worked to create preferential relationships with magistrates, which would have enhanced their chances obtaining freedom (but realistically nothing more than that). On the contrary, in the Imperial age servi publici populi Romani were reduced to mere emblems of the prior governmental apparatus, while servi Caesaris assumed the most prominent role in assisting the central government. Returning to the manumission rate of public slaves, the large majority of servi publici in Rome may have had no real prospects of manumission: the available evidence suggests that, at least during the Imperial age, very few public slaves were granted freedom. Most of the public slaves died in servile condition. Despite their close connections with the highest public magistrates and priests, servi publici populi Romani in Rome could neither hope nor pay for manumission. They could at best aspire to be promoted to a ‘higher’ office, which may have not even secured any significant social improvement. The right granted to servi publici populi Romani to dispose of half their peculium in their wills may have been a form of compensation for the difficulty they experienced in gaining freedom. As for public slaves in Italian and provincial cities, the available sources seem to confirm that not only were their chances of being manumitted higher than those of their counterparts in Rome, but their social condition was also better. However, both these factors were also dependent on a number of other variables. As already seen, the possibility of being granted freedom varied according to the duties performed by a slave, his or her economic condition, and the possibility of him or her continuing to work for the community. Social mobility seems to have been much higher in smaller or medium-sized towns, especially for public slaves who forged contacts with key magistrates and decurions. Nevertheless, attestations of possible descendants of public freedmen who held public office – and thus became part of the local elite – are extremely rare, which suggests that this phenomenon was also rare. Weiss admitted that scholars’ tendency to place public slaves on a high level in the overall social context is justified. Based on the pyramid-like model proposed by Geza Alföldy and the schematic diagram suggested by François Jacques and John Scheid to represent the structure of the Roman society under the Principate, Weiss placed public slaves immediately after the household of the servi Caesaris.7 This attempt was 6 7

See Weaver 1972, 97–104. Weiss 2004, 177–178: “[…] ist m. E. eine Tendenz, die öffentlichen Sklaven auch im gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kontext auf einem gehobenen Niveau anzusiedeln, berechtigt”. See also Weiss forth-

266

Conclusions

somewhat problematic, as it overestimated the wealth, social mobility and influence of public slaves in the Roman world. The evidence discussed throughout this book and the diverse set of roles and tasks fulfilled by servi publici clarify an important point: one should not claim that public slaves as a whole had a higher rank than the rest of the Roman slave population, or regard them as a group who had close links with the elite. One should not forget that public slaves were unfree individuals and forced labourers. This does not mean that one must necessarily subscribe to the general paradigm of slavery as “social death”;8 the latter is a theory that, if taken too rigidly, would fail to explain a range of fundamental distinctions that existed in the world of slavery. Quite the opposite: since slaves probably played an active role in the history of all ancient societies,9 an appropriate contextualization and relativization – to tackle the problems on a case-by-case basis – is desperately needed, especially when dealing with the social role of slaves. And public slaves are no exception. Before attempting to draw conclusions about the overall position of public slaves in Roman societies, one should focus on the duties each of them performed and consider the era and the social context in which each of them lived.10 Any generalizations prove to be misleading. Roman public slaves were certainly a distinctive group; however, what made them distinctive was their legal position rather than their social status.

8 9 10

coming. On the two models of Imperial society (which reasonably excluded public slaves), see Alföldy 1975, 131; Jacques – Scheid 1990, 308. See Patterson 1982. Cf. also Bodel – Scheidel 2017. For this new approach, see Vlassopoulos 2020. See also Luciani 2021a.

Appendices The following lists include individuals known as public slaves or freed public slaves in Rome (Appendix 1), in Italian towns (Appendix 2) and in the cities of the Western provinces (Appendix 3). Persons for whom identification as public slaves, public freedmen or public freedwomen is uncertain but can be deduced by contextual evidence are categorised as incerti in Appendix 4. Appendix 5 includes slaves, freedmen and freedwomen who belonged to the provinces as administrative entities, whilst Appendix 6 lists slaves and freed slaves of associations and guilds. The names are given in alphabetical order (by single name or nomen), followed by the job title found in the sources (when available). Households (familiae) and anonymous individuals are listed after the single individuals. In Appendix 1, records of individuals are listed according to the type of evidence that attests to them. Generic references to public slaves in literary texts are provided at first place (in chronological order), followed by the names of single individuals attested by the inscriptional evidence.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome a) Literary Evidence 1.

Anonymous public slaves assisting the two men of distinction entrusted with the task of guarding the Sibylline Books

Source: Date:

Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 4.62.4–5. late first c. BCE (with reference to events of the late sixth c. BCE?).

Ταρκύνιος δὲ τῶν ἀστῶν ἄνδρας ἐπιφανεῖς δύο προχειρισάμενος καὶ δημοσίους αὐτοῖς θεράποντας δύο παραζεύξας ἐκείνοις ἀπέδωκε τὴν τῶν βιβλίων φυλακήν, ὧν τὸν ἕτερον, Μάρκον Ἀτίλιον, ἀδικεῖν τι δόξαντα περὶ τὴν πίστιν καταμηνυθέντα ὑφ᾿ ἑνὸς τῶν δημοσίων, ὡς πατροκτόνον εἰς ἀσκὸν ἐνράψας βόειον ἔρριψεν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκβολὴν τῶν βασιλέων ἡ πόλις ἀναλαβοῦσα τὴν τῶν χρησμῶν προστασίαν ἄνδρας τε τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους ἀποδείκνυσιν αὐτῶν φύλακας, οἳ διὰ βίου ταύτην ἔχουσι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν στρατειῶν ἀφειμένοι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ πόλιν πραγματειῶν, καὶ δημοσίους αὐτοῖς παρακαθίστησιν, ὧν χωρὶς οὐκ ἐπιτρέπει τὰς ἐπισκέψεις τῶν χρησμῶν τοῖς ἀνδράσι ποιεῖσθαι.

2.

Anonymous public slaves attached as servants to the first two tribunes of the plebs at the institution of the office

Source: Date:

Lydus, Mag. 1.44. mid sixth c. CE (with reference to events of 494 BCE?).

Οὕτως οὖν τῶν τιμητῶν ἐκταραττόντων τοὺς ὑπηκόους καὶ πικρότερον ἐπεξιόντων τοῖς πολίταις, καὶ διαφερόντως άδυσωπήτως διακειμένων τῶν δανειστῶν περὶ τοὺς χρήστας, ἐχειροτόνησεν ὁ δήμος δύο δημάρχους ἑαυτῷ, Γάϊον Λικίνιον καὶ Λούκιον Ἀλβῖνον, διαιτήσοντας τῷ πλήθει καὶ τὴν ἀγοράν ἐποψομένους. Αὐτοί δὲ οἱ δήμαρχοι μαχαίρας διεζώννυντο, δημοσίους δὲ οἰκέτας πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν εἶχον, οὓς ἐκάλουν βερνάκλους· σημαίνει δε τοὔνομα τοὺς οἰκογενεῖς οἰκέτας.

3.

Anonymous public slave in attendance to Marcus Furius Camillus in his capacity as consul during his triumph

Source: Date:

Cass. Dio 6; cf. Halkin 1897, 73 n. 1. early third c. CE (with reference to events of 396 BCE).

Oἰκέτης μέντοι δημόσιος ἐπ’αὐτοῦ παρωχεῖτο τοῦ ἅρματος, τὸν στέφανον τὸν τῶν λίθων τῶν χρυσοδέτων ὑπερανέχων αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλεγε πρὸς αὐτόν “ὀπίσω βλέπε” (Zonar. 7.21). Οἰκέτης δὲ δημόσιος τοῦ ἅρματος ἑστὼς ὄπισθεν ἀνέχει τὸν στέφανον, λέγων ἐκείνῳ πρὸς οὖς· “βλέπε καὶ τὸ κατόπιν.” κώδωνες δὲ καὶ μάστιξ τοῦ ζυγοῦ τοῦ ἅρματος ἀπῃώρηνται (Tzetz. epist. 107, p. 86). Καὶ πῶς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἅρματος δημόσιος οἰκέτης ὄπισθεν τούτου ἵσταται τὸν στέφανον ἀνέχων καὶ λέγων τούτῳ πρὸς τὸ οὖς· “καὶ τὸ κατόπιν βλέπε.” (Tzetz. Chil. 13, 51–53).

270 4.

Appendices

Anonymous public slaves involved in the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima

Source 1: Livy 9.29.9–11; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: late first c. BCE/early first c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE).

Eodem Appio auctore Potitia gens, cuius ad aram maximam Herculis familiare sacerdotium fuerat, servos publicos ministerii delegandi causa sollemnia eius sacri docuerat. Traditur inde, dictu mirabile et quod dimovendis statu suo sacris religionem facere posset, cum duodecim familiae ea tempestate Potitiorum essent, puberes ad triginta, omnes intra annum cum stirpe exstinctos; nec nomen tantum Potitiorum interisse sed censorem etiam memori deum ira post aliquot, annos luminibus captum. Source 2: Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.40.4–5; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: late first c. BCE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). εἶναι δὲ τοὺς μαθόντας τότε τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἱερουργίαν Ποτιτίους τε καὶ Πιναρίους, ἀφ’ ὧν τὰ γένη διαμεῖναι μέχρι πολλοῦ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμενα τῶν θυσιῶν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος κατεστήσατο, Ποτιτίων μὲν ἡγουμένων τῆς ἱερουργίας καὶ τῶν ἐμπύρων ἀπαρχομένων, Πιναρίων δὲ σπλάγχνων τε μετουσίας εἰργομένων καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἐχρῆν ὑπ’ ἀμφοῖν γίνεσθαι τὴν δευτέραν τιμὴν ἐχόντων. ταύτην δὲ αὐτοῖς προστεθῆναι τὴν ἀτιμίαν ὀψίμου τῆς παρουσίας ἕνεκα, ἐπειδὴ ἕωθεν αὐτοῖς κελευσθὲν ἥκειν ἐσπλαγχνευμένων ἤδη τῶν ἱερῶν ἀφίκοντο. νῦν μέντοι οὐκέτι τοῖς γένεσι τούτοις ἡ περὶ τὰς ἱερουργίας ἐπιμέλεια ἀνάκειται, ἀλλὰ παῖδες ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου ὠνητοὶ δρῶσιν αὐτάς. Source 3: Livy 9.34.17–19; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: late first c. BCE/early first c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). “[…] Paenitet enim, quod antiquissimum sollemne et solum ab ipso cui fit institutum deo ab nobilissimis antistitibus eius sacri ad servorum ministerium religiosus censor deduxisti, gens antiquior originibus urbis huius, hospitio deorum immortalium sancta, propter te ac tuam censuram intra annum ab stirpe exstincta est, nisi universam rem publicam eo nefario obstrinxeris quod ominari etiam reformidat animus […]”. Source 4: Val. Max. 1.1.17; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: early first c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). Hercules quoque detractae religionis suae et gravem et manifestam poenam exegisse traditur: nam cum Potitii sacrorum eius ritum, quem prodono genti eorum ab ipso adsignatum velut hereditarium optinuerant, auctore Appio censore ad humile servorum publicorum ministerium transtulissent, omnes, qui erant numero super XXX, puberes intra annum extincti sunt nomenque Potitium in XII familias divisum prope interiit, Appius vero luminibus captus est.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

271

Source 5: Festus, p. 270 (ed. Lindsay); cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: second c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE on the basis of Verrius Flaccus, who lived in the early first c. CE). Potitium et Pinarium Hercules, cum ad aram, quae hodieque maxima appellatur, decimam bovum, quos a Geryone abductos abigebat. Argos in patriam, profanas sedgenus sacrifici edocuit. Quae familia et posteri eius non defuerunt decumantibus usque ad Appium Claudium censorem, qui quinquaginta millia aeris gravis his deditus servos publicos edocerent ritum sacrificandi: quo facto Potiti, cum essent ex familia numero duodecim, omnes intererant intra diem XXX. Pinarius quod non adfuit sacrificio, pestea cautum est, ne quis Pinariorum ex eo sacrificio vesceretur. Source 6: Lactant. Div. inst. 2.7.15; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: early fourth c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). Appius Claudius censor cum ad servos publicos sacra Herculis transtulisset, luminibus orbatus est et Potitiorum gens, quae prodidit, intra unius anni tempus extincta est. Source 7: [Aur. Vict.] De vir. Ill. 34.1.2; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: early fourth c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). Appius Claudius Caecus in censura libertinos quoque in senatum legit. Epulandi cantandique ius tibicinibus in publico ademit. [Duae familiae ad Herculis sacra sunt destinatae, Potitiorum et Pinariorum]. Potitios Herculis sacerdotes pretio corrupit, ut sacra Herculea servos publicos edocerent: unde caecatus est, gens Potitiorum funditus periit. Source 8: [Aur. Vict.] Orig. 8.5. Date: mid fourth c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). Verum postea Appius Claudius accepta pecunia Potitios illexit, ut administrationem sacrorum Herculis servos publicos edocerent nes non etiam mulieres admitterent. Source 9: Serv. Aen. 8.179 (cf. also 269); cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: late fourth c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). TVM LECTI IVVENES non vacat ‘lecti’: in sacris enim Herculis nec servi intererant nec liberti, adeo ut Appius, qui sacra haec transtulit in libertos vel, ut quidam volunt, in servos publicos, et caverit oculis et intra annum omnem familiam perdiderit Pinariorum. Source 10: Macrob. Sat. 3.6.13; cf. Halkin 1897, 49–53. Date: early fifth c. CE (with reference to events of 312 BCE). Asper “κατὰ διαστολὴν,” inquit, “Potitiorum, qui ab Appio Claudio praemio corrupti sacra servis publicis prodiderunt.”

272 5.

Appendices

Anonymous public slaves forming a familia publica in charge of firefighting

Source: Date:

Dig. 1.15.1 (Paul. l. S. de off. praef. vig.); cf. Halkin 1897, 86. late second/early third c. CE (with reference to possible arrangements of Republican time).

Apud vetustiores incendiis arcendis triumviri praeerant, qui ab eo, quod excubias agebant nocturni dicti sunt: interveniebant nonnumquam et aediles et tribuni plebis. erant autem familia publica circa portam et muros disposita, unde si opus esset evocabatur: fuerant et privatae familiae, quae incendia vel mercede vel gratia extinguerent, deinde divus augustus maluit per se huic rei consuli.

6.

Anonymous public slave assigned as servant of the Elder Cato in his capacity as praetor in Sardinia

Source: Plut. Cat. Ma. 6.2; cf. Halkin 1897, 73. Context: Sardinia. Date: late first/early second c. CE (with reference to events of 198 BCE).

ἐπαρχίαν δὲ λαβὼν Σαρδόνα, τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ στρατηγῶν εἰωθότων χρῆσθαι καὶ σκηνώμασι δημοσίοις καὶ κλίναις καὶ ἱματίοις, πολλῇ δὲ θεραπείᾳ καὶ φίλων πλήθει καὶ περὶ δεῖπνα δαπάναις καὶ παρασκευαῖς βαρυνόντων, ἐκεῖνος ἄπιστον ἐποίησε τὴν διαφορὰν τῆς εὐτελείας. δαπάνης μὲν γὰρ εἰς οὐδὲν οὐδεμιᾶς προσεδεήθη δημοσίας, ἐπεφοίτα δὲ ταῖς πόλεσιν αὐτὸς μὲν ἄνευ ζεύγους πορευόμενος, εἷς δὲ ἠκολούθει δημόσιος ἐσθῆτα καὶ σπονδεῖον αὐτῷ πρὸς ἱερουργίαν κομίζων.

7.

Anonymous public slave assigned as servant of the Elder Cato in his capacity as consul in Spain

Source: Val. Max. 4.3.11. Context: Spain. Date: early first c. CE (with reference to events of 195–194 BCE).

Age, si quis hoc saeculo vir illuster pellibus haedinis pro stragulis utatur, tribusque servis comitatus Hispaniam regat, et quingentorum assium sumptu transmarinam provinciam petat, eodem cibo eodemque vino quo nautae uti contentus sit, nonne miserabilis existimetur? atqui ista patientissime superior Cato toleravit, quia illum grata frugalitatis consuetudo in hoc genere vitae cum summa dulcedine continebat.

8.

Anonymous public slaves employed in the public archive (tabularium)

Source: Date:

Livy 43.16.13; cf. Halkin 1897, 73. late first c. BCE/early first c. CE (with reference to events of 169 BCE).

Censores ex templo in atrium Libertatis escenderunt et ibi obsignatis tabellis publicis clausoque tabulario et dimissis seruis publicis negarunt se prius quidquam publici negotii gesturos, quam iudicium populi de se factum esset.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

9.

273

Cn(aeus) Publicius Menander

Source 1: Cic. Balb. 11.28. Date: 56 BCE (with reference to events of the mid second c. BCE). neque enim sine causa de Cn(aeo) Publicio Menandro, libertino homine, quem apud maiores legati nostri in Graeciam proficiscentes interpretem secum habere voluerunt, ad populum latum est ut is Publicius, si domum revenisset et inde Romam redisset, ne minus civis esset. Source 2: Dig. 49.15.5 (Pomp. 37 ad Q. Muc.). Date: second c. CE (with reference to events of the mid second c. BCE). Captivus autem si a nobis manumissus fuerit et pervenerit ad suos, ita demum postliminio reversus intellegitur, si malit eos sequi quam in nostra civitate manere […] et ideo in quodam interprete Menandro, qui posteaquam apud nos manumissus erat, missus est ad suos, non est visa necessaria lex, quae lata est de illo, ut maneret civis romanus: nam sive animus ei fuisset remanendi apud suos, desineret esse civis, sive animus fuisset revertendi, maneret civis, et ideo esset lex supervacua.

10.

Anonymous public slaves in attendance to Marcus Laevinus in his capacity as curule aedile

Source: Date:

Gell. NA 13.13.4; cf. Halkin 1897, 74–75. second c. CE (citing Varro who compared events of 229 or 185 BCE to the situation of his times, in mid first c. BCE).

Sed ego, qui tum adsiduus in libris M. Varronis fui, cum hoc quaeri dubitarique animadvertissem, protuli unum et vicesimum Rerum Humanarum, in quo ita scriptum fuit: “Qui potestatem neque vocationis populi viritim habent neque prensionis, eos magistratus a privato in ius quoque vocari est potestas. M. Laevinus, aedilis curulis, a privato ad praetorem in ius est eductus; nunc, stipati servis publicis, non modo prendi non possunt, sed etiam ultro submovent populum”.

11.

Anonymous public slaves in attendance to Antony in his capacity as consul

Source 1: Cic. Phil. 8.24; cf. Halkin 1897, 72. Date: 44 BCE (with reference to contemporary events).

At quae mandata! Qua adrogantia, quo stupore, quo spiritu! Cur autem ea legatis nostris dabat, cum ad nos Cotylam mitteret, ornamentum atque arcem amicorum suorum, hominem aedilicium, si vero tum fuit aedilis cum eum iussu Antoni in convivio servi publici loris ceciderunt? Source 2: Cic. Phil. 13.26; cf. Halkin 1897, 72. Date: 44 BCE (with reference to contemporary events). […] columenque amicorum Antoni, Cotyla Varius, quem Antonius deliciarum causa loris in convivio caedi iubebat a svis publicis […].

274 12.

Appendices

Anonymous public slaves attached as servants to Sentius Saturninus Vetulo, when he usurped the insignia of the Praetorship

Source: Date:

Val. Max. 7.3.9; cf. Halkin 1897, 75. early first c. CE (with reference to events of 43 BCE).

Aliquanto speciosius Sentii Saturnini Vetulonis in eodem genere casus ultimae sortis auxilium. qui cum a triumviris inter proscriptos nomen suum propositum audisset, continuo praeturae insignia invasit, praecedentibusque in modum lictorum et apparitorum et servorum publicorum subornatis vehicula comprehendit, hospitia occupavit, obvios summovit, ac tam audaci usurpatione imperii in maxima luce densissimas hostilibus oculis tenebras offudit. idem ut Puteolos venit, perinde ac publicum ministerium agens, summa cum licentia correptis navibus in Siciliam, certissimum tunc proscriptorum perfugium, penetravit.

13.

Anonymous slaves (600 individuals) attached as servants to the aediles in putting out fires

Source: Date:

Cass. Dio 54.2.4. early third c. CE (with reference to events of 22 BCE).

τοῖς δ᾿ ἀγορανόμοις τοῖς κουρουλίοις τὴν τῶν ἐμπιμπραμένων κατάσβεσιν ἐνεχείρισεν, ἑξακοσίους σφίσι βοηθοὺς δούλους δούς.

14. Anonymous public slaves (240 individuals) forming the familia publica aquaria Source 1: Frontin. Aq. 2.98; cf. Halkin 1897, 79–81. Date: late first/early second c. CE (with reference to events of 12 BCE).

Primus M. Agrippa post aedilitatem, quam gessit consularis, operum suorum et munerum velut perpetuus curator fuit. Qui iam copia permittente discripsit, quid aquarum publicis operibus, quid lacibus, quid privatis daretur. Habuit et familiam propriam aquarum, quae tueretur ductus atque castella et lacus. Hanc Augustus hereditate ab eo sibi relictam publicavit. Source 2: Frontin. Aq. 2.116; cf. Halkin 1897, 79–81. Date: late first/early second c. CE (with reference to a contemporary arrangement). Superest tutela ductuum, de qua priusquam dicere incipiam pauca de familia quae huius rei causa parata est explicanda sunt. Familiae sunt duae: altera publica, altera Caesaris. Publica est antiquior, quam ab Agrippa relictam Augusto et ab eo publicatam diximus; habet homines circiter ducentos quadraginta. Caesaris familiae numerus est quadringentorum sexaginta, quam Claudius cum aquas in urbem perduceret constituit. Source 3: Frontin. Aq. 2.118; cf. Halkin 1897, 79–81. Date: late first/early second c. CE (with reference to a contemporary arrangement). Commoda publicae familiae ex aerario dantur, quod impendium exoneratur vectigalium reditu ad ius aquarum pertinentium. Ea constant ex locis aedificiisve quae sunt circa ductus et castella aut munera aut lacus. Quem reditum prope sestertiorum ducentorum quinquaginta milium

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

275

alienatum ac vagum, proximis vero temporibus in Domitiani loculos conversum iustitia Divi Nervae populo restituit, nostra sedulitas ad certam regulam redegit, ut constaret quae essent ad hoc vectigal pertinentia loca. Caesaris familia ex fisco accipit commoda, unde et omne plumbum et omnes impensae ad ductus et castella et lacus pertinentes erogantur.

15.

Anonymous public slaves (three individuals) attached as servants to curatores aquarum

Source: Date:

Frontin. Aq. 2.100; cf. Halkin 1897, 79–81. first/second c. CE (with reference to events of 11 BCE).

“Quod Q. Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. de iis qui curatores aquarum publicarum ex consensu senatus a Caesare Augusto nominati essent ornandis, D. E. R. Q. F. P. D. E. R. I. C. placere huic ordini eos qui aquis publicis praeessent cum eius rei causa extra urbem essent lictores binos et servos publicos ternos, architectos singulos et scribas et librarios, accensos praeconesque totidem habere quot habent ii per quos frumentum plebei datur; cum autem in urbe eiusdem rei causa aliquid agerent ceteris apparitoribus isdem praeterquam lictoribus . Utique quibus apparitoribus ex hoc senatus consulto curatoribus aquarum uti liceret eos diebus decem [pr]oximis quibus senatus consultum factum esset ad aerarium deferrent; quique ita delati essent iis praetores aerarii mercedem cibaria quanta praefecti frumento dando dare deferreque solent annua darent et adtribuerent; isque eas pecunias sine fraude sua capere liceret. Utique tabulas chartas ceteraque quae eius curationis causa opus essent iis curatoribus {praebenda} Q. Aelius Paulus Fabius cos. ambo [alte]rve si is videbitur [adhi]bitis praetor[ibus] qui aerario praesint, ea praebenda locent”.

16.

Anonymous public slaves attached as servants to vicomagistri

Source: Date:

Cass. Dio 55.8.7; cf. Halkin 1897, 134. early third c. CE (with reference to events of 7 BCE).

καί σφισι καὶ τῇ ἐσθῆτι τῇ ἀρχικῇ καὶ ῥαβδούχοις δύο, ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς χωρίοις ὧν ἂν ἄρχωσιν, ἡμέραις τισὶ χρῆσθαι ἐδόθη, ἥ τε δουλεία ἡ τοῖς ἀγορανόμοις τῶν ἐμπιμπραμένων ἕνεκα συνοῦσα ἐπετράπη.

17.

Anonymous public slaves attached as servants to the praefecti aerarii militaris

Source: Date:

Cass. Dio 55.25.2–3. early third c. CE (with reference to events of 6 CE).

ὁ Αὔγουστος χρήματα καὶ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Τιβερίου ἐς τὸ ταμιεῖον, ὃ καὶ στρατιωτικὸν ἐπωνόμασε, καὶ τρισὶ τῶν ἐστρατηγηκότων τοῖς λαχοῦσιν ἐπὶ τρία ἔτη διοικεῖν προσέταξε, ῥαβδούχοις τ’ἀνὰ δύο καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ ὑπηρεσίᾳ τῇ προσηκούσῃ χρωμένοις. Καὶ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ πλείω ἔτη κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἐγένετο· νῦν γὰρ καὶ αἱροῦνται πρὸς τοῦ ἀεὶ αὐτοκράτορος καὶ χωρὶς ῥαβδούχων περιίασιν.

276 18.

Appendices

Anonymous public slaves attached as servants to the praefecti reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani

Source: Date:

Cass. Dio 60.10.4. early third c. CE (with reference to events of 42 CE).

τρεῖς ἄνδρας τῶν ἐστρατηγηκότων πράκτορας τῶν τῷ δημοσίῳ ὀφειλομένων κατέστησε, καὶ ῥαβδούχους καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν αὐτοῖς δούς.

19.

Anonymous public slaves attached as servants to consuls

Source: Date:

Plut. Galb. 8.5; cf. Halkin 1897, 72 n. 3. late first/early second c. CE (with reference to events of 68 CE).

τῶν δ’ ὑπάτων οἰκέτας δημοσίους προχειρισαμένων τὰ δόγματα κομίζοντας τῷ αὐτοκράτορι.

20. Anonymous publicus aedituus aedis Vestae Source: Date:

Tac. Hist. 1.43; cf. Halkin 1897, 69 n. 2; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 682 no. 135. early second c. CE (with reference to events of 69 CE).

Piso in aedem Vestae pervasit, exceptusque misericordia publici servi et contubernio eius abditus.

21.

Anonymous public slave in attendance to consuls or praetors during games processions

Source: Date:

Juv. 10.36–42; cf. Halkin 1897, 72–73. late second c. CE (with reference to ancient and contemporary customs).

Quid si vidisset praetorem curribus altis / extantem et medii sublimem pulvere circi / in tunica Iovis et pictae Sarrana ferentem / ex umeris aulaea togae magnaeque coronae / tantum orbem, quanto cervix non sufficit ulla? / Quippe tenet sudans hanc publicus et, sibi consul / ne placeat, curru servus portatur eodem.

22. Anonymous public slaves in the Senate Source: Date:

Capitol. Gord. 12; cf. Halkin 1897, 102. fourth c. CE (with reference to events of 238 CE).

Dicit Iunius Cordus tacitum senatus consultum fuisse. Quod quale sit aut quare sic appellatum, brevi exponam: omnino exemplum senatus consulti taciti non aliud est hodie, quam quo vestra clementia convocatis ad interiora maioribus ea disponit, quae non sunt omnibus publicanda; de quibus adiurare etiam soletis, ne quis ante rem conpletam quicquam vel audiat vel intellegat. Hunc autem morem apud veteres necessitates publicae reppererunt, ut, si forte aliqua vis ab hostibus immineret, quae cogeret vel humilia captare consilia vel aliqua constituere, quae non prius oporteret dici quam effici, vel si nollent ad amicos aliqua permanare, senatus consultum tacitum fieret, ita ut non scribae, non servi publici, non censuales illis actibus interessent, senatores exciperent, senatores omnium officia censualium scribarumque conplerent, ne quid forte proderetur. Factum est ergo senatus consultum tacitum, ne res ad Maximinum perveniret.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

277

b) Inscriptional Evidence1 23.

Abascantus publicus aug(urum) and publicus sodalium Flavialium

Source 1: CIL VI, 37177 = AE 1912, 222; cf. CIL VI, p. 3877. Date: late first/early second c. CE.

Dis Manib(us).  / Abascanto  / publico aug(urum)2  / Zosimus  / Silian(us) public(us)  / sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) et / Accaea Rhodine / patrono optimo / fecerunt. Source 2: CIL VI, 33084 = ILS 4987; cf. Halkin 1897, 59, 231; CIL VI, p. 3851; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 721 no. 420. Date: late first/early second c. CE. D(is) M(anibus). / Epigoni, publ(ico) / sodalium / Flavialium, / Crescens et / Abascantus / collegae eius / b(ene) m(erenti). Note:

When Abascantus was a publicus sodalium Flavialium, he was a collega of Crescens (no. 47) and Epigonus (no. 55), but also of Zosimus Silian(us) public(us) sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) (no. 140), who set up a funerary monument for him, by referring to him as a patronus. Since Abascantus is mentioned as a publicus sodalium Flavialium in the inscription that he dedicated (cf. source 2), whereas he is recorded as a publicus augurum in the other inscription, of which he was the dedicatee (cf. source 1), it is likely that, at some point of his life, he probably moved from the college of the sodales Flaviales to that of the augures, not the other way round.

24. Aeschinus Scaeva publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2350; cf. Halkin 1897, 231. unknown.

Aeschinus Scaeva / publicus sibi et suis.

1 2

The exact provenance is only specified when it is different from Rome. For the interpretation of AVG (l. 3) as aug(urum), cf. also CIL VI, 37177; Eder 1980, 45 n. 73, 166 n. 17; Museo 1984, 84–85 (F. Taglietti). On the contrary, given that a public slave of the sodales Flaviales, namely Zosimus Silian(us) public(us) sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) (no. 140), is mentioned in the same inscription, Boschung 1987, 69 extended the abbreviation as Aug(usti), thus implying that he was a public slave assigned as a servant to the sodales Augustales. However, since the normal abbreviation that follows the nomenclature of the publici attached as servants to the sodales Augustales is SOD AVG, i. e., sod(alium) Aug(ustalium), such interpretation seems unlikely.

278

Appendices

25. Agatho Claudianus publicus populi R(omani) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2351; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. second c. CE.

Praesidi. // D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / Fulvia Hermione Agathoni  / Claudiano publico populi R(omani), / marito sanctissimo, cum quo vix(it) / annis XXXVIII sine ulla querella, s[ibi] / fecit et libertis libertabusqu[e poster]/isque eorum.

26. Agatho publ(icus) Silianus a sacris sodal(ium) Augustal(ium) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2323 = ILS 4986; cf. Halkin 1897, 59, 231; CIL VI, p.  3828; Rüpke  – Glock 2005, 744 no. 538. first/second c. CE.

Agathoni publ(ico) / Siliano a sacris / sodal(ium) Augustal(ium) / Coelia Prìmilla / coniugi bene/merenti posuit.

27.

Alcimiades publicus Minicianus

Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2352; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL X, 1089*,32; CIL VI, p. 3318. late first/early second c. CE.

Alcimiades,  / publicus  / Minicianus,  / v(ixit) a(nnis) XXXV,  / Valeria Zosime  / coniugi b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit).

28. Alexander Iulianus publicus curionis maximi Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2325 = ILS 4989; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 748 no. 562. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Clodiae Eutychiae. / Alexander Iulianus / publicus curionis / maximi coniugi suae / de se ben{a}e m{a}eritae / fecit, / titulum marmoreum / posuit. Hic situs est.

29. Andronicus publicus Fulvianus XVviralis Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2310 = CIL VI, 4462; cf. Halkin 1897, 56, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 755 no. 593. early first c. CE.

M(arcus) Herennius / Sp(uri) f(ilius) Esq(uilina) Fatalis / v(ixit) an(nis) VIII. / Herennia / Bonitas, mater, // Andronicus / publicus / Fulvianus, / `pat̂er´, XVviralis, // h(as) o(llas) e(merunt) // de // Cerdone. // Aemiliano publ(ico).

30. [Anic]etus public[us p(opuli) R(omani)] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 3685 = CIL VI, 30903. first c. CE?

[Anic]etus public[us p(opuli) R(omani)]  / [fec]it Herculi Fe[lici?]  / [Anic]etus public[us p(opuli) R(omani)] / [rest]ituit et adam[pliavit] / [et] ante fronte[m aediculam fecit] //

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

279

[Anic]etus public[us p(opuli) R(omani)] / [fe]cit Herculi [Felici?] / [- - - adam]pliavit et r[estituit et ] / [ante] fr(ontem) aedicu[lam fec(it)].

31.

Antiochus publicus p(opuli) R(omani) Aemilianus pontificalis

Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2307 = ILS 4980; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p.  3828; Rüpke  – Glock 2005, 763 no. 633. first/second c. CE.

Firviae C(ai) f(iliae) Primae, / Antiocho publico p(opuli) R(omani) / Aemiliano pontificali, / Primus publicus Tusculanorum / arcarius vir heres Primaes (sic) f(aciendum) c(uravit).

32. Apolaustus Claudianu[s publ(icus)] VIIvirum epulon(um) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2318 = ILS 4984; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 771 no. 677. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Apolaustus Modian[us] / publ(icus) VIIvir(um) epulon(um) item / Apolaustus Claudianu[s publ(icus)] / VIIvirum epulon(um) [et] / Iustus Gavianus publ(icus) fet[ial(ium) et] / P(ublius) Volusius Renatu[s] / Volusiae Iustae, matri [caris]/simae, omnium feminaru[m sanc]/tiori, univiriae, qu(a)e v(ixit) mec[um an(nis) - - -], / m(ensibus) II, d(iebus) XXI ceterisque [suis] / posterisque eorum.

33.

Apolaustus Modian[us] publ(icus) VIIvir(um) epulon(um)

Source: Date:

See no. 32; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 771 no. 678. first/second c. CE.

34. Apoll[- - -] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

CIL VI, 1998 = CIL XIV, 2403; cf. CIL VI, p. 3235; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 771 no. 679. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Source:

- - - - - - / [- - -]niani / [- - -]a / - - - - - - // ++[- - -] / Po[- - -] / Au[- - -] / Apol[l- - -] / Men[- - -] / +++[- - -] / - - - - - -

35.

Arescon Manilianus comm(entariensis scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium)

Source 1: AE 1915, 102 = ILS 9522 = CIL VI, 39433 = Scheid 1998, 331–337 no.  114; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 779 no. 711. Date: 240–241 CE. col. II, ll. 39–41 (240 CE, unknown day): … citante Aresconte / Maniliano comm(entariense) d(omini) n(ostri) Gordiani Aug(usti) et nomina cete/rorum sace˹r˺dotum …

280

Appendices

Source 2: CIL VI, 2114 = Scheid 1998, 338–340 no. 115; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 62, 63, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 779 no. 711. Date: 241 CE. ll. 20–23 (241 CE, May 17th): … Mag(ister) sport(ulas)] / acc(epit) et coron(as) convival(es); mante[lio segmentato unguenta conteg(it) et co]/ronas, et s˹p˺ort(ulas) acc(eperunt) sing(uli) ((denarios)) XXV [- - - per] / Arescontem Manilianu˹m˺ com[m(entariensem) - - -]

36. Armeni(- - -) (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: See no. 62; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 779 no. 712. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He was replaced by a publicus sodalium Claudialium, whose name is lost (no. 167)

37.

Au[- - -] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: See no. 34; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 792 no. 781. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

38. Barnaeus de familia public(a) reg(ionis) VIII Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2342 = ILS 1964; cf. Halkin 1897, 86, 231. first c. CE.

Barnaeus / de familia / public(a) reg(ionis) VIII.

39. Bithus publicus Paullianus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2354; cf. Halkin 1897, 231. unknown.

Bithi publici / Paulliani fecit / Aemilia Prima / concubina eius et heres.

40. Callimachus vilicus saeptoru(m) oper(arum vel -um) pub(licarum vel -licorum) agr(ariarum vel -licorum) Source: Date:

AE 1910, 114 = ILS 9029 = CIL VI, 37175. late first/early second c. CE.

Dis Man(ibus). / Callimacho, / vilico / saeptoru(m) / oper(arum vel -um) pub(licarum vel -licorum) / agr(ariarum vel -orum).

41. Came[rinus?] (scil. publicus sodalium Claudialium)

Source: Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no. 11; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 855 no. 1070. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE. - - - - - - / [- - -]S[- - -] / [- - -] Came[rinus?] / - - - - - -

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

281

42. [Ca]rpus publicus (scil. fratrum Arvalium) Cornelianus Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2086 = ILS 5030 = ILS 5041 = CIL VI, 32380 = Scheid 1998, 236–239 no.  80; cf. CIL VI, p.  864; Halkin 1897, 62, 232; CIL VI, p.  3261, 3824, 3292; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 859 no. 1091. 155 CE.

ll. 60–64 (155 CE, December 11th): [D(ecimo)? Rupilio?] Severo, L(ucio) Iulio Severo co(n) s(ulibus), (ante diem) III idus Decembr(es) / [in locum Ca]rp[i] ̣ publici Corneliani promoti ad tabulas quae/storias transscribendas substitu(tu)s est Epictetus Cuspianus publi/cus ex litteris M(arci) Fulvi Aproniani promagistri. Note:

He was replaced by Epictetus Cuspianus publicus (no. 54).

43. Cerdo Aemilianus publicus cens(oris vel -orum vel -ualis)

Source 1: CIL VI, 2333 = ILS 1966 = CIL VI, 4463; cf. Halkin 1897, 74, 231; CIL VI, pp. 3318, 3828. Date: early first c. CE. Cerdo / Aemilianus / publicus cens(oris vel -orum vel -ualis). Source 2: See no. 29; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 871 no. 1138. Note: He is mentioned as a seller of a cinerary urn to Andronicus publicus Fulvianus XVviralis (no.  29) and his partner Herennia Bonitas for their son M(arcus) Herennius Fatalis; for this reason, he is recorded by Rüpke – Glock 2005, 871 no. 1138 among the publici XVvirales, although there is absolutely no ground for this belief.

44. Chresimus Licinianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 123; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 872 no. 1142. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE. Note: He was replaced by Quartio Gavianus (no. 123).

45. Ti(berius) Claudius Melipthongus Obultronianus publicus a subsellis tribunorum Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2340 = ILS 1973; cf. Halkin 1897, 28, 126, 243; CIL VI, p. 3828. mid first c. CE.

Dis Manib(us). / Ti(berio) Claudio / Melipthongo / Obultroniano / public(o) a subsel(lis) / tribunorum, / vix(it) ann(is) XL, / Primitivos (sic) / patri carissim(o).

46. Cosmus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2355; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. first c. CE.

Ossa / Cosmi publici.

282

Appendices

47. Crescens (scil. publicus sodalium Flavialium) Source: Date: Note:

See no. 23; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 931 no. 1410. late first/early second c. CE. He was a collega of Abascantus (no. 23) and Epigonus (no. 55).

48. Crescens publicus Persicianus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2356; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828. first c. CE.

Dis Manibus / Crescens / publicus / Persicianus / vixit annis LXV / Orbia Ma / coniugi / carissimo posuit.

49. Diadumenus publicus aquae Annesis Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2343 = CIL VI, 33732; cf. Halkin 1897, 82, 231. late first/early second c. CE.

Dis Manib(us). / Iulia Nereis et / Diadumenus / publicus aquae / Annesis (sic) fecerunt / Pudenti vernae suo et sibi / suis vix(i)t an(nis) VII.

50. Euphraenor Iulianus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2358 = CIL VI, 4464; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. early first c. CE.

Euphraenor  / Iulianus  / publicus. // Attia  / C(ai) et ((mulieris)) l(iberta)  / Dionysia,  / coniunx.

51.

Evaristus public(us) Iulianus

Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2357 = CLE 838 = ILS 8204; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, AE 2000, 132. late first/early second c. CE.

Dis Manibus. / Iuliae Feliculâe, / coniugi bene/merenti, eiusdem / filio Neptunali, pater / fecit Evaristus public(us) / Iulianus sib(i) et suis / poterisque eorum. / Hospes, ad hunc tumulum / ne meias ossa precantur / tecta hominis, sit si gratus / homo es, misce, bibe, da mi.

52. [E- vel M]arinus publicus (scil. fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2074 = CIL VI, 32371 = Scheid 1998, 177–183 no. 62; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 61, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 954 no. 1510. 101 CE.

fr. b.1, ll. 4–16 (101 CE): … Isde[m (scil. Q(uinto) Servaeo Innocente, M(arco) Maecio Celere)? co(n)s(ulibus) - - -] / magisterio Ti(beri) Claudi Sac[erdotis Iuliani E- vel M]arinu[s publicus loco]  / Saturnini Venuleian[i ad fratres Arvales adlectu]s est. Magisterio Ti(beri) Claudi Sace[rdotis Iuliani, de E vel M]arino [publico epistula] / missa fratribus Arvalibu[s ab Imp(eratore) Caes(are), Divi Nervae f(ilio), Nerva Tra]ịaṇ[o Aug(usto) Germ(anico)] / signo signata caput Augu[sti quod exprimit, in qua sic scriptum fuit]: / Imp(erator) Caesar,

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

283

Divi Nervae f(ilius), Nerva [Traianus Aug(ustus) Germ(anicus), pont(ifex) max(imus), trib(unicia) pot(estate), co(n)s(ul) IIII], / collegis suis salutem. Cum sit ọ[mnibus? - - - mani]/ festum erga vos[- - -]meu[m? - - -] / nostrum inci[- - -]ic[̣ - - com?]/modum in cetẹ[ros? - - -] / [impe]ṇsa mea [- - -] Note:

53.

He replaced Saturninus Venuleia[nus] (no. 127).

Epagathus servus public(us) ad Iuturna(e scil. aedem) or a Diuturna(e scil. aede)

Source: Date:

CIL VI, 37176 = ILS 9050 = AE 1910, 70; cf. Fassbender 2005, 159 no. 103. second c. CE.

D(is) ((ascia)) M(anibus) / Attiae Epagatho(ni)3 filiae / dulcissimae, quae vixit / ann(is) III, m(ensibus) VIII, d(iebus) IIII, fec(it) / Epagathus servus public(us) / ad Iuturna(e scil. aedem) et Attiae Feli/citati coniugi bene meren(ti) / et sibi et suis posterisq(ue) / eorum.

54. Epictetus Cuspianus publicus (scil. fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date: Note:

55.

See no. 42; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 956 no. 1526. 155 CE. He replaced [Ca]rpus publicus Cornelianus (no. 42)

Epigonus publ(icus) sodalium Flavialium

Source: Date: Note:

See no. 23; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 956 no. 1528. late first/early second c. CE. he was a collega of Abascantus (no. 23) and Crescens (no. 47).

56. Eutyches (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date:

AE 1920, 95 = Scheid 1998, 223–224 no. 75; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 964 no. 1563; Luciani 2019, 283 no. 1. 134 CE?

ll. 8–14 (134 CE?, May 29th): … I]sdem co(n)s(ulibus) (ante diem) IIII k(alendas) Iun(ias) / [- - -, Iul(ius) Alexander] Iulianus, Antonius Albus, Valerius Iunianus / [- - - publicis? s]uis postulantibus, ut ex sententiis fratr(um) Arv(alium) / [- - -? i]n portionibus aput ipsos etulitum Eutychen (sic) / [- - - per]lectis codicibus, quibus sententiae priorum / [fratr(um) Arv(alium) relatae sunt, collegium decrev]it: Ex decretis prioribus nihil / [immutamus, - - - port]io circi concessum a collegio nostro public(is?)

3

Epagatho is probably an abbreviated form for the dative Epagathoni: cf. also Wilson 1910, 27–28; IGUR II/1, 507; Purnelle 1995, 499. On Epagatho as a feminine name, see Solin 20032, 52. Conversely, Bodel – Tracy 1997, 69 interpreted it as a wrong form for Epagathi, i. e., the genitive of the name of Attia’s father.

284 57.

Appendices

[E]utyches (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no. 8; Luciani 2022; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 964 no. 1564. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: 166 CE. - - - - - - / [- - -]m[- - -] / [E]utyches / [I]talicus C[- - -] / [Q(uinto) Servilio Pu]dente, L(ucio) Fufidio P[ollione co(n)s(ulibus)] / [in lo?]cum +[- - -]

58. Eutychianus Cupre[ssenianus] (scil. publicus sodalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 123; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 965 no. 1570. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE.

59. Euvodus (sic) publicus Rublianus ab opera publica Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2336; cf. Halkin 1897, 90, 231. second/third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Euvodo (sic) / publico / Rubliano ab / opera publica / et Fortunatae / delicio Barbia / Secunda fec(it).

60. Expeditus pu[b]l[i]cus Trebianus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2359; cf. Halkin 1897, 231. first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Claudiae / Saturninae / Expeditus / pu[b]l[i]cus / Trebianus.

61.

Felix publicus Asinianus pontific(um vel -alis)

Source: Date:

CIL VI, 68 = ILS 3513; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3003, 3755; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 983 no. 1639. first c. CE.

Felix publicus / Asinianus pontific(um vel -alis) / Bonae Deae Agresti Felicu(lae?) / votum solvit iunicem alba(m) / libens animo ob luminibus (sic) / restitutiis (sic). Derelictus a medicis, post / menses decim (sic) beneficio Dominais (sic) medicinis sanatus, per / eam restituta omnia ministerio Canniae Fortunatae.

62. [Fe]lix Clodianus (publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

CIL VI, 1995 = CIL XIV, 2400; cf. CIL VI, p. 3235; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 983 no. 1640. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Source:

[Fe]lix Clodianus / [in] locum Ones[imi] / - - - - - - // in locum Armeni(- - -) / [- - -]+um Claudian[us] / [in locum - - -]+++i / - - - - - Note:

He replaced Ones[imus] (no. 103).

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

285

63. Felix Cornelianus publicus curionalis Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2326 = ILS 4990; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 983 no. 1641. first c. CE.

Diis Manibus. / Felici Corneliano / publico curionali, / vixit annis LVIII / Iulia Cloe / coniugi / bene merenti / fecit.

64. Felix publicus Palfurianus augur(um) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2315 = ILS 4982; cf. Halkin 1897, 56, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 983–984 no. 1642. mid first c. CE.

Felix publicus / Palfurianus / augur(um) Barbiae, / coniugi suae, posuit.

65. [Fe]lix publ[icus - - -] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 3883a = CIL VI, 32514; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. first/second c. CE?

[D(is)] M(anibus). / [- - - pu]blicus An/[nianus? Fe]lici publ[ico] / [- - - patr]ono be[ne m(erenti)]. // Actu[- - -] / fecit [- - -].

66. Fortunatus pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2360; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; AE 2000, 132. first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Ti(berio) Claudio  / Avidiano f(ilio)  / piissimo  / fecit  / Fortunatus  / pub(licus) et / Claudia Logas / parent(es) inf(elicissimi). / V(ixit) a(nnos) V, d(ies) XXXV.

67. ˹F˺ortunatus Severianus publicus XV vir(um) s(acris) f(aciundis)

Source: AE 1985, 252; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1002 no. 1741; Luciani 2019c, 283 no. 3. Provenance: Rome.4 Date: third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Vitalis / Corneliani / publici pedisequ[i] / pr(aefecti) aerari militaris / fecit ˹F˺ortunatus / Severianus / publicus XV vir(um) s(acris) f(aciundis).

68. Fortunatus publicus Sulpicianus curionalis Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2327 = ILS 4990a; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1002 no. 1742. first c. CE.

Fortunatus / publicus Sulpi/cianus curió/nalis vixit / annis XXX, / fecit Iulia Clóe.

4

The inscription likely comes from Rome, although it was kept in a private collection at Ostia.

286

Appendices

69. Gemellinus Valerianus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2361; cf. Halkin 1897, 231. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Gemellinus  / Valerianus,  / publicus et  / Ulpia Grata,  / Septembro,  / ver(nae) dul(cissimo) fec(erunt) / b(ene) m(erenti), qui vixit / annis VII, / mens(ibus) VII, / diebus XX.

70. Gemellus Memmianus publicus [fratr(um) Arval(ium)] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2078 = CIL VI, 32374 = Scheid 1998, 203–209 no. 68; cf. Halkin 1897, 61, 232; CIL VI, p. 864, 3261, 3824; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1020 no. 1834. 118–119 CE.

fr. a, ll. 4–6 (118 CE, August 14th – 30th): [Isdem (scil. L(ucio) Pomponio Basso, T(ito) Sabinio Barbaro) co(n)s(ulibus) · · ·] k(alendas) [Se]pt(embres)  / [allectus ad fratres Arvales in] loc[u]m Gemelli Memmiani publici  / [fratr(um) Arval(ium) ex litteris Imp(eratoris)] Caes(aris) n(ostri) Iustus Bruttianus publicus. Note:

71.

He was replaced by Iustus Bruttianus (no. 82).

[G]laucus publicus a sacris

Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2331; cf. Halkin 1897, 68, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1023 no. 1849. first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / C(aio) Trollio Hermeti / patrono et [G]lauco / publico a sacris / Trollia Eucarpia sibi [et] / libertis libertabu[sq(ue)] / posterisq(ue) eorum / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) [e(xterum) n(on) s(equetur)]. / In fr(onte) p(edes) X[- - -, in a(gro) p(edes) - - -].

72. Graphicus publicus Maecianus sodalium Titium Source: Date:

CIL VI, 3882 = CIL VI, 32507 = ILS 4985; cf. Halkin 1897, 59, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1024 no. 1860. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Graphico publico Maeciano sodalium Titium / Scribonia Syntyche coniugi karissimo fecit / et sibi et suis posterisque eorum. In fr(onte) p(edes) VII, in ag(ro) p(edes) XII.

73.

Helius Afinianus publicus augurum

Source 1: CIL VI, 2316; cf. Halkin 1897, 56, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 714 no. 1876. Date: first c. CE. Diis Manibus sacrum. / Viveniae L(uci) f(iliae) Heliadi, / vixit annis XVI, mensibus VII, / fecer(unt) Helius Afinianus publicu(s) / augurum cum Sex(tia) Psyche coniuge / filiae pientissimae.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

287

Source 2: CIL VI, 2317; cf. Halkin 1897, 56, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1028 no. 1876. Date: first c. CE. D(is) M(anibus). / Helio Afin(iano) / pub(lico) aug(urum). / Sextia Psyche / coniugi b(ene) m(erenti).

74. Heracleo Calpurnian(us) publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2362 = CIL VI, 4465; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. early first c. CE.

Heracleo / Calpurnian(us), / publicus. // Porcia / M(arci) l(iberta) / Mnemosyne, / coniunx.

75. Hermes Caesennianus publicus pontificum Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2308 = ILS 4981 = CIL VI, 32506 = AE 2003, 194; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1031 no. 1894. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Hermeti / Caesenniano / publico pon/tificum Ulpia Fo/rtunata con/iugi b(ene) m(erenti) fecit.

76. Herodes Volusianus public(us) septemvir(um) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2320; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; AE 2001, 169; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1031 no. 1896. late first c. BCE/early first c. CE.

Herodes / Volusianus / public(us) septemvir(um) / fecit sibi et suis.

77. Hevodus servus publicus stationis aquaru(m) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 8489; cf. Halkin 1897, 82, 231; CIL VI, p. 3890; AE 2000, 132. late first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Domitia Olympias se / viva fec(it) sibi et Notho / Caes(aris) n(ostri) ser(vo) et Do(mitio) Zosimiano  / et suis poste(ris)q(ue) eorum.  / Domitia Olympias me viva  / dedi. Donavi itu(m) ambitu(mque) Heuodo  / servo publico stationis aquaru(m)  / posteris˹q˺ue eorum et Gaviae.

78. Honoratus publicus sod(alium) Aug(ustalium) Source: Date:

AE 1989, 135; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1036 no. 1910. first/second c. CE.

Claudiae / Frequenti, feminae / simpliciss(imae), vix(it) an(nos) LX / Honoratus publicus / sod(alium) Aug(ustalium) nutrici suae / b(ene) m(erenti).

288

Appendices

79. Hymnus Aurelianus a bybliothece (sic) Latina porticus Octaviae vilicus

Source 1: CIL VI, 2347 = CIL VI, 4431 = ILS 1971; cf. Halkin 1897, 99, 123, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3416, 3828. Date: early first c. CE.

Decurio / Hymnus / Aurelianus, / a bybliothece (sic) / Latina porticus / Octaviae / vilicus. // Quintia / C(ai) l(iberta) / Clára. Source 2: CIL VI, 4432; cf. Halkin 1897, 99; CIL VI, p. 3416. Date: early first c. CE. V̂aleria Hilara, / «mater» / «Hymni» de / bibyliotece (sic). // Valeria / Secunda.

80. Italicus Cassianus publ(icus) ex sacerdotio Hadrianali Source: Date:

Panciera 1977, 199 = Panciera 2006, 1848; cf. Luciani 2019, 283 no. 7. mid second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / M(arco) Ulpio Eutucheti, / alumno innocentissim(o), / qui vix(it) a(nnis) V̅ , m(ensibus) III, d(iebus) VII. / Italicus Cassianus publ(icus) ex / sacerdotio Hadrianali et / Ulpia Tuche coiunx eius / educatores.

81.

[I]talicus C[- - -] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: See no. 57; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1049 no. 1957. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: 166 CE.

82. Iustus Bruttianus publicus (scil. fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date: Note:

83.

See no. 70; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1087 no. 2144. 118–119 CE. He replaced Gemellus Memmianus publicus [fratr(um) Arval(ium)] (no. 70)

Iustus Gavianus publ(icus) fet[ial(ium)]

Source: Date:

See no. 32; cf. Halkin 1897, 59, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1087 no. 2145. first/second c. CE.

84. Laetus publicus populi Romani [- - -] aquarius aquae Annionis veteris castelli viae Latinae contra Dracones Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2345 = ILS 1975; cf. Halkin 1897, 82, 83, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828. late second/third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Laetus publicus populi / Romani [- - -] aquarius / aquae Annionis veteris / castelli viae Latinae contra / Dracones et Flavia Dionysia / fecer(unt) sibi et Auliae Argyridi / filiae, vixit ann(is) XXIIII, m(ensibus) II, d(iebus) VIII et / lib(ertis) liber(tabusque) posterisq(ue) eorum. H(oc) m(onumentum) [h(eredem)] e(xterum) n(on) s(equetur), / dolus malus abesto et / Calventiae [- - -]etinae itu aditum / ambitu [- - - mon]umenti pertinent.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

289

85. Lalus5 publicus sacerdotialis Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2332 = ILS 4991 = Camodeca – Solin 2000, 84 no. 65; cf. Halkin 1897, 68, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1091 no. 2169. mid first c. CE.

Lali publici / sacerdotialis / cineribus locus. / Avonia Aphrodisia / coniugi bene/merenti fecit.

86. Laryx [de?] porticu Octavi(ae) [a? b]ybliothe(ca) Graec(a) Source 1: CIL VI, 4433; cf. Halkin 1897, 100; CIL VI, p. 3416. Date: early first c. CE.

«Laryx» / [de?] p«orticu Octav»i(ae) / [a? b]ỵbliothe(ca) Graec(a). // «Te+[- - -]» / «- - - - - -?». Source 2: CIL VI, 4434; cf. Halkin 1897, 100; CIL VI, p. 3416. Date: early first c. CE. «Onomas»te, / «Laricis» / a «bybliot(heca)». // Athenais / Antoniaẹ / sarcin(atrix).

87. Lucidus Vett[- - -]6 (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 123; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1118 no. 2291. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE.

88. Lucrio publicus Annianus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2363; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; cf. p. 3318. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / L(ucius) Vettienus Primitivus, / Lucrioni publico, patri suo, / Anniano et Vettienae / Sabinae libertae et matri / bene de se meritis posteris[que - - -] / - - - - - -?

89. Magnus Publicianus publicus XVvir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2311; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1127 no. 2328. first/second c. CE.

Dis Manibus. / L(ucio) Anchario Prisciano, / vixit an(nis) II, m(ensibus) X, dieb(us) XXIX, et / Anchariae Felicissimae, / vix(it) a(nnis) XI, m(ensibus) X, d(iebus) XV, fil(iis) dulcis-

5

6

Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1091 no. 2169 have interpreted his name as Lalius. However, Lalius is only known as a nomen (Schulze 1904, 267, 358, 424; Solin – Salomies 1988, 101), whereas the Greek name Lalus is well attested in Rome (Solin 20032, 770). Halkin 1897, 68 also interpreted the name as Lalus. Different possibilities of integrating the agnomen have been proposed: Vettonianus (Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no. 12), Vettianus (Rüpke – Glock 2005, 775 no. 2291), Vettulenianus (Granino Cecere 2018, 192).

290

Appendices

simis, fecer(unt) / Magnus Publicianus publicus XVvir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis) / et Ancharia Felicula sibi et suis libertis / libertabusque posterisq(ue) eorum.

90. Menander Caecilianus p(ublicus) augur(um) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 33227. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / C(ai) Brutt(i) Crispini, fil(i) dulcissimi, / qui vixit a(nnis) III, mensib(us) IV, dieb(us) IIII, et / Caecilio Eutychiano alumno dulciss(imo), / qui vixit a(nnis) III, mensibus XI, diebus XXII, et / Brutt(io) Hermeti, parenti bene merenti, qui / ann(is) vixit LXXXIV, mens(ibus) III, dieb(us) V, / Menander Caecilianus p(ublicus) augur(um) et / Grattia Euposia coniux fecerunt sibi / et libertis libertabusque posterisque / eorum.

91.

Menochares publicus

Source 1: Mancini 1914, 381 no. 33; cfr. CIL VI, 39519; Luciani 2019c, 284 no. 8. Date: first c. CE. Óllae Menocharis  / (scil. servi) publici continuae II,  / inferiores et superior I,  / emptaé de C(aio) Sulpicio Feli/ci quás emet (sic) de Cornelio Alexan(dro). Source 2: Mancini 1914, 390 no. 47; cf. CIL VI, 39446; CIL VI, 39567; Luciani 2019c, 284 no. 8. Date: first c. CE. Menocharis (scil. servi) publici / et Corneliae Stratonic(e) / ollas VI ab imo colum/˹ba˺ria.

92. Menop(h)ilus Alf(ianus) ser(vus) pub(licus) ex basilica Opimia Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2338 = ILLRP 827 = CIL I2, 1336; cf. Halkin 1897, 70, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; CIL I2, p. 977. mid first c. CE.

Ossa sita / P(ubli) Pomponi P(ubli) l(iberti) / Rufionis. / Menop(h)ilus / Alf(ianus) ser(vus) pub(licus) / ex basilica Opimia // L(uci) Corneli L(uci) l(iberti) / Alexsae.

93. Menophilus Lucretianus servos (sic) publicus ex basilica Opimia Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2339 = IG XIV, 1561 = ILS 1969 = ILLRP 828 = CIL I2, 1337; cf. Halkin 1897, 70, 109, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828; CIL I2, p. 977. mid first c. CE.

Menophilus / Lucretianus / servos (sic) publicus / ex basilica Opimia / Q(uinti) Aemili / Diophanti.

94. Men[- - -] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 34; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1150 no. 2434. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

291

95. Montanus Iulianus vilic(us) a bybliotheca Octaviae Latin(a) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 4435; cf. Halkin 1897, 100; CIL VI, p. 3416. early first c. CE.

Tryphera. // «Monta»nus / «Iulianu»s vilic(us) / «a bybliothec»a / Oc«ta»viae Latin(a).

96. Myrinus Domitianus publicus a commentari(i)s XVvir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2312 = ILS 4983; cf. Halkin 1897, 57, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1164 no. 2496. first/second c. CE.

Dis Manibus  / Myrini Domitiani  / publici a commen/tari(i)s XV vir(alis) s(acris) f(aciundis).  / Arruntia Doliche  / fecit coniugi caris/simo et libertis liber/tabusq(ue) suis posterisq(ue) / eorum.

97. Narcissus Annianus publicus (scil. ad fratres Arvales) Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2065 = ILS 5029 = ILS 5045 = CIL VI, 32367 = Scheid 1998, 146–152 no. 55; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 61, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1165 no. 2501. 87 CE.

col. II, ll. 13–14 (87 CE, February 1st): Isdem (scil. L(ucio) Volusio Saturnino, C(aio) Calpurnio Pisone) co(n)s(ulibus) k(alendas) Febr(uarias) allectus Narcissus Annianus publicus loco / Nymphi Numisiani ad fratres Arvales. Note:

He replaced Nymphus Numisianus ad fratres Arvales (no. 99).

98. Narcissus publ(icus) Cilnianus a reliqui(i)s p(opuli) R(omani) Source: Date:

ILS 9049 = CIL VI, 37174. Claudian age.

Dis Manibus.  / Narcisso publ(ico)  / Cilniano,  / a reliqui(i)s p(opuli) R(omani),  / Salvia Appie (sic) / coniugi suo / bene merenti, / cum quo vixit / annis XXXII, fec(it) / et sibi et suis posterisq(ue) / eorum.

99. Nymphus Numisianus (scil. publicus) ad fratres Arvales Source: Date: Note:

See no. 97; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1178 no. 2554. 87 CE. He was replaced by Narcissus Annianus publicus (no. 97) as a publicus ad Fratres Arvales.

292

Appendices

100. Olympus Crispinianus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2364; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; SupplIt. Imagines 1, 569. first c. CE.

Octavia L(uci) l(iberta) / Prima, / Pantagatus / Paulianus, / Thuas / Sentianus, / publici. // Olympus / Crispinianus.

101. Onesimus a porticu Source: Date:

CIL VI, 4461; cf. p. 3416. early first c. CE.

Onesimus, / a porticu. // Anthysa / Trhasylli (scil. serva?).

102. Onesimus castellarius public(us) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2346; cf. Halkin 1897, 83, 231. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). Flavia(e) Euprosuneni / fecit / C(aius) Curtilius Callimacus / coniugi karissimae suae, / quae an(nis) vixit aetatis XXVIII, / dies XVI, et Onesimus, gener / (h)u{t}ius, castellarius public(us) ser(vus), / fecit bene merenti hoc titulu(m). / Quandoque si quis sustulerit / aut de loco moverit (scil. titulum), inferet / aerario ((denarios)) CCL poenae nomine p(opulo) R̲ (omano).

103. Ones[imus] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 63; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1182 no. 2575. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He was replaced by [Fe]lix Clodianus (no. 63).

104. Onesi[mus] Iulianus publicus ex sacer[dot(io)] Aureliano Antoniano (sic) Veriano Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2324 = ILS 4988; cf. Halkin 1897, 59–60, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1182 no. 2576. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / [[- - -]] Savina Ti(berio) Clau[dio] / Isidoro et sibi et Onesi[mo] / Iuliano publico ex sacer[dot(io)] / Aureliano Antoniano (sic) Veriano / et libertis libertab(us)q(ue) pos[ter(is)]/q(ue) eorum.

105. Oratus pub(licus) Fabianus ab opera publica Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2337 = CIL VI, 5558 = ILS 1968; cf. Halkin 1897, 90, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Orato pub(lico) Fabiano / ab opera publica / Folia Trophime coniu(gi) / bene merenti fecit / v(ixit) a(nnos) LXV.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

293

106. Pamphilus Caesianus publicus VIIvir(um) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2321; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1188 no. 2607. first/second c. CE.

Dis Manibus. / Aemiliae Antiochidi, filiae / dulciss(imae), Pamphilus Caesianus / publicus VIIvir(um), pater, et Aemilia / Euchnis, mater, parentes, piis(simae) / quae vix(it) ann(is) VI, m(ensibus) VIII, d(iebus) III.

107. Pantagatus Paulianus Source: Date:

See no. 100. first c. CE.

108. Papi(as) ser(vus) publicus

Source 1: CIL VI, 2365 = ILS 1965; cf. Halkin 1897, 118, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828. Date: first c. CE. Dis Manibus / Graniae Faustinae / fecit Papi(as) ser(vus) / publicus sibi et / contubernali suae / carissimae / bene merenti de se / posterisque / {a}eorum. Source 2: CIL VI, 2366; cf. Halkin 1897, 118, 231. Date: first c. CE. Bis funerata / est et / condeta (sic). / Dis Manib(us) / Graniae / Faustinae / uix(it) ann(os) XXIIII / Papi(as) ser(vus) / puplicus (sic) / coniugi / car[issimae].

109. Paris publicus Manilianus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2367; cf. Halkin 1897, 231. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Paridi publico / Maniliano fecit / Flavia Attice / co(n)iugi bene me/renti de se cum / q(uo) v(ixit) a(nnos) / XV.

110. Phileros Aemil(ianus) publ(icus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2368 = CIL VI, 4690; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, cf. p. 3318. early first c. CE.

Phileros / Aemil(ianus) publ(icus), / Pamphilus / Principis Caesar(is) / l(iberti) ser(vus).

111. Phileros publicus Cartilianus Source: Date:

AE 1939, 148 = Weiss 2004, 197 no.  25 (where the public slave is recorded among the public slaves in Ostia). early/mid first c. CE.

P(ublius) Ostiensis coloniae / libertus Acútus, / Phileros publicus / Cartilianus. Note:

the inscription also mentions a public freedman of the colony of Ostia, i. e., P(ublius) Ostiensis coloniae libertus Acutus (no. 233).

294

Appendices

112. Philippus Rustian(us) publicus ab sacrario divi Augusti Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2329 = ILS 4992 = Terme 2012, 268 no. V.5 (M. Giovagnoli); cf. Halkin 1897, 69 (where the public slave is recorded only as Rustician(us)), 232; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1207 no. 2698. 43–66 CE.

Dis Manibus / Claudiae / Antoniae / lib(ertae) Lachne. / Philippus Rustian(us) / publicus / ab sacrario / divi Augusti / coniugi carissimae / fecit et sibi.

113. Philodamus Cas(s)ianus serv(u)s publicus Source: Date:

AE 1985, 226; cf. Luciani 2019, 284 no. 10. late first c. BCE.

Philoda/mus Ca/s(s)ianus / serv(u)s publi/cus fecit. Fu/fia curavit.

114. Philoxenus Iulian(us) public(us) de porticu Octaviae a bibliotheca Graeca Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2348 = ILS 1972; cf. Halkin 1897, 100, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828 = Camodeca – Solin 2000, 84 no. 66. first c. CE.

Philoxenus Iulian(us) / public(us) de porticu / Octaviae a bibliotheca / Graeca.

115. Phyramus (= Pyramus) publicus quin(decim)vir(alis) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2313 = CIL VI, 4847; cf. CIL VI, p. 3318; Halkin 1897, 58, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1209 no. 2708. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Phyramo (sic) / «publico» / «quin(decim) vir(ali)» / «Iunia Tertia» / «coniugi» / «suo com (sic) q(uo) v(ixit)» / «a(nnis) XXXX b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit)».

116. Plutio(n)7 publ(icus) VIIvir(um) e[pulonum] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2322; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1215 no. 2737. early second c. CE.

Clau[dia - - -] / coni[ux fecit - - -] / Plutio[ni- - -] / publ(ico) VIIvir(um) e[pulonum et] / P(ublio) Aelio Aug(usti) l[ib(erto) - - -]  / parenti et suis [lib(ertis) libertab(usque)]  / p(osteris)q(ue) e(orum).

7

Halkin 1897, 58 and Rüpke – Glock 2005, 843 no. 2737 have interpreted his name as Plutius. However, Plutius is only known as a nomen (Solin  – Salomies 1988, 145), whereas the Greek name Plutio(n) is well attested in Rome (Solin 20032, 478).

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

295

117. Po[- - -] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 34; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1215 no. 2738. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

118. Priamus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 11784; cf. AE 2001, 169. late first c. BCE.

Annia Flora / Priamo suo / publ(ico).

119. Primigenius (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

CIL VI, 1996 = CIL XIV, 2404; cf. CIL VI, p. 3235; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 703 no. 279. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Source:

- - - - - -? / [- - -]rus Paul[inus?] / [- - -]s Gabini[anus?] / [- - -] Primig[enius?] / - - - - - -?

120. Primus Cornelianus (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) Source 1:

Date:

CIL VI, 2086 = CIL VI, 32380; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292, 3824 [pars a] + CIL VI, 2103 = Scheid 1998, 283–289 no. 99; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 66, 232; CIL VI, 3261, 3292; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1237 no. 2840 [pars b]. 213 CE.

pars b, fr. 1, l. 4 (213 CE, May 20th): [- - - Detulit Primus Co]rnel(ianus) public(us) a comm(entariis) [fratrum Arvalium]. pars b, fr. 2, l. 1 (213 CE, May 20th): [- - - Detulit Primus Co]rṇel(ianus) public(us) a comm(entariis) [fratrum Arvalium … Source 2:

Date:

CIL VI, 2104 = ILS 5039 = CIL VI, 32388 = Scheid 1998, 293–302 no. 100; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 65, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3824; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1237 no. 2840 [fr. a + b]. 218–219 CE.

fr. b, ll. 28–29 (218 CE): Detulit / Primus Corne[l]ị[anus pub]ḷ(icus) [a c]ọṃm(entariis) fratr(um) Arv(alium)… fr. b, ll. 41–43 (219 CE): … piaculu]ṃ f[actum ob] f[erri elationem scripturae] / [et scalpturae operis perfecti porca et agna, struibus fertisque per Secun]dino tab(ulario) rat(ionis) s(upra) s(criptae) et

er [Primum]  / [Cornelianum a comm(entariis) fr(atrum) Arv(alium) et publicos] fṛ̣ [a]ṭṛ(um) Arv(alium).

296

Appendices

Source 3: See Anonymous publici Fratrum Arvalium (no. 163) Date: 219 CE. Source 4: CIL VI, 2105 = Scheid 1998, 305–306 no. 102; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 34, 62 and 232 (as ‘2115’); CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1237 no. 2840. Date: 221 CE. ll. 14–18 (221 CE): Isdem (scil. Grato et Seleuco) co(n)s(ulibus) piaculum / factum ob ferri elationem scripturae / et scalpturae operis perfecti per eos / quos supra, et per Primum Cornelia/num comm(entariensem) et public(os) frat(rum) Arval(ium).

121. Protarcus publicus Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2369 = CIL VI, 8338 = CIL I2, 1142 = ILLRP 890 = Terme 2012, 248–249 no. IV.31c (R. Maioglio); cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3455, 3854, CIL I2, p. 967, 969. first c. BCE, January 31st.

Protarcus p(ridie) k(alendas) F(ebruarias), / publicus.

122. Prothymus pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2370; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL V 672*,46. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / Prothymo púb(lico),  / Calvísia mánímis(sa),  / Successus collí(bertus) / fecit b(ene) m(erenti).

123. Quartio Gavianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no. 12; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1243 no. 2866. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE. - - - - - - / [- - -]N[- - -] / [Qu]artio Gavia[nus] / in locum Chresimi Liciniani / [Eu]tychianus Cupre[ssenianus] / in locum Quartionis Gaviani ce[dentis] / Lucidus Vett[- - -] / - - - - - Note:

He replaced Chresimus Licinianus (no. 44); he then left the post (cedens) and was replaced by Eutychianus Cupre[ssenianus] (no. 58).

124. Rede(m)ptus publicus Severian[us] curionalis Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2328; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1286 no. 3075 (where the public slave is recorded only as Severianus). first/second c. CE.

Rede(m)pti publici / Severian[i] / cur[io]nalis.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

297

125. Restitutus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2371 = AE 1980, 93; cf. Halkin 1897, 231. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / M(arco) Gellio Helio, / amico optimo, / Restitutus publicus / et Gellia Nymphidia / suo / coniugi karissimo / et Gellia Florentina / tatae pien˹t˺issimo fe/ cerunt.

126. Salvius Aemilianus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2372 = CIL VI, 4466; cf. Halkin 1897, 118, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. early first c. CE.

Salvius / Aemilianus / publicus. // Ogulnia / M(arci) l(iberta) / Hilara / coniunx.

127. Saturninus Venuleia[nus] (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date: Note:

See no. 52; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1265 no. 2983. 101 CE. He was replaced by [E- vel M]arinus publicus (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) (no. 52).

128. [Secun]dus ser(vus) pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 3883 = CIL VI, 32513; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. first c. CE?

[- - - Ter]ẹntio C(ai) f(ilio) / [- - -]o / [Terentia]e C(ai) l(iberta) / [Secun]dae / - - - - - -? // [- - - Secun]do ser(vo) pub(lico) [- - -] / [- - - Ter]entius [- - -] / [- - - Fe]lix lib(ertus) pub(licus) [- - -] / [- - -]is v(ivus) f(ecit) [- - -] / - - - - - -?

129. Soter servos (sic) publicus castellar(ius) aquae Annionis Veteris Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2344 = CIL VI, 8493 = ILS 1974; cf. Halkin 1897, 35, 83, 231; CIL XI, 297*,8; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3458, 3828. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Soter servos (sic) publicus / castellar(ius) aquae Annionis / Veteris fecit coniugi bene/merenti et L(ucius) Calpurnius  / Flavianus matri bene/merenti sibi et suis  / posterisq(ue) eorum.

130. Soterichus publicus Vestricianus a bubliothece (sic) porticus Octaviae Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2349 = CIL VI, 5192 = ILS 1970; cf. Halkin 1897, 100, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3417, 3828. early first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Soterichi publici / Vestriciani a / bubliothece (sic) porticus / Octaviae. / Vi(va) Statilia Helpis / coniugi b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) v(ixit) a(nnos) XXVIII.

298

Appendices

131. [S]tabilio Clodianus publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2373 = CIL VI, 4691; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. early first c. CE.

[S]tabilio / Clodianus, / publicus. // Lucilia / Sp(uri) f(ilia)? Rufa.

132. Successus publ(icus) Valerianus aedi(tuus) a sacrario divi Aug(usti)

Source 1: CIL VI, 2330a = ILS 4993; cf. Halkin 1897, 69, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1303 no. 3165. Date: first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Successus pub(licus) / Valerianus a / sacrario (scil. divi Augusti) Anni/ae Fortunatae / coniugi suae caris/simae b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit), / vixit annis XXX. Source 2: CIL VI, 2330b = ILS 4993a; cf. Halkin 1897, 69, 231; CIL VI, p.  3318, 3828; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1303 no. 3165. Date: first c. CE. D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Successus publ(icus) / Valerianus aedi(tuus) / a sacrario divi Aug(usti) / fecit sibi se vivo, b(onis) b(ene).

133. Susa publicus Acilianus Source: Date:

EpOst 1408; cf. Luciani 2019c, 284 no. 11. late first c. BCE.

Sergia A(uli) l(iberta) Helena / sibi et Susae publico / Aciliano et Felici / vernae suo et Sergiae / A(uli) l(ibertae) Pamphilae de sua / pecunia fecit. / Hoc monumentum hered(e)m / non sequitur. In fr(onte) p(edes) XV, in ag(ro) p(edes) XX.

134. Thaliarcus publicus Munatianus

Source 1: Mancini 1914, 383 no. 46; cf. CIL VI, 39521; cf. Luciani 2019c, 284 no. 12. Date: early first c. CE. T(h)aliarcus / (scil. servus) publicus Munatiaṇ[us] / et Valeria Not(i)ṣ / ollas VII.

Source 2: Mancini 1914, 383 no. 47; cf. CIL VI, 39520; Luciani 2019c, 284 no. 13. Date: early first c. CE. Thaliarchus (scil. servus) pu[blicus] / Munatianus An[toniae] / Dorchadi et A(ulo) Antoni[o - - -] / et Aucto suo ollas dat [- - -?]. Source 3: CIL VI, 37180 = CIL VI, 37598. Date: early first c. CE. C(aius) Sul(picius) Fel(ix) / ol(las) II / emi(t) de T(h)al(iarco) / publ(ico).

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

299

135. Threptus public(us) ab (sic) censu Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2334; cf. Halkin 1897, 74, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / C(aio) Vibio Thre/pto C(aius) Vibius Ty/rannus patro/nus ide(m) tata eius / et Vibia Epiteuxis / mat(er) et Threptus / public(us) ab (sic) censu / pater eius filio / suo dulcissi(mo) v(ixit) an(nis) / XIIII, d(iebus) XXVIII et [- - -] / posterisq(ue) eorum [- - -].

136. Threptus ser(vus) public(us) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2374; cf. Halkin 1897, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318. late first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Ti(berio) Claudio / Threpto, / v(ixit) a(nnos) XIII, m(enses) VI, d(ies) XXII.  / Claudia Spes et  / Threptus ser(vus)  / public(us) parent(es)  / filio dulcissim(o)  / fecer(unt).

137. Thuas Sentianus Source: Date:

See no. 100. first c. CE.

138. Victor publicus Fabianus a censibus p(opuli) R(omani) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2335 = ILS 1967; cf. Halkin 1897, 74, 231; CIL VI, p. 3828. first c. CE.

Bonus eventus. / {H}ave Victor Fabiane! Di vos / bene faciant, amici, et vos, viatores, / habeatis deos propitios! Qui Victorem / publicum Fabianum a censibus p(opuli) R(omani) non / praeteritis, salvi eatis, salvi redeatis et / vos qui me coronatis vel flores / iactatis, multis annis faciatis. / Victor Fabianus fecit sibi et / Asiniae C(ai) f(iliae) Sabinae, uxori, et C(aio) / Asinio Valeriano et / parentibus eius C(aio) Asinio Va/leriano et Attiae Sabinae / et libert(is) libertabusque / posterisque eorum. / H(uic) m(onumento) d(olus) m(alus) a(besto).

139. Vitalis Cornelianus publicus pedisequ[us] pr(aefecti) aerari militaris Source: Date:

See no. 67. third c. CE.

140. Zosimus Silian(us) public(us) sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) Source 1: See no. 23; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 1387 no. 3588. Date: late first/early second c. CE. Source 2: CIL VI, 37178; cf. CIL VI, p. 3877. Date: late first/early second c. CE. Accaeae Rhodine / Zosimus Silia(nus) public(us) / sodal(ium) Flavial(ium) co(n)iugi / optimae fecit et sibi / posterisque suis.

300

Appendices

141. [- - -] Domitianus (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2106b–c = Scheid 1998, 307–308 no. 103c–d; cf. CIL VI, p. 864, 3262, 3292; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 965 no. 1569; Luciani 2019c, 283 no. 2. 221 CE.

l. 3: [- - - allectus est - - - in] loc(um) Domitiani p[ubl(ici) ex litteris Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aur(eli)]. Note:

He was replaced by Anonymous (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) (no. 164).

142. [- - - Fe]lix lib(ertus) pub(licus) Source: Date:

See no. 128. first c. CE?

143. [- - -]lianus Flavianus a comment[ariis - - - sa]cerdotî VIIvirum epulonu[m] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2319b; cf. Halkin 1897, 58, 231; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 710 no. 338. late second/early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / [- - -]lianus Flavianus a comment[ariis - - -]  / [sa]cerdotî VIIvirum epulonu[m et] / [Au]relia Heraclia coniunx e[- - -] / [- - -]i sibi fecerunt sibi et sui[s].

144. [- - -]ius Crassianus [pub]licus curionalis Source: Date:

AE 1978, 41; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 709 no. 330. late first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / [Br]ịttidiae Tyche / [- - -]ius Crassianus / [pub]licus curionalis / [coni]ugi bene merenti / fecit et sibi.

145. [- - -]+++ius? (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 62; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 708 no. 323. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He was replaced by [- - -]+um Claudianus (no. 149).

146. [- - -]orus pub(licus) ab aram (sic) [- - -] Iulian`u´

Source 1: AE 1976, 14 = Avetta 1985, 134–135 no. 123; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 713 no. 361 (where the public slave is recorded as [- - -]orus Iulianus) = Rüpke – Glock 2005, 713 no.  365 (where the public slave is recorded only as Severianus [- - -]ovus Iulianus). Date: first c. CE. [D(is)] M(anibus). / [- - -]ịae Liteni coniug(i) / [car]ịssimae fecit / [- - -]orus, pub(licus) ab aram (sic) / [- - -] Ịulian`u´ sibi et suis / [po]sterisque / eius. / [In fr(onte) p(edes)] ṾI ((semis et quadrantem)), in agr(o) p(edes) X.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

301

147. [- - -]rus Paul[inus?] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 119; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 714 no. 370. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

148. [- - -]s Gabini[anus?] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 119; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 715 no. 375. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

149. [- - -]+um Claudian[us] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 62; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 717 no. 392. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He replaced [- - -]+++ius? (no. 145)

150. [- - -] Antonianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

CIL VI, 1990 = CIL XIV, 2401; cf. CIL VI, p. 3235; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 766 no. 650. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Source:

- - - - - - / [- - - in loc?]um [- - -] / [- - -] Antonia[nus?] / [- - -]ani cedentis [- - -] / [- - -in lo] cum / - - - - - Note:

He replaced [- - -]anus who had left the post (cedens) (no. 158)

151. [- - -] Cesinianus publicus pontifi[cum vel -calis] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2309; cf. Halkin 1897, 55, 231; CIL VI, p. 3318 (fr. A) + CIL VI, 22385 (fr. B); AE 2006, 221 (fr. A + B); Rüpke – Glock 2005, 699 no. 259.8 first/second c. CE.

Dis Manibus. / Memmiae Romanae, / patronae bene merenti, et / A(ulo) Memmio Telesiniano, f(ilio) suo, / qui v(ixit) a(nnos) II, d(ies) XXXVIIII, h(oras) X, / [Memmia E]pigone fecit sibi et / [- - -] Cesiniano publico pontifi/[cum vel -alis marito et] A(ulo) Memmio Romano f(ilio) suo / [et libert(is) libe]rtabusque suis post eorum.

152. [- - - C]ornelianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source:

See no. 157; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 699 no. 260 = Rüpke – Glock 2005, 905 no. 1303. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: 166 CE.

8

A modern copy of fr. B is CIL X, 1045*,5 = CIL XII, 68*, II.3; cf. p. 77*.

302

Appendices

153. [- - -]tonianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 155; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 717 no. 389. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE.

154. [- - -]enianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

CIL VI, 1999 = CIL XIV, 2402; cf. CIL VI, p. 3235; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 707 no. 307. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

Source:

- - - - - - / [- - -]os[- - -] / [- - - ced]entis propter ini[tum? - - -] / [- - -]enian[- - -] / - - - - - -

155. [- - -]inianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no. 9; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 708 no. 318. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE. - - - - - - / [- - -]nus [- - -] / [- - -]inianus / [- - -]tonianus / - - - - - -

156. [- - -]nianus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 34; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 707 no. 311. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE.

157. [- - -]sianu[s] (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: Paribeni 1926, 307–308 no. 10; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 716 no. 381. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE. - - - - - - / [- - -]sianu[s] / [in locum? - - -] cedentis / [- - - C]ornelianu[s] / - - - - - ̣ Note:

He replaced a publicus sodalium Claudialium who had left the post (cedens), whose name is lost (no. 169).

158. [- - -]anus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 150; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 705 no. 295. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He was replaced by [- - -] Antonianus (no. 150).

159. [- - -]nus (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) Source: See no. 155; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 712 no. 353. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: second c. CE.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

303

160. [- - -]os[- - -]? (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium)

Source: See no. 154; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 713 no. 364. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He replaced a publicus sodalium Claudialium who had left the post (cedens) and whose name is lost (no. 168).

161. [- - -]tt[- - -]iss(- - -)? publicus a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -i vel -alibus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2341; cf. Halkin 1897, 76 with n. 1. first c. CE.

[- - -]tt/[- - -]iss(- - -)? / publico a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -i vel -alibus) / qui vix(it) ann(is) XVIII, dieb(us) LX, / parentes b(ene) m(erenti) fecerunt.

162. [- - - pu]blicus An[nianus?] Source: Date:

See no. 65. first/second c. CE?

163. Anonymous publici fratrum Arvalium

Source 1: CIL VI, 2053 = CIL VI, 32360 = Scheid 1998, 112–113 no. 42; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 67, 232; CIL VI, 3261. Date: 72 CE.

ll. 13–16 (72 CE, April/May): Imp(eratore) C[aesar]e Ves[pasiano Aug(usto) I]I̅ Ị̅ I̅ , Tito Caesare Imp(eratore) I̅ I̅ co(n)ṣ(ulibus) / [- - -] Maias / [piaculu]m factuṃ [in luc]ọ deae Diae ob arborem, qua[e] / [a] ṭempestate d[eciderat], per ̣ calatorem et publicos. Source 2: CIL VI, 2059 = CIL VI, 32363 = ILS 5033 = ILS 5043 = ILS 5049 = Scheid 1998, 125–129 no. 48; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 65, 66, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 81 CE. ll. 17–19 (81 CE, January 15th): L(ucio) Flavio Silva Nonio Basso, Asinio Pollione Verrucoso co(n)s(ulibus) XVIII k(alendas) Febr(uarias)  / in luco deae Diae piaculum factum per calatorem et publicos eius sacerdoti, quod arbor / a vetustate decidit, expiandum porcam et agnam opimam. ll. 20–22 (81 CE, May 1st): L(ucio) Vettio Paullo, T(ito) Iunio Montano co(n)s(ulibus) k(alendis) Mais in lúco deae Diae piaculum / fáctum per calatorem et publicos eius sáceŕdoti ob ferrum inlatum in aedem scrip(t)ur(a) / caussa porcam et agnam opimam. ll. 23–24 (81 CE, May 13th): Isdem (scil. L(ucio) Vettio Paullo, T(ito) Iunio Montano) co(n) s(ulibus) III idus Maias in luco deae Diae piaculum factum per calatorem et publicos / eius sacerdoti ob ferrum de áede elatum porcam et agnam opimam.

304

Appendices

Source 3: CIL VI, 2060 = CIL VI, 32364 = Scheid 1998, 130–133 no. 49; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 81 CE. ll. 5–7 (81 CE, March 29th): M(arco) Róscio Coelio, C(aio) Iulio Iuvenale co(n)s(ulibus) IIII k(alendas) Apr(iles) in luco deaé Diae piaculum factum / per kalatórem et publicós eius sacerdoti ob arbores, quae a tempestate nivis / deciderant exp[i]andas, porcam et agnam opimam. Source 4: CIL VI, 2071 = Scheid 1998, 140–142 no. 53; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3280. Date: 84 CE. col. I, ll. 4–5 (84 CE, May 27th): … Pueri senatorum fili patrimi matrimi praetextati cum cala]/[toribus et publicis ad] ạram ret(t)ulerunt. Source 5: CIL VI, 2065 = ILS 5029 = ILS 5045 = CIL VI, 32367 = Scheid 1998, 146–152 no. 55; cf. CIL VI, p. 864, 3261. Date: 87 CE. col. II, ll. 65–69 (87 CE, April 15th): L(ucio) M[inicio Rufo, D(ecimo)] Plotio Grypo co(n) s(ulibus) (ante diem) XVII k(alendas) Mai(as) piaculu[m factum in luco] / [deae Diae per calatore]m et publicos ob ferrum in[latum scripturae et scalpturae], / [ut acta insculperentur magis]teri C(ai) Iul[i S]ilani. / [- - - co(n)s(ulibus) - - - piac]ulum f[actum a]d de[am Diam per calatorem] / [et publicos ob] ferṛ[um elatum - - -]. col. II, ll. 54–57 (87 CE, September 10th): [C(aio) Cilnio Proculo, L(ucio) Neratio] Prisco co(n)s(ulibus) (ante diem) IIII idus Sept(embres), mag(isterio) C(ai) Iuli / [Sila]ni, in luco deae Diae, quod ramus ex arbore ilicina ob / [v]etustatem deciderit, piaculum factum est per calatorem et / [p]ublicos. Source 6: CIL VI, 2066 = CIL VI, 32369 = Scheid 1998, 154–157 no. 57; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 89 CE. ll. 48–50 (89 CE, April 12th): [Isdem c]o(n)s(ulibus) pr(idie) idus April(es) / [in luco piaculum] factum ob a[rbor]em expiata, cui prae/[- - -] per publicos [et ca]latorem. Source 7: CIL VI, 2067 = CIL VI, 32389 = Scheid 1998, 158–163 no. 58; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 65, 66, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3280 [fr. a]. Date: 90–91 CE. fr. a, ll. 43–44 (90 CE, April 24th): [L(ucio) Antistio Rustico, Ser(vio) Iulio Serviano co(n) s(ulibus)], VIIII k(alendas) Maias, magisterio P(ubli) Sallusti Blaesi I̅ I̅ , / [in luco deae Diae piaculum factum per kalatorem et publicos porc]am et agnam expiatam arborem ob vetustatem, quod decidit.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

305

fr. a, ll. 46–47 (90 CE, May 25th): … pueri senatorum fili patrimi / [matrimi praetextati cum publicis ad aram rettulerunt]. fr. a, ll. 62–63 (90 CE, May 28th): … et fruges libatas, ministrantibus calatoribus et publicis, pueri riciniati / [praetextati ad aram rettulerunt. … fr. a, ll. 64–65 (91 CE, April 29th): [M(anio) Acilio Glabrione, M(arco) Ul]pio Traiano co(n) s(ulibus) III k(alendas) Maias / [piaculum factum in luco deae Diae per calatorem et publicos ob ferrum in]latum, ut acta insculperentur magisteri P(ubli) Sallusti Blaesi II. fr. a, l. 66 (91 CE, unknown day): [Isdem (scil. M(anio) Acilio Glabrione, M(arco) Ulpio Traiano) co(n)s(ulibus) - - - piaculum factum in luco deae Diae per ca]latorem et publicos ob ferrum elatum. Source 8: CIL VI, 2068 = ILS 5036 = Scheid 1998, 164–168 no.  59; cf. CIL VI, p.  864; Halkin 1897, 65, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3280. Date: 91–92 CE. col. II, ll. 22–24 (91 CE, May 17th): … et fruges li[batas ministrantibus kala] / toribus et publicis pueri ricinat[i praetextati ad aram rettu]/lerunt. col. II, ll. 26–30 (91 CE, November 5th): Q(uinto) Valerio Vegeto, P(ublio) Met[ilio Nepote co(n)s(ulibus)] / non(is) Nov(embribus), / magisterio II L(uci) Verati Quadrati, [piaculum factum per kala] / torem et publicos et aedituom in [luco deae Diae porcam et ag] / nam. col. II, ll. 41–43 (92 CE, April 25th): Piaculum factum per calatorem [et publicos ob ferrum inla] / tum et elatum scalpturae et [scripturae magisteri consum] / [mati fratrum Ar]valium [- - -]. Source 9: CIL VI, 2074 = CIL VI, 32371 = Scheid 1998, 177–183 no. 62; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261 [fr. a + b]. Date: 101 CE. fr. a, ll. 74–76 (101 CE, April 25th): Q(uinto) Servaeo Innocente, M(arco) Maecio Celere co(n) s(ulibus) / (ante diem) VI k(alendas) Mai(as) in luco deae Diae arbores expiatae, quod vetustate vel vi maiori deciderant, porcis et / [agnis, struibus fertisque per calatorem et publicos eorum]. fr. b, ll. 1–4 (101 CE, unknown day): [Isdem (scil. Q(uinto) Servaeo Innocente, M(arco) Maecio Celere) co(n)s(ulibus) - - -] / in [luco deae Diae magisterio Ti(beri) Claudi Sacerdotis Iuliani piaculum factu]m, quod arbor / vetusṭạ[te deciderat, porcam et agnam, struibu]s fertisq[ue per calatorem] / et publicos eoṛ[um]… fr. b, ll. 79–82 (101 CE, unknown day): [Isdem (scil. Q(uinto) Servaeo Innocente, M(arco) Maecio Celere) co(n)s(ulibus) - - -] / in [luco deae Diae magisterio Ti(beri) Claudi Sacerdotis Iuliani piaculum factu]m, quod arbor / vetusṭạ[te deciderat, porcam et agnam, struibu]s fertisq[ue per calatorem] / et publicos eoṛ[um].

306

Appendices

Source 10: CIL VI, 2075 = ILS 5046 = CIL VI, 32372 = Scheid 1998, 185–189 no. 64; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 64, 67, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 105 CE. col. I, ll. 37–41 (105 CE, unknown day): Isdem (scil. Ti(berio) Iulio Candido Mario Celso II, C(aio) Antio A(ulo) Iulio Quadrato I̅ I̅ ) co(n)s(ulibus) k(alendas) [- - -] / in luco deae Diae piaculum factuṃ [ob arbores lau]/rus caedendas, quod tempestatibus perusta[e erant], / porcis et agnis, struibus fertisque per M(arcum) Valeri[um] / Trebicium Decianuṃ [mag(istrum)] ministrantibus public[is]. ̣ col. I, ll. 48–49 (105 CE, May 17th): … Pueri patrimi matrimi prae]textati cum pu/ḅḷịc ̣ịṣ ạd ara[m rettulerunt … col. II, ll. 35–37 (105 CE, May 20th): [Et fruges libatas] ministrantibus calatoṛ[ibus, pueri] / [riciniati praetextati cu]m publicis ad aram r[ettu]le / [runt. …]. Source 11: CIL VI, 2076 = Scheid 1998, 197–200 no. 67; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 117 CE. fr. a, l. 15 (117 CE, May 17th): … Pueri patrimi matrimi praetextati cum publicis ad ar]a rettulerunt … Source 12: CIL VI, 2078 = CIL VI, 32374 = Scheid 1998, 203–209 no. 68; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 64, 66, 67; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3824. Date: 118–119 CE. col. I, ll. 40–44 (118 CE, March 6th): Isd(em) (scil. Imp(eratore) Caesare Traiano Hadriano Aug(usto) II, Cn(aeo) Pedanio Fuscọ Salinatore) co(n)s(ulibus) pr(idie) non(as) ̣ M[art(ias)]  / [i]n luco deae Diae piaculum ob arb[orum caeden]/darum causa quae tempestate vel vi maiori decidẹ[rant]  / porcis et agnis, [s]truibus fertisque per M(arcum) Valeriu[m] / Trebicium Deci[an]um mag(istrum) II et publicos Arva[lium]. col. I, ll. 51–53 (118 CE, May 27th): … pueri patrimi [et matrimi] / senatorum fili praetextati cum publicis ad [aram] / rettulerunt … col. II, ll. 17–18 (118 CE, May 30th): fruge[s libatas ministr]antibu[s] kalatoribus, pueri [rici] niati / praetex[tati cum pu]bli[cis ad ar]am r[ettuleru]nt … fr. a, ll. 7–10 (119 CE, April/May): [Imp(eratore) Caes(are) Traiano Hadri]ano Au[g(usto) II]I, A(ulo) Platorio Nepote co(n)s(ulibus) / [- - - in luco deae Diae pi]ac(ulum) fact(um) ob fer[rum inlat]um scriptur(ae) et scalptur(ae) / [magisteri consummati Trebici Dec]iani porcis et agnis struib(us) fertisq(ue) per [kalatorem eius] / [- - - et p]ublico[s fr]atrum Arvalium. fr. a, ll. 11–14 (119 CE, April/May): [Q(uinto) Gargilio Antiqu]o, [Q(uinto) Vibi]o Gallo co(n)s(ulibus) VIỊ[I? - - -]  / [in luco deae Diae piac(ulum) fact(um) ob ferrum elatum script(urae)] et scalpt(urae) m[agisteri consummati]  / [Trebici Deciani porcis et agnis, struib(us) f]ert[isque per kalatorem eius - - -] / [- - - et publicos fratrum Arvalium].

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

307

Source 13: CIL VI, 2080 = CIL VI, 32375 = Scheid 1998, 210–214 no. 69; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 65, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3824. Date: 120–121 CE. ll. 32 (120 CE, May 27th): pueri patrimi et matrim[i se]nátorum fili praetextáti cum publicis ad aram rettulérunt C(aius) Statius Ceriális, L(ucius) Iulius. ll. 53–54 (120 CE, May 30th): … fruges libatas mi]nistrantibus calatoribus pueri riciniati cum [publicis ad aram] / [re]ttuler[unt …]. ll. 56–58 (121 CE, March 26th): M(arco) [Herennio? F]austo, Q(uinto) Pomponio Marcello co(n)s(ulibus) VII id(us) Apr(iles) / [in luco deae Diae pi]aculu[m factu]m ob ferrum inlatum scripturae et scalpturáe magisteri con[sum]mati C(ai) Vito[ri] / Hosidi Getae porcis et agn[is], struibus fertisque per publicos et calatorem eius Hosidium Achilleum. ll. 59–61 (121 CE, May 2nd or 11th): T(ito) Pomponio An[ti]stiano, L(ucio) Pomponio Silvano co(n)s(ulibus) V[… non(as)? Maias] / in luco deae Diáe piaculum [fa]ctum ob ferrum elatum scripturae et scalpt[urae magisteri consu]mmati C(ai) Vitori / Hosidi Getae [po]rcis et agnis, struibus fertisque per publicos et calatórem [eius Hosidium Ac]hilleum. Source 14: CIL VI, 2081 = Scheid 1998, 216–218 no. 71; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 124 CE. ll. 12–13 (124 CE, May 27th): … Pueri patrimi matrimi] / sẹ[natorum fili prae]textati cum publ[icis a]d aram re[ttulerunt - - -]. Source 15: CIL VI, 2083 = CIL VI, 32377 = Scheid 1998, 220 no.  73; cf. CIL VI, p.  864; Halkin 1897, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 129 CE. ll. 1–4 (129 CE, February 22nd): Q(uinto) Fabio Catulḷ[ino, M(arco) Flavio Apr]o co(n) s(ulibus) VIIII k(alendas) M[artias] / [i]n luco deae Diae pia[culum fact(um) ob ferrum in]ḷatum script(urae) et sca[lpt(urae)] / mag(isteri) I̅ I̅ comsumm[ati L(uci) Antoni Albi porcis et] agnis, struib(us) fertị[sque] / [pe]ṛ L(ucium) Antonium [Album et publicos fratr(um)] Arval(ium) [et aedi]tuu[m]. ll. 5–8 (129 CE, March 19th): [- - - Ca]ssio Agri[ppa, Ti(berio)? Claudio?] Quartị[no c]o(n) s(ulibus) XI[I]II k(alendas) [Apriles] / [in luco de]ae Diae piac[ulum fact(um) ob ferrum el]atum scri[pt(urae) et s]c ̣aḷ[pt(urae)] mag(isteri) [II con]/[summati] L(uci) Anton[i Albi porcis et ag]nis, struiḅ(us) [fertisque per L(ucium) An]/[tonium A]ḷbu[m et publicos fratr(um)] Arval(ium) et a[edituum].

308

Appendices

Source 16: CIL VI, 2085 = ILS 5038 = ILS 5038 = CIL VI, 32379 = Scheid 1998, 231–233 no. 78; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 145 CE. ll. 25–26 (145 CE, May 17th): … pueri] / patrimi et matrimi senatorum fili praetextati cum publicis at aram ret(t)ulerunt … Source 17: CIL VI, 2086 = ILS 5030 = ILS 5041 = CIL VI, 32380 = Scheid 1998, 236–239 no. 80; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 65, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3824, 3292. Date: 155–156 CE. ll. 26–27 (155 CE, May 17th): … pueri patrimi et [matrimi senatorum fili praetex] / tati cum publicis ad aram [r]etulerunt … ll. 53–55 (155 CE; May 20th): … Fruges / liba[tas ministrant(ibus) ca]latoribus pueri riciniati cum publicis ad / ara[m rettulerunt … ll. 56–59 (155 CE, May 30th): [Isdem (scil. C(aio) Aufidio Victorino, M(arco) Gavio Maximo)] co(n)s(ulibus) (ante diem) III k(alendas) Iun(ias) / in luco [deae Diae piaculum fact] um ob arborem expiandam, quae ve/[tustate deciderat, porca]m eṭ agnam, struibus ferctisq(ue) per M(arcum) Fulvi / [um Apronianum pro]magist(rum) et pu[b]licos fratrum Arvalium. ll. 65–70 (156 CE, March 14th): A(ulo) Avillio Urinatio Quadrato, / Straboni Aemiliano co(n) s(ulibus) / pridie idus Mart(ias) (sic) / piaculum factum ob ferrum inlatum (sic) scalpturae magisterio Avilli Quadra/ti consummati porca et agna, struibus fertisque per Proculum calatorem / et publicos fratrum Arvalium. ll. 71–74 (156 CE, March 7th): Isdem (scil. A(ulo) Avillio Urinatio Quadrato, Straboni Aemilian\o) co(n)s(ulibus) non(as) Mart(is) (sic) / piaculum factum ob ferrum elatum (sic) scriptura et scalturae magiste/ri consummati Avilli Quadrati porca et agna, struibus fertisque per / Proculum calatorem et publicos fratrum Arvalium. Source 18: CIL VI, 2087 = Scheid 1998, 240 no. 81; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 65, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3290. Date: 157 CE. col. II, ll. 8–9 (157 CE, May 27th): … fruges libatas ministrantibus calatori]  / bus pueri r`i´cinịạ[ti cum publicis ad aram rettulerunt … Source 19: CIL VI, 2096 = Scheid 1998, 257 no. 91; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3291. Date: 161–180 CE. ll. 1–3 (161–180 CE, March/April?): [- - - co(n)s(ulibus) - - - Ap]ril(es) / [piaculum factum ob ferri inlationem scripturae et scalpturae] mag(isteri) peracti porca et / [agna, struibus fertisque per - - - calatorem et publicos frat]r(um) Arvalium.

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

309

ll. 4–6 (161–180 CE, May 3rd): [- - - co(n)]s(ulibus) V non(as) Mai(as) / [piaculum factum ob ferri elationem script(urae) et sca]lpt(urae) mag(isteri) peracti porca / [et agna, struibus fertisque per - - -] calatorem et publicos. Source 20: CIL VI, 2099 = ILS 5047 = CIL VI, 32386 = Scheid 1998, 263–269 no. 94; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 65, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 4149. Date: 183–184 CE. col. II, ll. 15–19 (183 CE, May 17th): Isdem (scil. M(arco) Herennio Secundo, M(arco) Egnatio Postumo) co(n)s(ulibus) XVI k(alendas) Iun(ias) in domum Licini Nepotis mag(istri) fratres Arvales praetextati  / sacri˹fi˺cium deae Diae ture et vino fecerunt, ibique discumbentes toralibus  / segmentatis, ministrantibus pueris patrimis et matrimis senatorum filis, / Acilio Aviola et Acilio Severo et M(arco) Ulpio Boetho et Cl(audio) Sulpiciano, cum publicis / ad aram ret(t)ulerunt. col III, ll. 11–12 (183 CE, May 20th): … fruges inlibatas m[inistrantibus calatoribus] / pueri riciniati cum publicis ad aram ret(t)ulerunt … col. III, ll. 19–21 (184 CE, unknown day): L(ucio) Cossonio Eggio Marullo, Cn(aeo) Papirio Aeliano c[o(n)s(ulibus) - - - piaculum factum] / ob ferri inlatum scripturae scalpturae ̣ m[agisteri peracti porca et agna] / struibus fertisque per M(arco) Ustio Narcisso kalaṭ[orem et publicos fratr(um) Arval(ium)]. col. III, ll. 22–25 (184 CE, May 18th): C(aio) Octavio Vindice XV k(alendas) Iun(ias) et [- - - co(n)s(ulibus)]  / piaculum factum ob ferri elationi scriptu[rae et scalpturae magisteri pe]/racti porca et agna, struibus fertisque [per M(arcum) Ustium Narcissum] / kalatorem et publicos fratrum Arvaliu[m]. Source 21: CIL VI, 2100 = Scheid 1998, 270–273 no. 95; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292. Date: 186 CE. ll. 15–20 (186 CE, May 27th): [- - - L(ucio) Annio Ra]vo, L(ucio) Novio Rufo co(n)s(ulibus), VI K(alendas) Iun(ias) / [in domum - - - mag(istri)] per promag(istrum) Fl(avium) Sulpicianum fratr(es) Ar[val(es) prae]/[textati sacrificium deae Di]ae ture et vino fecerunt ibique d[iscumbentes] / [toralibus albis segm]entatis ministrantib(us) pueris patr[imis et ma] / [trimis senatorum filii]s Acilio Aviola et Acilio Severo e[t M(arco) Ulpio Boetho?] / [et Helvio Pertin]ace iun(iore) cum public(is) ad aram re[t(t)ulerunt]. Source 22: CIL VI, 2101 = Scheid 1998, 274 no. 96; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 65, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292. Date: 180–192 CE. ll. 7–8 (180–192 CE, May 27th): … fruges inlibatas] / [cum] calatoribus pu[eri riciniati cum ̣ publicis ad aram rettulerunt].

310

Appendices

Source 23: CIL VI, 2086 = CIL VI, 32380; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292, 3824 [pars a] + CIL VI, 2103 = Scheid 1998, 283–289 no. 99; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292 [pars b]. Date: 213–214 CE. pars a, l. 14 (213 CE, May 20th): … Fruges libantes cum calatoribus et public(is) ad aram ret(t) ulerunt … pars b, fr. 2, col. I, ll. 21–24 (214 CE, unknown day): [- - -? piaculum factum fe]rr(i) inferend(i) / [scriptur(ae) et scalptur(ae) marm(oris) agna]m et porcil(iam) / [struib(us) et fertis per calato]r(em) / [et publ(icos)]. pars b, fr. 2, col. II, ll. 21–23 (214 CE, unknown day): Piaculum factum / ferri effer(endi) per [calator(em)] / et pub[licos]. Source 24: CIL VI, 2104 = ILS 5039 = CIL VI, 32388 = Scheid 1998, 293–302 no. 100; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 65, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3824 [fr. a + b]. Date: 218–219 CE. fr. a, ll. 14–16 (218 CE, May 27th): [Fratres Ar]vales ˹p˺ost epula˹s˺ super toralibus segmentatis discubuer(unt) et t(ure) v(ino) f(ecerunt) et per pueros praetext(atos) / [senato]rum fil˹i˺os et public(os) a˹d˺ aram pertul(erunt) et unguent(a) et coronas acceperunt et in mantelis  / [seg]ṃentatis contigellunt … fr. a, ll. 26–31 (218 CE, May 29th): item ˹f˺lam(en) et promag(ister) scyfos (sic) arg(enteos) cum sumpuis (!) / vino re˹p˺letis ante osteum acerras ture et vino fecer(unt), et ante osteum ˹r˺estite˹r˺(unt) et duo ad fruges petendas / cum publicos (sic) desciderunt et reversi dextra dederunt, ˹l˺aev˹a˺ rec˹e˺perunt; deinde a˹d˺ alterutrum sibi ˹re˺dd(iderunt), / et public(is) frug(es) tradider(unt). Deinde in aedem intraver(unt) et ollas precati sunt, et osteis apertis per clivum iacṭa/verunt, deinde subsellis marmoreis consed(erunt) et panes laureat(os) per public(os) partiti sunt … fr. a, l. 38 (218 CE, May 29th): Post tripodationem deinde signo dato publ˹i˺c˹i˺ introier(unt) et libellos receperunt. fr. b, l. 16 (218 CE, May 30th): … Frug(es) libat(as) cum calat(oribus) et public(is) ad aram [ret(t)ulerunt]. fr. b, ll. 38–41 (219 CE, unknown day): Imp(eratore) Antonino Aug(usto) II et S]acerdote II co(n)s(ulibus) / [- - - piaculum factum mag(isteri) - - - in luco deae Diae o]b ferri inlationem scripturae / [et scalpturae marmoris porca et agna, struibus fertisque per Secundinum?] tab(ularium) rat(ionis) k(astrensis) / [et public(os) fratr(um) Arv(alium) … See also no. 120 (Source 2).

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

311

Source 25: CIL VI, 2067 = ILS 5040 = ILS 5044 = CIL VI, 32389 = Scheid 1998, 303–304 no. 101; cf. Halkin 1897, 65, 232; CIL VI, p. 3280. Date: 219 CE. l. 2 (219 CE, May 19th): Deind(e) subsẹḷḷ(iis) maṛṃ(oreis) c[o] ̣ ṇsed(erunt) et panes laur(eatos) per public(os) partiti sunt … ll. 4–5 (219 CE, May 19th): Deinde ṣigno ḍạṭọ pụḅḷ(ici) ịṇtroịẹṛ(unt) et libell(os) recep(erunt) et ante ịanuaṃ deạe Diae adsteterunt et co/rona˹s˺ derẹctas per coṃ[m(entariensem)] citante(m)9 singulor(um) inferentibus aras contegerunt … ll. 16–18 (219 CE, May 20th): … Fruges livatae sunt; per calatori˹b˺us ministrantibus et per pueros praetex/tatos cum publicis ad aram ret(t)ulerunt … Source 26: CIL VI, 2105 = Scheid 1998, 305–306 no. 102; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 3292. Date: 221 CE. ll. 6–13 (221 CE, May 9th): Grato et Seleuco co(n)s(ulibus) VII id(us) Mai(as) / piaculum factum mag(isteri) II Fl(avi) Archelai / in luco deae Diae ob ferri inlatione / scripturae et scalpturae marmoris  / per Fl(avium) Archelaum c(larissimum) v(irum) fratrem Arval(em) / et public(os) et a sacris, porcam piacular(em), / struibus fertis, et agnam, quorum extae redditae sunt. See also no. 120 (Source 4). Source 27: CIL VI, 2107a = CIL VI, 32390a = Scheid 1998, 313–316 no.  105; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 66, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261, 4149. Date: 225 CE. ll. 23–26 (225 CE, April 19th): Fusco II et Dextro có(n)s(ulibus) X[I]III k(alendas) Mai(as) in luco deae Diae [p(iaculum)] f(actum) mag(isteri) I Porci Prisci ob  / ferri inlationem scriptur(ae) et scalptur(ae) marmor(is) causa, immol(ante) ipso mag(istro) / porcam et agnam, struib(us) e˹t˺ fertis, et extas reddid(it) ad aram, ministran/tibus public(is) et pr(a) e˹s˺entibus a sacr(is) d(omini) n(ostri) Aug(usti) … ll. 26–28 (225 CE, May 5th): … Item immolavit ob ferri / elationem scripturae et scal˹p˺tur(ae) et operis perfecti III non(as) Mai(as) / per Porc(ium) P˹h˺ilologo calat(orem) et per public(os) fratr(um) Arvalium.

9

The commentariensis citans is Primus Cornelianus (no. 120).

312

Appendices

Source 28: CIL VI, 2109 = AE 1900, 3 = CIL VI, 37164 = Scheid 1998, 319–320 no. 107; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 237 CE. ll. 5–7 (237 CE, May 19th): … et mag(ister) et f[lam(en) et pu]ḅl(ici), duo sa / [cerdotes ollas] accip(erunt) et ianuis [ap]ẹṛtis per clivu[m M]ạṭr(i) Larum ce / [nam iactaver(unt). Source 29: AE 1915, 102 = ILS 9522 = CIL VI, 39443 = Scheid 1998, 331–337 no. 114. Date: 240–241 CE. col. I, ll. 37–41 (240 CE, May 27th): … et cum public(is) ad ar(am) / per˹t˺ulerunt … col. II, ll. 19–24 (240 CE, May 29th): … et promag(ister)  / et flam(en) et publ(ici), duo sace˹r˺dotes o˹l˺l(as) acc(eperunt) et ˹i˺anuis aper/tis per clivum Matri Larum cenam iactaverunt … col. III, ll. 8–14 (241 CE, unknown day): Imp(eratore) [Caes(are) M(arco) Antonio Gordiano Pio Fel(ici) Aug(usto), Clodio? Pompeiano co(n)s(ulibus)], [- - - - - -] / in luc[o deae Diae piaculum fact(um) mag(isteri) Fl(avi) Honorati] / Lucil[iani ob ferri inlationem scripturae et scalpturae mar] / more[s causa porcam piacularem et agnam, struibus fertis] / que +[per - - c(larissimum) v(irum) fratr(em) Arv(alem) et] / pub[l(icos) fratr(um) Arv(alium)]. Source 30: CIL VI, 2114 = Scheid 1998, 338–340 no. 115; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 63, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 241 CE. l. 20 (241 CE, May 17th): … et cu[m publicis ad aram ret(t)uler(unt) …

164. Anonymous (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) Source: Date: Note:

See no. 141; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 677 no. 105. 221 CE. He replaced [- - -] Domitianus (scil. publicus fratrum Arvalium) (no. 141) as a publicus Fratrum Arvalium.

165. Anonymous officiales fratrum Arvalium

Source 1: CIL VI, 2109 = AE 1900, 3 = CIL VI, 37164 = Scheid 1998, 319–320 no. 107; cf. CIL VI, p. 864; Halkin 1897, 232; CIL VI, p. 3261. Date: 237 CE? ll. 13–14 (237? CE, May 19th?): … de]ịnde in aede(m) reversi [sunt et libellos acc(eperunt) et] / [tripodantes carm(en) leger(unt) et dato s]ịgn(o) offic[ial(ibus) libellos reddid(erunt)]. ̣ Source 2: AE 1915, 102 = ILS 9522 = CIL VI, 39433 = Scheid 1998, 331–337 no. 114. Date: 240 CE. col. II, ll. 35–7 (240 CE): … Deinde in aede(m) reversi sunt et libe˹l˺los / acc(eperunt), et tripodan˹t˺es c˹ar˺m(en) leger(unt), et sign(o) dato offic˹i˺al(ibus) / libe˹l˺los re˹d˺did(erunt) …

Appendix 1 Public Slaves in Rome

313

166. Anonymous publicus (scil. pontificum vel pontificalis) Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2120 = ILS 8380 = Terme 2012, 552 no. IX.13 (C. Ricci); cf. CIL III, 263*,7; Halkin 1897, 55–56, 231; CIL VI, 32398a; CIL VI, p. 3826; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 681 no. 128. 155 CE.

Velius Fidus Iubentio Celso col/legae suo salutem (scil. dicit). Desideri7F fra/ter, Arri Alphii, Arriae Fadillae Domi/ni n(ostri) Imp(eratoris) Antonini Aug(usti) matris liberti, / libellum tibi misi, cogniti mihi ex  / longo tempore primae iubentutis (sic).  / Etiam miratus, cum ab aedibus es/sem, quot eo lo(co) se contulisset, a quo / didici causa se requitionis (sic) set (sic) et re/ligionis magnope(re) a domino n(ostro) Imp(eratore) / impetrasse. Ita, ne qua mora videa/ tur ei per nos fieri, libellum subscrip/tum per eu(n)dem pụblicum (scil. servum pontificum) sine mora / mihi remittas; opto tẹ salv˹um˺ et fe˹li˺cem es(se). / Exe(m)plu(m) libelli dati: / Cum ante hos dies coiugem (sic) et filium ami/serim e[t], pressus necessitate, corpora eorum / fictili sarcofago (sic) commendaverim, doni/qu`e´ is locụs, quem emeram aedificaretur vi/a Flaminia inter miliar(ia) II e[t] III ẹuntibus a/b Urbe parte laeva, custodia monumenti  / Fla(viae) Thumeles, ma˹u˺solae(o) M(arci) Sili Orcili: / rogo, domin(e), permittas mihi in eodem lo/co in marmoreo sarcofago (sic), quem mihi mo/do comp[a]ravi, ea corpora colligere, ut cuan/done (sic) ego esse desier(o), pariter cum eis ponar. / ˹D˺ecretum: fieri placet. Iubentius Celsus / promagister subscripsi. III Nonas No(v)emb(res) / Antio Pol(l)ione et Opimiano Ko(n)s(ulibus) ordina˹ri˺is / ˹S˺evero et Sabiniano co(n)s(ulibus).

167. Anonymous (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) 1 Source: See no. 62; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 681 no. 127. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He replaced Armeni(- - -) (no. 36).

168. Anonymous (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) 2

Source: See no. 154; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 680 no. 125. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: late second/early third c. CE. Note: He left the post to take a new one (cedens propter initum …) and was replaced by [- - -]os[- - -]? (no. 160).

169. Anonymous (scil. publicus sodalium Augustalium Claudialium) 3 Source: See no. 157. Provenance: Bovillae. Date: 166 CE. Note: He was replaced by [- - -]sianu[s] (no. 157).

314

Appendices

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns Regio I Aricia 170. M(arcus) Arrecinus Gellianus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 172 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L1; cf. Halkin 1897, 243. first/second c. CE. son of Primigenius r(ei) p(ublicae) Aricinorum ser(vus) arc(arius) (no. 172).

171. Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus) Source: Date:

AE 1957, 105; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 2. first/second c. CE.

Euhelpistus Aricinor(um scil. servus)  / Iovi Opt(imo) Max(imo).  / Lecticari(u)s  / voto trichli(ni)a ex permiss(u) / fecit suo inpendio.

172. Primigenius r(ei) p(ublicae) Aricinorum ser(vus) arc(arius) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2156 = ILS 3255 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 1; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. first/second c. CE.

Dianae A̲ u̲ g̲ (ustae)  / colleg(i) ̣ l̲ o̲ t̲ o̲ r̲ (um)/ sacr̲ (um).  / Primigen̲ i̲ u̲ s̲ r̲ (ei) p̲ (ublicae)  / Aricinoṛu̲m̲ s̲ e̲ r̲ (vus) a̲ r̲ c̲ (arius),  / curator̲ I̲̅ I̲̅ , c̲ u̲ m̲   / M(arco) Arrecin̲ o̲ G̲ e̲ l̲ l̲ i̲ a̲ n̲ o̲   / filio, cur̲ a̲ t̲ o̲ r̲ e̲ I̲̅ , / d(ono) d̲ (edit). Note:

father of M(arcus) Arrecinus Gellianus (no. 170).

Bovillae 173. Restitu[tus] r(ei) p(ublicae) B(ovillensium) ar[carius?] Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2414 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 2; cf. EphEp IX, p. 403, Halkin 1897, 233. first/second c. CE.

D(is) [M(anibus)]. / Restitu[tus] / r(ei) p(ublicae) B(ovillensium) aṛ[carius?] / [A]cilia Ach[- - -] / [s]ibi et su[is fece]/run[t].

174. Sebera Source: Date: Note:

see no. 175. third c. CE. mother of Seberianus rei pub(licae) ver(nae) (no. 175).

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

315

175. Seberianus rei pub(licae) ver(nae) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2470 = Weiss 2004, 194 no.  9 (where the public slave is recorded under the section devoted to Castrimoenium); cf. Halkin 1897, 233. third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Seberiano  / rei pub(licae) ver(nae),  / q(ui) v(ixit) a(nnis) XXIIII,  / m(ensibus) VII, d(iebus) XIII,  / D(ecimus) Rasticanius  / Abascantu[s]  / et Sebera  / filio pii[s]/simo / mer(enti) / fecit. Note:

son of Sebera (no. 174).

Cales 176. Diogenes ser(vus) act(or) r[ei publ(icae) - - -] Calenorum [- - -] Source: Date:

CIL VI, 31807 = EphEp IV, 834 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 4; cf. CIL VI, p. 4787; Halkin 1897, 233; SupplIt. Imagines – Roma V, 5026. 193–211 CE.

- - - - - - / praetori k(andidato) Augg. [nn. - - -] / ius dicenti de liber[alib(us) causis] / Diogenes ser(vus) act(or) r[ei publ(icae) - - -] / Calenorum [- - -] / - - - - - -

177. Primogene(s) maior Source: Date: Note:

see no. 178. first c. CE. heres of Primogenes publicus minor (no. 178).

178. Primogenes publicus minor Source: Date:

CIL X, 4687 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 3; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. first c. CE.

Primogeni pub[lico] / minori, Primogene(s) maio[r et] / Urbanus posuerunt he[redes].

179. Urbanus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 173. first c. CE. heres of Primogenes publicus minor (no. 178).

316

Appendices

Capua 180. Alexander colon(orum) tab(ularius) Source: Date:

CIL X, 3938 = ILS 6317 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 5; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. early second c. CE.

Alexander / colon(orum) tab(ularius), / Privati arc(ari) / Cretae f(ilius). // A̲ lexander / colon(iae) tab(ularius), / Privati arc(ari) / Cretae fil(ius). Note:

son of Privatus arc(arius) Cretae (no. 185).

181. Campania Phronime Source: Date: Note:

see no. 186 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L3; cf. Halkin 1897, 243. second c. CE. daughter of Sedatus col(onorum scil. servus) (no. 186).

182. C(aius) Campanius col(oniae) lib(ertus) Ursulus Source: Date:

CIL X, 3940 = ILS 6318 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L2; cf. Halkin 1897, 243. early first c. CE.

C(aio) Campanio / col(oniae) lib(erto) / Ursulo, Lupulus / col(oniae) Capuae arcar(ius), / amico optimo. Note:

amicus of Lupulus col(oniae) Capuae arcar(ius) (no. 184).

183. Euphrosynus10 arc(arius et) magister familiae limatae Source: Date:

CIL X, 3942 = ILS 6319; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. first/second c. CE.

Macedoni,  / Euphrosyni arc(arii et)  / magist˹ri˺ familiae  / limatae (scil. servo),  / Salvilla mamma.

184. Lupulus col(oniae) Capuae arcar(ius) Source: Date: Note:

see no. 182 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 6; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. early first c. CE. amicus of C(aius) Campanius col(oniae) lib(ertus) Ursulus (no. 182).

185. Privatus arc(arius) Cretae Source: Date: Note:

10

see no. 180. early second c. CE. father of Alexander colon(orum) tab(ularius) (no. 180).

Halkin 1897, 233 interpreted the full name of the public slave as Macedo Euphrosynes. It seems more likely that Macedo was the (private) slave of Euphrosynus, whilst the latter was a servus publicus: cf. also Chioffi 2017, 272–273.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

317

186. Sedatus col(onorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL X, 4334 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 8; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Sedato col(onorum scil. servo) / Campania Phronime / patri / vix(it) an(nis) LIII. Note:

father of Campania Phronime (no. 181).

187. Soter colon(orum scil. servus) [a] sacris Source: Date:

CIL X, 3941 = Weiss 2004, 194 no. 7; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Felici,11 qui vixit an(nos) / X, m(enses) XI, dies XXV, / Soter colon(orum scil. servus) [a] / sacris f[il(io) infeli]/cissimo / be[ne]me/renti fecit.

188. familia limata Source: Date:

See no. 183. first/second c. CE.

Casinum 189. [- - -]us col(onorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

Pantoni – Giannetti 1971, 436 no. 15; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 7. second/third c. CE.

[D(is)] M(anibus)] s(acrum). [- - -]iae / [coniu]gi inco/[mpar]abili / [- - -]us col(onorum) / ark(arius) / [beneme]renti.

Cumae 190. Primio publicus Source: Date:

CIL X, 3710 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 11; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. first c. CE.

Primio / publicus v(ixit) a(nnis) VIIII / mens(ibus) III.

11

It is likely that Felix was a public slave too; however, since his mother was not mentioned in the inscription, her status is unknown and hence it is impossible to draw a conclusion in this respect.

318

Appendices

191. Anonymous servos (sic) publicus Source: Date:

AE 1927, 158 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 12. 14–37 CE: Tiberian age.

- - - - - - / [- - -ae Ma]cri (scil. uxor) matri eius servos (sic) publicus u[t appareat - - -] / [- - - d]ecretum est et ius sedendi ut habeat in [- - -] / [- - - memi?]ṇerunt. Item locum lecticae in amph[itheatro - - -] / [- - -] u(niversi) c(ensuerunt) decerni C(aio) Cupiennio Satrio Marciano [- - -] / [- - - ad statu]as Ti(beri) Caesaris Augusti et Iuliae Augustae dedi[candas - - -] / [- - - imm]olationes faciant hostiis maioribus ex pecu[nia publica - - -] / [- - - prae] textas habeant et servos (sic) publicus is appare[at - - -] / [- - - circen]sibus pulvinaribus et ceteris diebus festis [- - -] / [- - - statu]a eius ut ponatur ludis omnibus in theatro [- - -] / [- - -] et pompis et circinsibus cum corona laurea [interesse liceat - - -] / [- - - liberis p]osterisque eius virile secus decerni Augu[stalibus - - -] / [- - - ius sedendi ut habeant loc]ó contra munerarium proxume iunco [- - -] / [- - -]ae Macri (scil. uxor) matri eius servos (sic) publicus ut [appareat - - -] / [- - - prout omnibus magis]tr(atibus) decretum est et ius sedendi ut habe[at - - -] / [- - -] ṾỊṚ[- - -] / - - - - - -

Ferentinum 192. Anteros publicus Ferentini12

Source 1: CIL X, 5865 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 13a; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. Date: late first c. BCE. ANTE[R]OS / PVBLIC / FERENTIN, i. e., Ante[r]os / public(us) / Ferentin(i). Source 2: AE 1956, 152 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 13b. Date: late first c. BCE. ANTEROS / PVBLICVS / FERENTINI, i. e., Anteros / publicus / Ferentini. Source 3: SupplIt 1, 1981, 35 no. 5865 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 13c. Date: late first c. BCE. ANTEROS / PVBLIBVS / FERENTINI, i. e., Anteros / publibus (sic) / Ferentini.

12

He is mentioned on the stamps on three lead pipes.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

319

Herculaneum 193. Anonymous servos (sic) (scil. publice) re[i (i. e., ponderum procurationis) k(ausa)] emptus Source: Date:

CIL X, 1453 = ILS 5616 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 14; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. late first c. BCE.

Prid(ie) kal(endas) Martias in curia; scribendo adfuerunt cuncti.  / Quod verba facta sunt MM. Remmios Rufos, patr(em) et fil(ium), IIvir(os) iter(um), ex sua pequnia / pondera et chalcidicum et scholam secundum municipii splendorem fecisse, quae tueri  / publice deceret, d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt): placere huic ordini, cum MM. Remmi, pat(er) et fil(ius), IIvir(i) / iter(um), in edendis muneribus adeo liberales fuerint, ut eorum monumenta / decori municipio sint, adeo diligentes, ut vitieis ponderum occurrerint idque  / in perpetuum providerint, placere decurionibus MM. Remmios Rufos, patr(em) et fil(ium), / dum eei veiverent, eorum ponderum et scholae et chalcidi(ci), quae ipsi fe/cissent, procurationem dari, utque servos quei eius redemptus vel re[i (i. e., ponderum procurationis) k(ausa)] emptus est erit / eei negotio praeponerent neque inde abduci sine decur(ionum) decreto; et / MM. Remmis Rufis, patr(i) et fil(io), publice gratias agei, quod iterationem honoris eo/rum non ambitionei neque iactationi suae dederint, sed in cultum mu/nicipi et decorem contulerint.

Interamna Lirenas 194. Castus populi s(ervus) Source: Date:

AE 1922, 126 = Weiss 2004, 195 no. 15; cf. AE 2014, 294. 38 CE.

[P(ublio)] Nonio Asprenate / M(arco) Aquila Iuliano co(n)s(ulibus) / [- - -] Baebio Gallo IIIIvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo) / A(ulo) Sextio Paullo pr(aefecto) l(ege) P(etronia) / Castus populi s(ervus) / Aegis(th)us C(ai) Aefri Fausti s(ervus) / Crysantus M(arcorum) Bibulor(um) s(ervus) / Saturio Scaevini s(ervus) / Phileros Tadi Albae s(ervus) / Zefyrus Gallae s(ervus).

195. C(aius) Interamnius Crescentio libert(us) et tabular(ius) r(ei) p(ublicae) Source: Date:

AE 1911, 205 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L31 (where the public slave is recorded under the section devoted to Regio V). second c. CE.

Iovi Optimo  / Maximo sacr(um)  / C(aius) Interamnius Cres/centio libert(us) et tabu/lar(ius) r(ei) p(ublicae) aram ius(s)u / numin(is) restituit.

320

Appendices

Labici – Ad Quintanas 196. Parthenius arcarius rei publicae Lavicanorum Quintanensium Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2770 = ILS 6217 = Weiss 2004, 195–196 no.  16; cf. EphEp IX, 722; Halkin 1897, 233; SupplIt. Imagines – Latium 1, 402. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Parthenio arcario / rei publicae / Lavicanorum / Quintanensium.

Lavinium 197. Asclepiades rei p(ublicae) L(aurentium) L(avinatium) servus arkarius Source: Date:

AE 1998, 282; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 1. 227–228 CE.

ll. 29–31: … summam  / suscepit Asclepiades rei p(ublicae) L(aurentium) L(avinatium) servus / arkarius …

198. Olympus Laurentium Lavinatium arcarius Source:

Date:

CIL VI, 2197 = ILS 5008 = Weiss 2004, 246 (where the source is recorded among the “nicht aufgenommene Inschriften”, but cf. Luciani 2019c, 294 n. a); cf. CIL VI, p. 3826; Halkin 1897, 233. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). Olympo Laurentium Lavinatium / arcario q(ui) vix(it) ann(is) XXXIIX m(ensibus) VII Syntrophus  / collega et duo Noni Proculus et Lixitana b(ene) m(erenti) fecer(unt). Note:

collega of Syntrophus (sic) (no. 199).

199. Syntrophus (sic) Source: Date: Note:

see no. 198. second c. CE. collega of Olympus Laurentium Lavinatium arcarius (no. 198).

Liternum 200. Felix col(onorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

AE 2001, 853 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 47–50 no. 16; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 4. late second c. CE.

col. IV, l. 3: `Felix col(onorum) ark(arius)´.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

321

201. Felixs col(onorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

AE 2001, 854 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 50–55 no. 17; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 5. late second c. CE.

col. I, l. 16: Felixs col(onorum) ark(arius).

202. Hermes col(onorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

AE 2001, 853 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 47–50 no. 16; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 4. late second c. CE.

col. IV, l. 1: `Hermes col(onorum) ark(arius)´.

203. Liternius Felixs (sic) Source: Date:

AE 2001, 854 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 50–55 no. 17; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 5. late second c. CE.

col. I, l. 19: Liternius Felixs (sic).

204. Puteolanus Puteolanor(um) ser(vus) tabularius Source: Date:

AE 2001, 854 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 50–55 no. 17; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 5. late second c. CE.

col. I, l. 20: `Puteolanus Puteolanor(um) ser(vus) tabularius´.

205. Vitalis col(onorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

AE 2001, 853 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 47–50 no. 16; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 4. late second c. CE.

col. IV, l. 2: `Vitalis col(onorum) ark(arius)´.

Minturnae 206. Mena publicus s(ervus) Source: Date:

AE 1988, 229 = Weiss 2004, 196 no. 18. early first c. BCE.

- - - - - - / L(ucius) Uc[- - -]us L(uci) l(ibertus) Strato / M(arcus) Largius M(arci) l(ibertus) Nicephor / Apollonius Fundani C(ai) s(ervus) / Antiochus Aureli M(arci) s(ervus) / Mena publicus s(ervus) / Apollonius S(a)miari A(uli) s(ervus) / Artemo Sâbidieni Falislei S(exti) s(ervus) / Philippus Caecili L(uci) s(ervus) / Agenor Plauti C(ai) s(ervus) / Lucrio Saufei A(uli) s(ervus) / Salvius Galli O(vi?) s(ervus) / Chrestio Eppiorum s(ervus) [- - -] / - - - - - -

322

Appendices

207. Menophilus public(us) s(ervus) Source: Date:

CIL I2, 2690 = ILLRP 731 = Weiss 2004, 196 no. 17; cf. CIL I2, p. 845, 934, 935. first c. BCE.

Tarul[- - -] M(arci) s(ervus) / Helenus Pacci M(arci) s(ervus) / Soilus Caeliae s(ervus) / Nicephorus Epidi M(arci) s(ervus) / Stabilio Pacci C(ai) s(ervus) / Philomusus Volcei L(uci) s(ervus) / Q(uintus) Fourius Q(uinti) l(ibertus) Paapus / Neo(n) Titini Q(uinti) s(ervus) / Menophilus public(us) s(ervus)  / Antiocus Eppi C(ai) s(ervus)  / Sogenes Epidi M(arci) s(ervus) / Demetrius Epidi M(arci) s(ervus).

208. Sex(tus) Menturnius (sic) colon(iae) lib(ertus) Felix Source: Date:

CIL X, 6044 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L5; cf. Halkin 1897, 243. unknown date.

Sex(tus) Menturnius (sic) colon(iae) / lib(ertus) Felix sibi et suis fecit.

209. Minturnia M+[- - -]AIS? Source: Date:

AE 1914, 221 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L6. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus) / Minturniai (sic) / M+[- - -]AIDI13 / Minturnius / Suc(c)e[ssus] colon/ iae lib(ertus) coniugi / optimae fecit. Note:

partner of Minturnius Suc(c)e[ssus] coloniae lib(ertus) (no. 210).

210. Minturnius Suc(c)e[ssus] coloniae lib(ertus) Source: Date: Note:

see no. 209 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L6. unknown date. partner of Minturnia M+[- - -]AIS? (no. 209).

Neapolis 211. Felix ark(arius) rei p(ublicae) Neapolitanorum Source: Date:

CIL X, 1495 = Weiss 2004, 196 no. 19; cf. Halkin 1897, 233. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Marciae Melissae,  / coniugi incompa/rabili, Felix ark(arius)  / rei p(ublicae) Neapolitanorum  / l(ocum) d(edit) ex perm(issu) magist(ratuum)  / et Marcius Felix matri b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuerunt).

13

The reading of the cognomen of the woman is uncertain: the rare Greek name Menelais (Solin 20033, 546), in the dative form Menelaidi, may be an option.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

323

Nomentum 212. Rufa pu(b)lica Source: Date:

AE 1901, 135 = ILS 8751 = Weiss 2004, 196 no. 20; cf. Luciani – Urbanová 2019. early first c. CE.

Malc(h)io Nicon˹i˺s oculos, / manus, di˹g˺itos, brac(h)ia{s}, un˹gue˺s, / capil(l)o(s), caput, pedes, femus, vent˹re˺(m),  / nat˹e˺s, um(bi)licu˹m˺, pectus, mamil(l)as,  / coḷḷu˹m˺, os, buc(c)as, dentes, labias,  / mẹ[nt]ụ˹m˺, oc(u)los, fronte(m), supercili(a),  / scap̂(u)las, umerum, nervia{s}, ossu(um)  / me˹du˺l(l)as, vent˹re˺(m), mentula(m), crus,  / qua(e) stu(m), lucru(m), vaḷetudines defi˹g˺o / iṇ (h)as tabel(l)as. // Rufa pu(b)lica mạnụs, de(n) tes,  / oc(u)los, brac(h)ia, vent˹re˺(m), mamil(l)a(s),  / pectus, os(s)u(um) m˹edu˺l(l)as, vent˹re˺(m), / crus, os, pedes, fronte˹m˺, / un˹gue˺s, di˹g˺itos, vent˹re˺(m), / um(bi)licu˹m˺, cun(n)u˹m˺, / v(u)lva˹m˺, il(i)a{e} vel quas il(l)ae Rufa˹e˺ pub(l)ica(e), de˹f˺i˹g˺o / in (h) a(s) tabel(l)as.

Nuceria Alfaterna 213. Ianuarius col(onorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

Della Corte 1922a, 487 no. 2 = Della Corte 1922b, 183 no. 5; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 3. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Ianuario col(onorum scil. servo) / vix(it) annis / XXVIII.

214. [- - -]us col(onorum) l(ibertus) Phialus Source: Date:

CIL X, 1090 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L7; cf. Halkin 1897, 243. unknown date.

M(arcus) Calavius / [- - -] M(arci) f(ilius) Men(enia) Flaccus / [- - - Av]illia L(uci) f(ilia) Betua mater / [- - -]us col(onorum) l(ibertus) Phialus / [- - -] et suis. // M(arcus) Cal[avius] / A(uli) f(ilius) [- - -] / Avilli[a - - -].

Ostia 215. Andrias ser(vus) pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 2353 = CIL XIV, 197 = Weiss 2004, 196–197 no. 24; cf. CIL VI, p. 3318; Halkin 1897, 234. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Cuties Epigonenis. / Andrias ser(vus) pub(licus) / fec(it) sibi et coni(ugi) b(ene) m(erenti). Loc(us) don(atus) / ab (sic) Cassia Nigella.

324

Appendices

216. Apolaustus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

217. Cleme(n)s Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

218. Dativus vilicus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

219. Dion[y]sius ark(arius) Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

220. Ellanicus (sic) colonorun (sic) (scil. servus) Source: Date:

AE 1996, 298; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 8. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Sergio Ellanico, / vixit m(ensibus) VIII, d(iebus) V, / Ellanicus colonorun (sic) (scil. servus) / et Sergia Hygia / parentes fecer(unt).

221. Epictetus Source: Date:

222. Eros

Source: Date:

223. Eufras

Source: Date:

224. Euphenus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

225. Evaristus ark(arius) Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

226. Faustus Source: Date:

325

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

227. Felix coloniae ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 29698; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 9. first c. CE.

Felix coloniae / ser(vus) sibi et / Noniae Veneriae / ol(las) n(umero) sex col(umbaria) duo.

228. Helius

Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

229. Metrodorus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

230. Onesimus 1 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

231. Onesimus 2 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

232. Ost(iensis) Aciva Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

233. P(ublius) Ostiensis coloniae libertus Acutus Source: Date:

see no. 111 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L10. early/mid first c. CE.

P(ublius) Ostiensis coloniae / libertus Acútus, / Phileros publicus / Cartilianus. Note:

the inscription also mentions a servus publicus populi Romani, i. e., Phileros publicus Cartilianus (no. 111).

234. Ost(iensis) Agathemerianus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

326

Appendices

235. Ost(iensis) Alcibiades Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

236. Ost(iensis) Apollonius 1 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

237. Ost(iensis) Apollonius 2 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

238. Ost(iensis) Appianus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

239. Ost(iensis) Aquilinus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

240. A(ulus) Ostiensis Asclepiades aeditus Capitoli Source: Date: Note:

See no. 278. second/third c. CE. since he is mentioned with the corpus familiae public(a)e libertorum et servorum (no. 278) and his nomenclature includes the nomen Ostiensis and a Greek cognomen, he can safely be considered as a freed public slave.

241. Ost(iensis) Asclepiades 1 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

242. Ost(iensis) Asclepiades 2 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

243. Ost(iensis) Baeticus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

244. Ost(iensis) Callistratus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

327

245. Ost(iensis) Callistus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

246. Ost(iensis) Chrysippus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

247. Ost(iensis) Claudianus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

248. Ost(iensis) Dryas Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

249. Ost(iensis) Epafroditus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

250. L(ucius scil. Ostiensis) Euanthes libertus coloniaes (sic) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 440 = Weiss 2004, 236 no. L11 = AE 2007, 284; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / L(ucio) Euanthen(i) / liberto colo/niaes (sic) fecit / co(n)iugi san/ctissimo / - - - - - -

251. Ost(iensis) Eutyches 1 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

252. Ost(iensis) Eutyches 2 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

253. Ost(iensis) Eutyches 3 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

254. Ost(iensis) Gaius Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

328

Appendices

255. Ost(iensis) Gemellus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

256. Ost(iensis) Heliodorus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

257. Ost(iensis) Hermes Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

258. Ost(iensis) Hermes tab(ularius) Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

259. Ost(iensis) Hermetianus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

260. Ost(iensis) Liberalis Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

261. Ost(iensis) Palmesis Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

262. Ost(iensis) Polygonus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

263. Ost(iensis) Primion Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

264. Ost(iensis) Primus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

265. Ost(iensis) Rufinus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

266. Ost(iensis) Sabinus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

267. Ost(iensis) Sanctus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

268. Ost(iensis) Syntrophus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

269. Ost(iensis) Tertullinus Source: Date:

270. Paulinus Source: Date:

271. Petilius Source: Date:

272. Philetus Source: Date:

273. Sophron Source: Date:

274. Successus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

275. Trophimus 1 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

276. Trophimus 2 Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

329

330

Appendices

277. Zoticus Source: Date:

See no. 280 (familia publica). late second/early third c. CE.

278. corpus familiae public(a)e libertorum et servorum Source: Date:

CIL VI, 479 = CIL XIV, 32 = ILS 6152 = Weiss 2004, 196 no.  21; cf. CIL VI, pp. 3005, 3757; Halkin 1897, 233. second/third c. CE.

Pro salute (sic) / Aug(usti) [[- - -]]. // A(ulus) Ostiensis / Asclepiades / aeditu(u)s Capitoli / signum Martis / corpori familiae / public(a)e / libertorum / et servorum / d(ono) d(edit).

279. corpus libertor(um) et servor(um) publicor(um) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 409 = ILS 6146 = Weiss 2004, 196 no. 23; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. mid second c. CE.

Cn(aeo) Sentio Cn(aei) fil(io),  / Cn(aei) n̅ (epoti), Tér(etina) Felici,  / dec(urionum) decr(eto) aedilició adl(ecto), d(ecurionum) d(ecreto) d(ecurioni) adl(ecto),  / q(uaestori) a(erarii) Ostiens(is), I̅ I̅ vir(o), q(uaestori) iuvenum; / hic primus omnium, quo annó dec(urio) adl(ectus) est et / q(uaestor) a(erarii) fact(us) est, et in proxim(um) annum I̅ I̅ vir designat(us) est; / quinq(uennali) curatórum navium marinar(um), grátis adléct(o) / inter navicular(ios) maris Hadriatici et ad quadrígam / fori vinari, patrónó decuriae scribár(um) cérariór(um) / et librariór(um) et lictór(um) et viatór(um) item praeconum et  / {et} argentariór(um) et negotiatór(um) vinárior(um) ab urbe,  / item mensor(um) frumentariór(um) Cereris Aug(ustae) item corpor(is)  / scapharior(um) et lenunculariór(um) traiect(us) Luculli et  / dendróphorúm et tógátór(um) á foro et dé sacomár(is)  / et libertór(um) et servór(um) publicór(um) et oleáriór(um) et iuven(um) / cisianor(um) et veteranor(um) Aug(usti) item beneficiariór(um) próc(uratoris)  / Aug(usti) et piscator(um) própolar(um), cúratóri lusús iuvenalis / Cn(aeus) Sentius Lucilius / Gamala Clodianus f(ilius) patri indulgentissimó.

280. familia publica (consisting of 22 public slaves and 35 public freedmen) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 255 = ILS 6153 = Weiss 2004, 196 no. 22; cf. CIL XIV, p. 614, EphEm IX, p. 335; Halkin 1897, 234; AE 2007, 283. late second/early third c. CE.

Familia publica // Ost(iensis) Hermes tab(ularius),  / Dion[y]sius ark(arius),  / Evaristus ark(arius),  / Ost(iensis) Eutychus,  / Ost(iensis) Asclepiades,  / Ost(iensis) Liberalis,  / Ost(iensis) Primion, / Ost(iensis) Polygonus, / Faustus, / Ost(iensis) Epafroditus, / Ost(iensis) Syntrophus, / Successus, / Ost(iensis) Hermes, / Ost(iensis) Baeticus, / Ost(iensis) Alcibiades, / Ost(iensis) Gemellus, / Ost(iensis) Eutychus, / Ost(iensis) Callistratus, / Ost(iensis) Aciva, / Marcius Hermes, / Mucius Maximus, / Mucius Vitalis, / Ost(iensis) Palmesis, / Marcius Chrysostomus, / Mamius Rufus, / Ost(iensis) Claudianus, / Plutius Asclepiades, / Helius, / Eros, / Philetus, / Ost(iensis) Heliodorus, / Vetulanius Felix, / Mamidius Euaris[t]us, / Vadius Menander,  / Ost(iensis) Chrysippus,  / Trophimus,  / Zoticus,  / Ost(iensis) Agathemerianus, / Cleme(n)s, / Ost(iensis) Apollonius, / Metrodorus, / Ost(iensis) Gaius, // One-

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

331

simus, / Ost(iensis) Callistus, / Geminius Trophimianus, / Ost(iensis) Appianus, / Vetulenius Primion, / Mamidia Hygia, / Ost(iensis) Sabinus, / Mumius Lucius, / Onesimus, / Ost(iensis) Sanctus, / Epictetus, / Eufras, / Ost(iensis) Tertullinus, / Rutilius Charito, / Aemilius Caelistinus, / Fabricius Heliodorus, / Ost(iensis) Hermetianus, / Petilius, / Trophimus, / Euphenus, / Messenius Secundinus,  / Clodius Marcianus,  / Paulinus,  / Ost(iensis) Dryas,  / Ost(iensis) Aquilinus, / Ost(iensis) Apollonius, / Apolaustus, / Sophron, / Valerius Felix, / Dativus vilicus, / Mucius Ampliatus, / Mucius Ianuarius, / Ost(iensis) Primus, / Ost(iensis) Asclepiades, / Ost(iensis) Eutyches, / Ost(iensis) Rufinus, / Mar(- - -) Filocyrus, / P(ublius) Vedius Epaphroditus, / P(ublius) Veius Callistratus.

281. liberti colon(iae) et serv(i) publici corpor(ati) Source: Date:

AE 1948, 27 = Weiss 2004, 197 no. 27. late second c. CE.

Numini Bellonae sacr(um)  / dec(reto) dec(urionum) publice loco  / adsignat(o)  / lictores viator(es) et honore usi et / liberti colon(iae) et serv(i) publici / corpor(ati) / opere ampliato / sua pecunia restituerunt.

282. servi publici qui in corpore sunt Source: Date:

AE 1948, 26 = Weiss 2004, 197 no. 26. 136–138 CE.

A(ulus) Livius Proculus P(ublius) Lucilius / Gamala f(ilius) IIvir praef(ectus) Caesar(is) / locum quod aedes Bellonae fieret / impensa lictorum et servorum publicorum / qui in corpore sunt adsignaverunt / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) / cur(averunt) / M(arco) Naevio Fructo et [[- - -]].

Pompeii 283. Privatus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervus)

Source 1: CIL IV, 3340, cxxxix = Weiss 2004, 197 no. 29; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. Date: mid first c. CE (55 CE at the earliest), February.

[- - -]/[- - - idu?]s Feb(ruarias) / Privatus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervus) s[c]ripsi me acc[episse] / ab (sic) L(ucio) Caecili[o] Iucu[nd]o HS ((mille)) [- - -] / [ex r]eliqui[is] ob avi[t]um fundi [- - -]i / [- - -]s praef(ectus) i(ure) d(icundo). // [- - -] / D(ecimi) L[u]c[re]ti Val[entis], / M(arci) Stronni Se[cundi], / M(arci) Veneri Sec[undionis vel -undi], / Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) [V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi)]. Source 2: CIL IV 3340, cxli = FIRA III 131b = Weiss 2004, 197–198 no.  30; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 58 CE, February 19th. Chirograp(h)um Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi) / ob fullonicas soluti / HS ((mille)) DCLII anni primi. // Sex(to) Pompeio Proculo, / C(aio) Cornelio

332

Appendices

Macro, IIvir(is) i(ure) d(icundo), / XI K(alendas) Mart(ias). / Privatus coloniae ser(vus) / scripsi me accepisse ab (sic)  / L(ucio) Caecilio Iucundo sest/ertios mille sescentos // quinquaginta du[o] num/mos ob fullonicam  / ex reliquis anni unius.  / Act(um) Pom(peis),  / Nerone Aug(usto) III,  / M(arco) Messalla co(n)s(ulibus). // Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi), / Sex(ti) Pompe(i) Procul(i), / Sex(ti) Pomp(ei) P[rocul(i)],  / A(uli) Messi Proni(mi),  / Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi). // Sex(to) Pompe(i)o Proculo, / C(aio) Cornelio Macro, d(uumviris) i(ure) d(icundo), / XI K(alendas) Mart(ias), / Privatus colonor(um) colon(iae) se(rvus) / scrips[i] me acc[epi]sse [ab (sic)] L(ucio) Caec(ilio)  / Iucund(o) HS ((mille)) D[CLII] ob  / fullon(icam) ex reliq(uis) ann(i) / un(ius) / Nerone Caes(are) III, / Messalla co(n)s(ulibus). Source 3: CIL IV, 3340, cxlii = Weiss 2004, 198 no. 31; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 58 CE, August 14th. L(ucio) Albucio Iusto, L(ucio) Veranio  / Hypsaeo, duumviris iur(e) dic(undo),  / Privatus coloniae servos (sic) / scripsi me accepisse ab (sic) / L(ucio) Caecilio Iucundo sester/tios mille sescentos // quinquaginta duo nummos  / ex reliqui(i)s ob fullonica(m)  / ante hanc diem, quae / dies fuit pr(idie) Idus Iulias. / Act(um) Pomp(eis) XVIIII K(alendas) Sept(embres), / A(ulo) Paconio Sabino, A(ulo) Petronio co(n)s(ulibus). // Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae scil. servus), / L(uci) Albuci Iusti, / M(arci) Stronni Secun(dini), / L(uci) Vera(ni) Phile(- - -), / Priva(ti) colo[n(orum scil. coloniae Veneriae Corneliae servus)]. // Pr(idie) Idus Septem[bres] / solutio re[i] publi(cae) / ob fullonic(am) ((mille)) DCL[II]. / Chi[r]ogr[ap(h)u(m)] Priva[ti] / c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi) / dur[a]tu L(uci) Albuci Iusti / et L(uci) Verani [- - -], / A(ulo) [Petronio], A(ulo) Paco[nio] c(onsulibus). // Solutio ob fullonica(m)  / anni se[c]undi Privato c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervo). / L(ucio) Veranio Hupsaeo, L(ucio) Albucio Iusto / d(uum) v(iris) i(ure) d(icundo), / pr(idie) Idus Iulias / A(ulo) Paconio, A(ulo) P[etr]onio [co(n) s(ulibus)]. Source 4: CIL IV, 3340, cxliii = FIRA III 131c = Weiss 2004, 198 no. 32; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 59 CE, July 10th. Cn(aeo) Pompeio Grospho, Grospho / Pompeio Gaviano IIvir(is) iur(e) dic(undo), / VI Idus Iulias  / Privatus colonorum coloniae  / Veneriae Corneliae Pompei/anorum ser(vus) scripsi me / accepisse ab (sic) L(ucio) Caecilio Iucundo / sestertios mille sescentos // quinquaginta nummos nummo / libellas quinque ex reliquis / ob fullonica(m) anni L(uci) Verani / Hupsaei et Albuci Iusti d(uum)v(irorum) i(ure) d(icundo) solut(os).  / Act(um) Pom(peis),  / M(arco) Ostorio Scapula, T(ito) Sextio Africano co(n)s(ulibus). // Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vi),  / Cn(aei) Pomp(ei) Gro(s)phi (et) Gav(iani), M(arci) Veso[n(ii)] Marc(elli),  / A(uli) Clodi Iusti,  / Priva(ti) c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi). // Duobus Grosphis d(uumviris) i(ure) d(icundo), / VI Idus Iuli(as). / Chirograpum Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi) / HS ((mille)) DCLI s(emisse) ob fullonic(am) / anni ter[ti] / T(ito) Sextio, M(arco) Ostor(io) c(onsulibus). // Chirograpu[m] Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) [V(eneriae) C(orneliae)

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

333

s(ervi)] / HS ((mille)) DCLI s(emisse) ob fullonic[a(m)] / anni terti / duobus Grosp(h) is d(uum)v(iris) i(ure) d(icundo), / M(arco) Ostor(io), T(ito) Sextio co(n)s(ulibus), / VI Idus Iulias. Source 5: CIL IV, 3340, cxliv = Weiss 2004, 198–199 no. 33; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 60 CE, May 8th. Nerone Caesa[re I]III, Cosso [co(n)s(ulibus)],  / VIII Idus Maias.  / Chirograp(h)um Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) C(orneliae) V(eneriae scil. servi)  / HS ((mille)) DCLII ob fullonica(m) [- - -]  / anni quarti. // N(umerio) Sande[lio] Messio Balbo, P(ublio) Vedio Sirico  / duomviris (sic) iure dic(undo),  / Sex(to) Pompeio Proculo [p]raef(ecto) i(ure) d(icundo), / V[III I]dus Maias. / Privatus coloniae Pompeianorum / ser(vus) [scripsi] me accepisse ab (sic) / L(ucio) Caec[ilio Iu]cundo sestertios / mi[lle se]scento[s] quinquag[inta] // [duos nummos] ob fullonica(m) a[nni]  / quarti.  / Actum Pompeis,  / Nerone Caesare Aug(usto) IIII, Cosso Len[tulo co(n)s(ulibus)], // N(umerio) Sandelio Messio Balbo, P(ublio) Vedio Sirico / [- - -]. Source 6: CIL IV, 3340, cxlv = FIRA III 131d = Weiss 2004, 199 no. 34; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 58 CE, January 5th. C(aio) Cornelio Macro, Sex(to) [Pompeio] / Proculo duumviris i(ure) d(icundo), / Nonis Ianuari(i)s, / Privatus coloniae Pompeianor(um) / ser(vus) scripsi me accepisse ab / L(ucio) Caecilio Iucundo sestertia / duo millia (sic) sescentos septuaginta quin[que] // nummos ex reliquis ob / pasquam (sic) anni Modesti / et Vibi Secundi IIvir(orum) i(ure) d(icundo). / Act(um) Pom(peis),  / Nerone Caesare III,  / M(arco) Messalla Corvino [co(n)s(ulibus)]. // Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi),  / Sex(ti) Pomp(ei) Procul(i), / Cn(aei) Pompe(i) Gaviani, / P(ubli) Terenti Prim(i), / Privat(i) c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi)  / [l]ib(ellus) XX. // C(aio) Cornelio Macro, Sex(to) Pom(peio) / Procu[lo] d(uumviris) i(ure) d(icundo), / Non(i)s Ianua[r(iis), Pri] vat[u]s colonor(um)  / Pompeianor(um) ser(vus) scripsi  / me accepisse ab (sic) L(ucio) Caecili(o)  / Iucundo [HS II ((milia))] DCLXXV ex  / rel[i]quis ob pasqua[m] anni  / Modesti e[t] Vibi Secund[i]. / Act(um) Pom(peis) / Ner[on]e Caes[are] III, / Messal(la) Corvin(o) c(onsulibus) // Solutio ob pasqua(m) (sic) / anni primi Privato / duumviris Pompeio et Cornelio. / Debuera(m) anni superioris / HS II ((milia)) DCLXXV. Source 7: CIL IV, 3340, cxlvi = Weiss 2004, 199 no. 35; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 58 CE, June 14th. Septuagin[ta qu]inque nummos / ob pasquam (sic) / iussi Pompei Proculi. / Act(um) [- - -] / M(arco) Valerio [Messalla, C(aio) Fonteio co(n)s(ulibus)]. // [- - -]  / Sex(ti) Po[mpei Procul]i,  / Privati coloniae servi. // Sex(to) Pompeio Proculo, C(aio) Corne[l]io Macro  / [d]uumviris i(ure) d(icundo) / [- - -] I[d]us Iulias / Pr[iva]tus coloniae P[o]mpeianorum / servos (sic) scripsi me accepiss[e] ab (sic) L(ucio)  / Caecilio Iucu[ndo] HS n(ummos)

334

Appendices

((mille)) DCLXXV ob / pascu[am iussi Po]m[p]ei Proculi. / [Act]um Pompeis, / [M(arco) Valerio] Messalla, C(aio) Fonteio co(n)s(ulibus). // Solu[tio ob p]asquam (sic) / an[ni - - -] / HS ((mille)) D[CLXXV] / [- - -]. Source 8: CIL IV, 3340, cxlvii = Weiss 2004, 199 no. 36; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. Date: 59 CE, June 18th. L(ucio) Veranio Hupsaeo, L(ucio) Albucio  / Iusto duumviris iure dic(undo),  / XIIII K(alendas) Iulias, / Privatus coloniae Pompeian(orum) / ser(vus) scripsi me accepisse / ab (sic) L(ucio) Caecilio Iucundo / sestertios mille sescentos / septuaginta quinque // nummos et accepi ante / hanc diem quae dies / fuit VIII Idus Iunias sester(tios) / mille nummos ob / vectigal publicum pasqua(rum) (sic). / Act(um) Pom(peis), / C {n}(aio) Fonteio, C(aio) Vipstano co(n)s(ulibus). // L(uci) Verani Hypsaei, / Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vi),  / L(uci) Albuci Iusti,  / Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) se(rvi). // L(ucio) Veranio Hupsa(e)o, L(ucio) Albucio Ius[to] / d(uumviris) i(ure) d(icundo), XIV K(alendas) Iul(ias),  / Privatus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vus) scripsi me / accepisse ab (sic) L(ucio) Caecilio Iucund[o] / HS ((mille)) DCLXXV et accepi ante / hanc diem VIII Idus Iunias / HS ((mille)) num(mos) ob vectigal publicu(m) / pasquorum (sic). / Act(um) Pom(peis), / C(aio) Fonteio, C(aio) Vips(tano) co(n)s(ulibus). Source 9: CIL IV, 3340, cxlviii = Weiss 2004, 199–200 no. 37; cf. CIL IV, p. 454. Date: 55 CE, December 6th. Chirograp(h)u(m) Privati c(olonorum) [c(oloniae)] V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vi). // [- - -] d(uum)v(iris) i(ure) d(icundo)] quinq(uennalibus), / V[I]II [Idus Dec(embres)] / [Privatus] colonorum c[olo]niae / Pompeianorum [- - -]. // Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) Vener(iae)  / ser(vi),  / Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vi). // [Chriograp(h)um Privati c(olonorum) c(oloniae)] V(eneriae) C(orneliae) s(ervi) / [Cn(aeo) Alleio Nigidio] Maio / [- - -]o d(uumviris) i(ure) d(icundo) [quinq(uennalibus)] / VIII Idus Dece(mbres) / Cn(aeo) Lentulo Ga[e]tulico, T(ito) Cur[tilio Mancia co(n)s(ulibus)]. Source 10: CIL IV, 3340, cl = Weiss 2004, 200 no. 38; cf. CIL IV, p. 454. Date: 58 CE, September/December. [L(ucio) Veranio Hyp]saeo, L(ucio) Albuc[io] / duumviris i(ure)d(icundo) / [- - - - - -] / [Privatus colonor(um) Pompeianor(um)] / [ser(vus) scripsi me] accepisse / [a L(ucio) Cae] cilio Iucundo / [sestertios - - - m]ilia (sic) / [- - -] // [iu]ssu / [L(uci) Albuci, L(uci)] V(e) rani / [d(uum)]vir(orum) i(ure) d(icundo). / [Act(um) Pomp(eis),] / [A(ulo) Paconio S] abino, / [A(ulo) Petronio Lu]rcone co(n)s(ulibus).

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

335

Source 11: CIL IV, 3340, cli = FIRA III 131e = Weiss 2004, 200 no. 39. Date: 62 CE, January. [S]olutio [- - -] // [L(ucio) - - -]o [T]i(berio) C[laudio]  / [V]ero [d(uumviris)] i(ure) d(icundo) / [III? Idus Ianu]ari[as] / [Privatus] colon[iae] Pompeian(orum) / s[er(vus)] scripsi me accepisse / ab (sic) [L(ucio) Cae]c[i]lio Iucundo / sestertia duo millia (sic) // quingentos viginti numm(os) / nomine M(arci) Fabi Agathini / mancipis merca[t]uus. / Act(um) Pom(peis),  / P(ublio) Mario P(ubli) f(ilio), L(ucio) Afinio co(n)[s(ulibus)] // [- - -]  / Ti(beri) Claudi, / C(ai) Numitori, / M(arci) Ant[oni] / [- - - - - -] // Ti(beri) Claudi Veri, / Audi Bassi, / M(arci) Antoni Terti. // L(ucio) [- - -], Cla[udio Vero] / [duumviris i(ure) d(icundo)] / Priv[atu]s col(oniae) [colonorum P]ompe[ian(orum)] / [se]r(vus) scripsi me accepisse ab (sic) / [L(ucio)] Caecilio Iucundo [- - -] / [- - - - - -] / [- - - - - -] / [Act(um) Pomp(eis),] III [I]dus Ian[uari]as / P(ublio) Mario, L(ucio) Afinio co(n)s(ulibus). Source 12: CIL IV, 3340, cliii = Weiss 2004, 200 no. 40. Date: mid first c. CE. - - - - - -/ [- - - Privati] publici, / M(arci) Licini Romani, / M(arci) Stronni Secund[i], / A(uli) Messi Phronimi, / Privati publici.

284. Secundus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL IV, 3340, cxxxviii = FIRA III, 131a = Weiss 2004, 197 no.  28; cf. CIL IV, p. 454; Halkin 1897, 234. 53 CE, March 14th.

[Q(uinto) C]oelio Caltilio Iusto, L(ucio) Helvio / Blaesio Proculo, IIvir(is) iur(e) [d(icundo)],  / pr(idie) Idus Martias.  / Secundus [c]o[lonoru]m coloniae  / Ven[e]riae Corneliae servo[s] / accepi P(ublio) Terentio Prim[o] / HS DCCLXXVI reliquos ob avitum e[t] / patritum fundi Audiani  / nomine Stali Inventi // iussu Caltili Iusti et  / Helvi Procu[li].  / Act(um) Pomp[eis],  / D(ecimo) Iunio Torquat[o Sil]ano,  / Q(uinto) Haterio Ant[onino co(n)]s(ulibus). // Q(uinto) Coelio [Cal]tilio Iusto, L(ucio) Hel[vio Blaesio]  / Proculo, IIvir(is) i(ure) d(icundo), pr(idie) Idus Mart(ias).  / Secundus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) / ser(vus) scripsi me accepisse ab (sic) / P(ublio) Terentio Pr[i]m[o] HS DCCLXXVI reliquos / ob avitum [fun]di Audiani et accepi / ante [h]anc d[ie]m HS V ((milia)) CCXXIIII. / Act(um) Pompeis, // [D(ecimo) I]unio Silano, Q(uinto) Haterio Antonino co(n)s(ulibus). // Secundi c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) s(ervi), / L(uci) Helvi Blaesi, / Q(uinti) Coeli Iust[i] / [C]n(aei) Pupi[- - -] / - - - - - Note:

he was thenmay have been manumitted and possibly became M(arcus) Venerius Sec[undus?] (no. 285).

336

Appendices

284a. M(arcus) Venerius coloniae lib(ertus) Secundio, aedituus Veneris, Augustalis et min(ister) eorum Source: Date:

unpublished (courtesy of Gabriel Zuchtriegel). mid first c. CE.

M(arcus) Venerius coloniae / lib(ertus) Secundio, aedituus / Veneris, Augustalis et min(ister) / eorum. Hic solus ludos graecos / et latinos quadriduo dedit. Note:

he may be identified with M(arcus) Venerius Sec[undio?] (no. 285).

285. M(arcus) Venerius Sec[undio vel -undus] Source: Date: Note:

see no. 283 (Source 1) = Weiss 2004, 236–237 no. L13. mid first c. CE (55 CE at the earliest), February. in the event that his cognomen was Secundio, he may be identified with M(arcus) Venerius coloniae lib(ertus) Secundio, aedituus Veneris, Augustalis et min(ister) eorum (no. 284a). Alternatively, before manumission, he may have been Secundus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) V(eneriae) C(orneliae) ser(vus) (no. 284).

Puteoli 286. Anicetus [l]imoci[nctus] Source: Date:

CIL X, 2052 = Weiss 2004, 200 no. 41; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. first c. CE.

[Dis] Manibus / Aniceti / [l]imoci/[ncti].

287. Niceros colonorum coloniae Puteolanae servus arcarius

Source 1: AE 1973, 147 = AE 1992, 272 = TPSulp 56 = Weiss 2004, 200 no. 42. Date: 52 CE, March 7th.

Chirographum Nicerotis col(onorum) / servi ((sestertios)) M in k(alendas) Iul(ias) prim(as). // Fausto Cornelio Sulla Felice, L(ucio)  / Salvio Othone Titiano co(n)s(ulibus),  / nonis Martìs.  / Niceros colonorum coloniae  / Puteolanae seṛṿus arcarịus  / scripsi me accep[i]sse mutu˹a˺ et / debere C(aio) Sulpicio [Ci]nnamo ((sestertios)) [M] / nummos eosqụẹ ((sestertios)) mille / nummos, qui s(upra) s(cripti) s(unt), p(robos) r(ecte) d(ari) k(alendis) Iulis / primis {p(robos) r(ecte) d(ari)} fiḍe rogavit C(aius)  / Sulpicius Cinnamus, fide promisi  / Niceros col(onorum) col(oniae) servus arcarius. / Actum Puteolis. // [Chirographum Nicerotis col(onorum)] / [col(oniae) Puteol(anae) ser(vi) arcari] / ((sestertios)) M in k(alendas) Iul(ias) primás.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

337

Source 2: AE 1988, 330 = Weiss 2004, 200–201 no. 43. Date: 52 CE, March 7th. - - - - - - -  / [C(aius)] S[ul]picius Cinnam[us Ni]/[c]ẹ[r]ọti colonorum co[loniae]  / P̣uteol(anae) ser(vo) [a]rcario ((sestertios)) [M?] / per chirograp[hum] hac / [d]iẹ dedit credidit [- - -]

Salernum 288. servos (sic) publicus Source: Date:

InscrIt I, 1, 19 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 44. first c. CE.

[Cn(aei) Maii? C]n(aei) f(ili) Maximi P[- - -] / sibi ẹṭ / [- - -] M(arci) f(ilio) Fal(erna) Pedicaẹ Mạ[rciano?] / [IIvir(o) q]uinquennali, I̅ I̅ vir(o) iteru[m]; / [- - - uti - - - magistratu]s commodìs eisdem quibus decur[io]nes fị[erent] / [- - - uti - - - ante basi]licam in foro poneretur et servo[s (sic) p]ublicus / [- - - decurio?]ṇibus aeque ac magistratibus appa[re]ret. / [Decurio]num ordo decrevit uti publico funẹ[r]ẹ efferr[etur] / [et locus statu]ạẹ publicẹ ḍạṛetur contrá vicum [it]em ipsa ṿ[- - -]. / Arbitratu / [- - - Ru?]fi et Cn(aei) Maii Cladi et C(ai) Rabi[ri - - -].

Tarracina 289. Proculus rei public(a)e (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL X, 6332 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 45; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Proculo rei  / public(a)e (scil. servo) libe[r]/ti et officia/les Tar[ri]cin/ensium f(ecerunt).

290. libe[r]ti (scil. Tar[ri]cinensium) Source: Date:

see no. 289 = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L14; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. second c. CE.

291. officiales Tar[ri]cinensium Source: Date:

see no. 289 = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L14; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. second c. CE.

338

Appendices

Tusculum 292. Primus publicus Tuscolanorum arcarius

CIL VI, 2307 = ILS 4980 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 46; cf. CIL VI, p. 3828; Halkin 1897, 234. Provenance: Ostia Date: first/second c. CE. Source:

Firviae C(ai) f(iliae) Primae, / Antiocho publico p(opuli) R(omani) / Aemiliano pontificali, / Primus publicus Tusculanorum / arcarius vir heres Primaes (sic) f(aciendum) c(uravit). Note:

the inscription also mentions a servus publicus populi Romani, i. e., Antiochus publicus p(opuli) R(omani) Aemilianus pontificalis (no. 31).

Venafrum 293. Marcus act(or) rei p(ublicae) Venafr(anorum) Source: Date:

CIL X, 4904, cf. p. 1012; EphEp VIII, 886 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 48; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. second/third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Aureliae Victori/nae, coniug(i) incomp(arabili), quae / vixit ann(is) XVIIII, mens(ibus) duob(us), / Marcus act(or) rei p(ublicae) / Venafr(anorum), / bene merenti.

294. (scil. Publicius vel Venafranius) Auctus l(ibertus) c(oloniae)? Source: Date:

AE 2011, 281; cf. Luciani 2019c, 286 no. 6. first/second c. CE.

(Scil. Publicius vel Venafranius) Ạụctus ḷ(ibertus) col(oniae).

295. M(arcus) Publicius coloniae l(ibertus) Philodamus Source: Date:

CIL X, 4984 = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L15; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. first c. CE.

Viv(i) / M(arci) Publici / coloniae l(iberti) / Philodami et / Primae l(ibertae) et s(uorum).

296. Q(uintus) Venafranius col(oniae) l(ibertus) Felix Source: Date:

see no. 297 = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L16; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. first c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

339

297. Sex(tus) Venafranius col(oniae) l(ibertus) Primogenius Source: Date:

CIL X, 5012 = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L16; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. first c. CE.

Sex(ti) Venafrani  / col(oniae) l(iberti) Primogeni  / sibi et suis.  / Q(uinto) Venafranio col(oniae) l(iberto) / Felici sibi et suis. / In fron(te) p(edes) XII, / in agro p(edes) XII.

298. collegium familiae publicae Source: Date:

CIL X, 4865; cf. ILS 6153 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 47; cf. Halkin 1897, 234. first. CE.

Collegio / familiae / publicaẹ / - - - - - -?

Regio II Aeclanum 299. Albanus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) A(eliae) A(ugustae) A(eclani) s(ervus) ark(arius)14 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6083,11 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 49; cf. CIL XIII, p. 611; Halkin 1897, 234; Evangelisti 2014, 263; Ricci 2020, 78 no. 9. unknown date.

ALBANI C C / A A A S / ARK, i. e., Albani c(olonorum) c(oloniae) / A(eliae) A(ugustae) A(eclani) s(ervi) / ark(ari).

300. Theseus col(onorum) Aeclane(nsium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 1230; cf. SupplIt 29, 130; Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 15; Ricci 2020, 78 no. 8. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Babriae Bebi/ni coniugi, / Theseus / col(onorum) Aeclane(nsium?) (scil. servus), / b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit).

14

He is mentioned on a bronze seal.

340

Appendices

Beneventum 301. Carpus coloniae (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6281 = CIL IX, 226* = ILS 7671 = CLE 462 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 53; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 14. second c. CE?

Hic sit[us est Hermas - - ]  / [- - -]MV[- - -]  / prima iuventa fuit [- - -]  / dum varias cupit spec[ies? - - -] / museo figere in alto / decidit et Hermas hoc nunc / est pondere clausus / aeternasq(ue) lacrimas reli/quit Carpo parenti / qui vixit ann(is) XXI m(ensibus) VIIII / dieb(us) XX Carpus coloniae (scil. servus) / pater infelicissimus fec(it).

302. Concordia col(oniae) lib(erta) Ianuari[a] c[y]mbal(istria) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 1538 = ILS 4185 = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L71; cf. Halkin 1897, 237; Ricci 2020, 78 no. 10. unknown date.

Attini sacrum  / et Minervae Berecint(iae)  / Concordia col(oniae) lib(erta) Ianuari[a]  / c[y]mbal(istria) [l]oco secundo ob  / criobolium factum M(atris) de(um)  / Ma(gnae) tradentib(us) Septimio / Primitivo augure et sac(erdote) / Servilia Varia et Terentia / Elisviana sacerd(ote) XVvir(ali) / praeeunte Mamio Secundo / haec iussu Matris deum / in ara taurobolica duo/dena cum vitula crem(ata) / sub die V Idus Aprilis / Modesto II et Probo co(n)s(ulibus).

303. Concordius co[l(onorum scil. servus)] horr(earius) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 1545 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 54; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; AE 2010, 355; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 15. second c. CE.

Genio / loci et / numini / Caereris / Concor/dius co[l(onorum scil. servus)] / horr(earius).

304. Dexter col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ser(vus) ark(arius)15 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6083,46 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 50; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; SupplIt 2, 1983, 125; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 13. unknown date.

DEXTRI COL  / BEN SER ARK, i. e., Dextri col(onorum)  / Ben(eventanorum) ser(vi) ark(arii).

15

He is mentioned on a bronze seal.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

341

305. Eunus col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ark(arius)16 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6083,51 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 51; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 12. unknown date.

EVNI COL / BEN ARK, i. e., Euni col(onorum) / Ben(eventanorum) ark(arii).

306. Noricus col(onorum) Ben(eventanorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

AE 2013, 369; cf. Luciani 2019c, 288 no. 16. second/third c. CE.

Valeriae Ma/ximillae dul/cissimae et inc/onparabili con/iug(i), q(uae) v(ixit) ann(is) XXII,  / d(iebus) XI, ben(e) mer(enti)  / Noricus, col(onorum)  / Ben(eventanorum) ark(arius), sim̂ûlq(ue) / et sibi vivus fec(it).

307. Optatus col(oniae) adiutor [t]a[b]ul(arii) [of]ficii a r[ati]o[n(e)] lanae Source: Date:

CIL IX, 1664 = Weiss 2004, 201 no. 52; cf. Halkin 1897, 235. unknown date.

Domitiae Cy/paridi castissim(ae) / feminae Optatus / col(oniae)17 adiutor [t]a[b]ul(arii) / [of]ficii a r[ati]o[n(e)] lanae / cum qua vixit ann(os) XVIII / m(enses) V d(ies) XXII.

Brundisium 308. Amaranthus serv(us) p(ublicus) topiar(ius) Source: Date:

Marangio 1988, 210–211 no.  19; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no.  12; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 20. early first c. CE.

Amaran/thus serv(us) p(ublicus) / topiar(ius) v(ixit) a(nnos) L. / H(ic) s(itus).

309. Crescen[s ser(vus)] publ(icus) arca[rius] Source: Date:

AE 1978, 194 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 59; cf. Ricci 2020, 79 no. 18. early first c. CE.

Crescen̲ [s ser(vus)] / publ(icus) arca̲ [rius] / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXI̲ [- - -] / h(ic) s̲ (itus).

16 17

He is mentioned on a bronze seal. Boulvert 1974, 285 n. 150 and Weaver 1972, 241–249 interpreted the abbreviation as col(libertus).

342

Appendices

310. Eros pubicu(s) victimarius Source: Date:

AE 1964, 134 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 57; cf. Ricci 2020, 79 no. 17. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Eros, pubicu(s) / victimarius, / v(ixit) a(nnos) XL. Colle/gius (sic) de suo privat(o).

311. Felix public(us) Brun(disinorum) ser(vus) aqûa[r(ius)] Source: Date:

AE 1964, 138 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 58; cf. Ricci 2020, 79 no. 19. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Felix public(us)  / Brun(disinorum) ser(vus) aqûa[r(ius)]  / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXXVIII.

312. Maxim(us) publicus vil(icus) Br(undisinorum) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 59 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 55; cf. CIL IX, p. 652; Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 22. late first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Maxim(us) / publicus / vil(icus) Br(undisinorum), v(ixit) a(nnis) L. / Nemestron̂îa / Philaenis / co(n)iugi b(ene) m(erenti).

313. Qenarus (sic)18 publ(icus) arcarius thermarum Source: Date:

AE 1978, 217 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 60; cf. Ricci 2020, 79 no. 16. late first c. BCE/early first c. CE.

Qenarus (sic) publ(icus) / arcarius ther/marum v(ixit) a(nnos) [- - -] / [- - - - - -].

314. [- - -] pub[lica muni]cipum Ḅ[rundisinoru]m ser(va) Source: Date:

AE 2017, 254; cf. Luciani 2019, 287 no. 11; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 21. unknown date.

[- - -]A[- - -] / [- - -] pub[licae mu]/[ni]cipum B[rundisino]/[ru]m ser(vae) vix(it) [a(nnos) - - -] / [- - -] optimae m[atri?].

315. [- - - pu]blic[us] victi[marius]? Source: Date:

Marangio 1988, 209 no. 18; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 13. unknown date.

- - - - - -? / [- - - pu]blic[us] victị[marius] / - - - - - -?

18

Ricci 2020, 79 suggested the reading Oenarus?. The name should probably be read as a erroneous form of Coeranus: on this Greek name see Solin 20032, 542.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

343

316. [- - - se]r(vus) pub(licus)? Source: Date:

Marangio 1988, 200 no. 5; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 14. unknown date.

- - - - - -? / [- - - se]ṛ(vus) pub(licus)? / - - - - - -?

317. lib(erti) et famil(ia) pub(lica?) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 32 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 56, 237 no. L18; cf. Halkin 1897, 235, 244; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 23?. early first c. CE.

Genio / decurion(um) / et populi / T(itus) Pollioniu[s] / T(iti) f(ilius) Laetitia[nus] / [ex a]u[r]i libra, / in augurat[u]  / gratu[ito] sib[i]  / del[ato] cu[m] lib(ertis)  / et famil(ia) pub(lica?).

Canusium 318. C(aius) Poblicius po[puli] lib(ertus) Eros Source: Date:

CIL IX, 396 = Weiss 2004, 237 no.  L19; cf. Halkin 1897, 244; Ricci 2020, 79 no. 24. first c. CE.

C(aius) Poblicius po/[puli] lib(ertus) Eros, / Sabellia ((mulieris)) l(iberta) Salvia, / C(aius) Poblicius Felix.

Larinum 319. Cadmus publicus Source: Date:

AE 1997, 326 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 62; cf. Ricci 2020, 79 no. 25. unknown date.

Cadmus / publicus sibi / et Deuterae, / Fausto, Probo, / Primae, suis. / In fr(onte) p(edes) XII. Note:

it is likely that Deutera, Faustus, Probus, and Prima were also public slaves; however, it is impossible to draw a conclusive remark in this respect.

320. Oriens pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 326 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 61; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 26. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Oriens pub(licus) / Rhodio sob(rino), / [C]alvillae, / sor(ori), / frat(ribus) b(ene) m(erentibus) / animo lib(ens) / p(osuit). / H(avete) et val(ete). Note:

it is likely that Calvilla was also a public slave; however, it is impossible to draw a conclusive remark in this respect.

344

Appendices

Ligures Baebiani 321. Iucunda r(ei) p(ublicae) Ligurum (scil. serva) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 1485; cf. Ricci 2020, 80 no. 27. late first/early second c. CE.

[D(is)] inf(eris) M(anibus). / [- - -]+io? Sabini/[a]nus? et Iucunda / r(ei) p(ublicae) Ligurum (scil. serva) fi/lio infelicissi/mo fecerunt.

Luceria 322. Agra s(erva) p(ublica) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 819 = Weiss 2004, 202 no. 63; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 28. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Agr(a)e s(ervae) p(ublicae) / filii / matri opt(imae).

323. Felix s(ervus) p(ublicus) mensor Source: Date:

CIL IX, 821 = ILS 6480 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 64; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 29. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Felici s(ervo) p(ublico) mensori / +[- - -] +++++++[- - -] / - - - - - -

Rudiae 324. Optatus publicus Source: Date:

Susini 1962, 131 no. 76; cf. Ricci 2020, 80 no. 33. second c. CE.

Optatus / publicus / v(ixit) a(nnis) LXXX.

Sipontum 325. Augurinus rei p(ublicae) ser(vus) verna me(n)sor Source: Date:

see no. 326. mid second c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

345

326. Liberalis col(onorum) col(oniae) Sip(onti) ser(vus) ark(arius), qui et ante egit rationem alimentariam sub cura praefector(um) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 699 = ILS 6476 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 65; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; SupplIt 24, 2009, 32–33; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 34. mid second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) S(acrum). / Liberalis col(onorum) / col(oniae) Sip(onti) ser(vus) ark(arius), / qui et ante egit rationem / alimentariam sub cura / praefector(um) annis XXXII, / vivos sibi f[e]cerat. Dedit Augurino  / rei p(ublicae) ser(vo) vernae me(n)sori, filio suo kariss(imo), / qui vix(it) ann(os) XXIII, m(enses) VI, d(ies) X.

Tarentum 327. Vitalis p(ublicus) m(unicipum) T(arentinorum) s(ervus) Source: Date:

Gallo 2021. first c. CE.

Vitalis / p(ublicus) m(unicipum) T(arentinorum) s(ervus) / v(ixit) a(nnis) LXX. / H(ic) s(itus) e(st).

Venusia 328. Pyram[us] colon(orum) vi[l]icus Source: Date:

CIL IX, 472 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 66; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; SupplIt 20, 2003, 68; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 35. unknown date.

Verecundo / Trop[h]imi Pyram[i] / colon(orum) vi[l]ici vi[c]ar(ii) [f(ilio)] / vixit ann(os) II m[e]ns(es) VI / Mansueta avia. Note:

Verecundus was the son of Trophimus, who was a slave (vicarius) of the public vilicus Pyramus.

Veretum 329. Venerius ser(vus) r(ei) p(ublicae) B(eretinorum) Source: Date:

Pagliara 1969–71, 121–26; cf. Luciani 2019c, 287 no. 10; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 36. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Venerịus, ser(vus) / r(ei) p(ublicae) B(eretinorum), vix̣[i]t annis / XLV [- - -] / Ṿ[- - - - - -] / - - - - - -

346

Appendices

Regio III Heraclea 330. servei publicei Source: Date:

CIL I2, 593 = Crawford 1996, 355–391 no. 24 (the so-called tabula Heracleensis). first c. BCE (Caesarian – or Sullan? – age).

l. 82: quae loca serveis publiceis ab cens(oribus) habitandei utendei caussa adtributa sunt ei quominus eis loceis utantur e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihil) r(ogatur).

Paestum 331. Primus col(onorum) arcarius Source: Date:

CIL X, 486 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 67; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 80 no. 1. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Benniae / Ephesiae / Primus / col(onorum) arca/rius coniu(gi).

Petelia 332. Euctus publicus Petelinorum vilicus Source: Date:

AE 1985, 314 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 68; cf. Ricci 2020, 80 no. 2. first c. CE.

Euctus publicus / Petelinorum / vilicus vixit / an(nis) XXIIII.

Potentia 333. Neapolis Potent(inorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL X, 163 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 69; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 3. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus). / Neapolidi / Potent(inorum scil. servus) / v(ixit) a(nnum) I m(enses) IIII / M(arcus) Helvius Acce/ptus [- - -].

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

347

Volcei 334. Nymphicus Volc(eianorum) ark(arius) Source: Date:

CIL X, 410 = ILS 2071 = InscrIt III, 1, 20 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 70; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; SupplIt 3, 1987, 69; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 5. second c. CE.

C(aio) Coelio Aniceto, / mil(iti) coh(ortis) I̅ I̅ pr(aetoriae), sing(ulari) / tr(ibuni), spe benefị ̣ciatu ̣ ṣ: / huic ordo sanctis/simus decur(ionum) ob spem / processus eius hono/rem decurionatus / gratuitum obtulit; / qui vixit ann(is) XXIIII, m(ensibus) / V, d(iebus) II. Coelia Prima, ma/ter, filio dulcissimo, / simul Nymphicus Vo/lc(eianorum) ark(arius) et sibi fecerunt.

Regio IV Aequiculum 335. Aequicula Bassilla Source: Date: Note:

see no. 337 (Source 3) = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L21; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. late second c. CE. she was the daughter of Apronianus r(ei) p(ublicae) Aequicul(anorum) ser(vus) ark(arius) (no. 337) and most likely a public freedwoman.

336. Aequiculus Apronianus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 337 (Source 3) = Weiss 2004, 237 no. L21; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. late second c. CE. he was the son of Apronianus r(ei) p(ublicae) Aequicul(anorum) ser(vus) ark(arius) (no. 337) and most likely a public freedman.

337. Apronianus r(ei) p(ublicae) Aequicul(anorum) ser(vus) ark(arius)

Source 1: CIL IX, 4109 = ILS 4190 = Weiss 2004, 203 no. 71; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 1. Date: 172 CE, June 25th.

Invicto Mithrae  / Apronianus arkar(ius)  / rei p(ublicae) d(onum) d(at)  / dedicatum VII K(alendas) Iul(ias) / Maximo et Orfito co(n)s(ulibus) / per C(aium) Arennium Rea/tinum patrem. Note:

since his father was not a public slave or a public freedman, his mother had necessarily been a public slave at Apronianus’ birth.

348

Appendices

Source 2: CIL IX, 4110 = Weiss 2004, 203 nos. 72–73; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 2. Date: late second c. CE. - - - - - -? / [- - - sacellu]m Solis Invic[ti] / [Mithrae pro salut]e ordinis et pop[uli] / [Apronianus arca]rius rei p(ublicae) vetustate [collap]/sum / [perm(ittente) ordin(e) de s]ua pecunia restit[uit]. Source 3: CIL IX, 4112 = ILS 4381 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 73; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 3. Date: late second c. CE. Pro salute ordinis et populi signa / Serapis et Isidis cum ergasteri(i)s suis / et aediculam in scholam permit/tente ordine  / Apronianus r(ei) p(ublicae) Aequicul(anorum) ser(vus) ark(arius)  / cum Aequicula Bassilla et Aequi/culo Aproniano fil(iis) pec(unia) sua fecit  / l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). Source 4: Mancini 1935; cf. Luciani 2019c, 289 no. 22; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 4. Date: late second c. CE. Apronianus rei p(ublicae) ark(arius) sua pecunia fecit.

338. Fortunatus rei [publicae] arkarius Source: Date:

CIL IX, 4111 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 74; cf. Halkin 1897, 235; Ricci 2020, 81 no. 5. unknown date.

Saluti [- - -] / Fortunatus rei [publicae] arkarius.

Aesernia 339. Aesernina S[y]n[ty]che Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2676 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 75; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; Ricci 2020, 82 no. 9. late first/early second c. CE.

V(iva) f(ecit)  / Aesernina S[y]n[ty]che  / sibi et  / M(arco) Aesernino Ampliato  / seviro Aug(ustali), coniugi / suo, et Ampliato et / Silvestro / publicis, fratribus suis, / Experto publico, / filio suo.

340. M(arcus) Aeserninus Ampliatus, sevir Aug(ustalis) Source: Date:

see no. 339 = Weiss 2004, 237–238 no. L22; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. late first/early second c. CE.

341. Ampliatus publicus (scil. servus) Source: Date:

see no. 339 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 75; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late first/early second c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

349

342. Expertus publicus (scil. servus) Source: Date:

see no. 339 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 75; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late first/early second c. CE.

343. Silvester publicus (scil. servus) Source: Date:

see no. 339 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 75; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late first/early second c. CE.

Alba Fucens 344. Urbicus popul[i (scil. servus)] Source: Date:

CIL IX, 3995 = Weiss 2004, 204 no.  76; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; Ricci 2020, 82 no. 11. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Hesperidi / quae v(ixit) a(nnum) / m(enses) XI d(ies) XXI / Urbicus / popul[i] / filiae / infelicis/[simae].

Amiternum 345. M(anius) Amiternius municipum l(ibertus) Iucundus Source: Date:

CIL IX, 4231 = ILS 6547 = Weiss 2004, 238 no.  L23; cf. Halkin 1897, 244; SupplIt 9, 1992, 36; Ricci 2020, 82 no. 14. unknown date.

M(anius) Amiternius munici/pum l(ibertus) Iucundus et / Petronia Kalliste sibi / posterisque suis.

346. Rufi[nus se]r(vus) Amit(erninorum)19 Source: Date:

AE 1902, 188 = SupplIt 9, 1992, 190 no. 212 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 77 = AE 2010, 404; cf. Ricci 2020, 82 no. 15. unknown date.

EX OF RUFI[NI SE]R AMIT, i. e., Ex of(ficina) Rufi[ni se]r(vi) Amit(erninorum).

19

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

350

Appendices

Antinum 347. Montanus populi Antinatium Ma[r]sor(um) ser(vus) arcarius Source: Date:

CIL IX, 3845 = CLE 165 = ILS 6535 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 78; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; AE 1992, 318; Ricci 2020, 82 no. 16. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Varịae Montan/ae. Quọd par pare/nti fuit ̣ facere / filiam, mors inmatura / fecit ut faceret infelix / parens. Vixit ann(is) XXII. / Variạ Odyne et Montạ/nus, populi Antinatium / Ma[r]soṛ(um) ser(vus) arcarius, fi/liae pientissimae.

Corfinium 348. Aemilianus rei publ(icae) Corf(iniensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

SupplIt 3, 1987, 166–167 no.  31 = CIL IX, 7271 = Weiss 2004, 204 no.  79; cf. AE 1961, 110; SupplIt 22, 2004, 113; Ricci 2020, 82 no. 20. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum)  / Aemiliano  / rei publ(icae) Corf(iniensium scil. servo)  / qui vix(it) annis / XXIII m(ensibus) III dieb(us) / XVIIII Ianuaris / et Trophime / filio carissimo / parentes infelicissi(mi) / posuer(unt) / abstulit atra dies et funere mersit acerbo / ergo non licuit miserum deflere parentes  / nec super exanimem lac{h}rimas (ef)fundere voces  / Apula terra iaces multorum inimica / parentum.

349. Castorinus Corf(iniensium) servus Source: Date:

CIL IX, 3219 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 81; cf. SupplIt 3, 1987, 123; Ricci 2020, 82 no. 17. late second/early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Castori/no Corf(iniensium) / servo / Corf(inius) Cas/tor pater et / Cypare mater / Corf(inius) Monta/nus frater / pientissimo / p(osuerunt).

350. Corf(inius) Castor Source: Date: Note:

see no. 349 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L24. late second/early third c. CE. since he was the father of Castorinus Corf(iniensium) servus (no.  349) and Corf(inius) Montanus (no. 351), he had most likely been a public slave who had then been manumitted.

351. Corf(inius) Montanus Source: Date:

see no. 349 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L24. late second/early third c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

Note:

352. Cypare Source: Date: Note:

351

since he was the brother of Castorinus Corf(iniensium) servus (no. 349) and the son of Corf(inius) Castor (no. 350), he had most likely been a public slave who had then been manumitted.

see no. 349. late second/early third c. CE. since she was the mother of Castorinus Corf(iniensium) servus (no. 349) and Corf(inius) Montanus (no. 351), she was certainly a public slave.

353. Florentinus Source: Date: Note:

354. Ianuaris Source: Date: Note:

see no. 355 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 80. unknown date. since he was a conservus of [T]hymele Corfiniens(ium scil. serva) (no. 355), he was most likely a public slave too.

see no. 348. second c. CE. since he was the father of Aemilianus rei publ(icae) Corf(iniensium scil. servus) (no. 348), he was likely a public slave too.

355. [T]hymele Corfiniens(ium scil. serva) Source: Date:

AE 1983, 323 = SupplIt 3, 1987, 200–201 no. 86 = CIL IX, 7344 = Weiss 2004, 204 no. 80; cf. Ricci 2020, 82 no. 19. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / [T]hymeleni / Corfiniens(ium scil. servae) / Florentinus / conservae / b(ene) m(erenti) / p(osuit).

356. Trophime Source: Date: Note:

see no. 348. second c. CE. since she was the mother of Aemilianus rei publ(icae) Corf(iniensium scil. servus) (no. 348), she was likely a public slave too.

357. [V]erna publicus Source: Date:

AE 1984, 304 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 82; cf. Ricci 2020, 82 no. 21. late second c. CE.

[- - - - - -] / [- - -]RA[- - -?] / [- - -]EN[- - -] / mag[is]tri / [The]ophanius Caesi L(uci) s(ervus)  / [Ag]apo Gaviae s(ervus)  / [V]erna publicus  / [A]lex(ander) Caesi L(uci) s(ervus) / ministri / [- - -]m aram [- - -] / de suo fecere.

352

Appendices

Capena/Cures Sabini 358. [- - -] act(or) ser(vus) pu[b(licus)] Source: Date:

CIL XI, 3968 = AE 1994, 562 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 83; cf. AE 2011, 328; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 22. second c. CE.

- - - - - - / act(ori) ṣeṛ(vo) pụ[b(lico)], / Tescendia / Diadumene / fratri / piissimo et / sibi ̣ v(ixit) a(nnis) XX et suis.

Histonium 359. Histonien(sis) Source: Date: Note:

See no. 360. late second c. CE. since she was the mother of Leodina (sic) Hist(oniensium) ser(vus) (no. 360), she was most likely a public slave.

360. Leodina (sic)20 Hist(oniensium) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6886; cf. Ricci 2020, 83 no. 26. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Leodinâe (sic) / Hist(oniensium) ser(vo) / Histonien(sis) / mat(er) f(ilio) b(ene) m(erenti) / p(osuit).

361. Lepora His[t(oniensium) ser(va)] Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2889 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 84; cf. SupplIt 2, 1983, 116; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 23. late first/early second c. CE.

Leporae Ĥis[t(oniensium) ser(vae)] / Privatus mat̂r[i] / b(ene) m(erenti) posuit. Note:

her son was most likely [Pri]vatus [r(ei) p(ublicae)] Hist(oniensium) ser(vus) (no. 363).

362. Primenia [r(ei) p(ublicae)] Hist(oniensium scil. serva) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2900 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 86; cf. SupplIt 2, 1983, 117–118. first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Primeniae [r(ei) p(ublicae)] / Hist(oniensium scil. servae), castiss[imae] / feminae, q(uae) vix(it) a[n(nis)] / XXII, m(ensibus) XI, d(iebus) XXII.

20

The name should be read as Leonida: on this Greek name see Solin 20032, 1137.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

353

363. [Pri]vatus [r(ei) p(ublicae)] Hist(oniensium) ser(vus)

Source 1: CIL IX, 2890 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 85; cf. SupplIt 2, 1983, 116; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 24. Date: late first/early second c. CE.

[D(is)] M(anibus). / [Pri]vato / [r(ei) p(ublicae)] Hist(oniensium) ser(vo), / [Ma]rtialis / [p]atri op/[ti]mo b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit). Source 2: See no. 361. Date: late first/early second c. CE. Note: he was most likely the son of Lepora His[t(oniensium) ser(va)] (no. 361).

Iuvanum 364. Vestigator p(ublicus) Iuvan(ensium)21 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6083,164 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 87; cf. Ricci 2020, 83 no. 29. early second c. CE.

VESTIGATOR / P IVVAN, i. e., Vestigator / p(ublicus) Iuvan(ensium).

Reate 365. Q(uintus) Reatinus Sallustianus lib(ertus) r(ei) p(ublicae) R(eatinorum)22 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 4699a-e = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L25; cf. Halkin 1897, 244; CIL IX, p. 685; SupplIt 18, 2000, 77; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 31. unknown date.

Q REATINVS SALLVSTIANVS LIB R P R F, i. e., Q(uintus) Reatinus Sallustianus lib(ertus) r(ei) p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) f(ecit). Note:

21 22

before manumission, he was Sallustianus rei p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) s(ervus) (no. 366).

He is mentioned on a bronze seal. He is mentioned on the stamps on five lead pipes.

354

Appendices

366. Sallustianus rei p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) s(ervus)23 Source: Date:

Lanciani 1881, 271 no. 438 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 88; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 30. unknown date.

SALLVSTIANVS REI P R S F, i. e., Sallustianus rei p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) s(ervus) f(ecit). Note:

he was then manumitted and became Q(uintus) Reatinus Sallustianus lib(ertus) r(ei) p(ublicae) R(eatinorum) (no. 365).

Saepinum 367. Abascantus Saep(inatium scil. servus)24 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6654; cf. Luciani 2019c, 288 no. 19; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 36. late first c. BCE/early c. CE.

ABASCANTVS SAEP F, i. e., Abascantus Saep(inatium scil. servus) f(ecit). Note:

368. Felicula Source: Date: Note:

he was then manumitted and became L(ucius) Saepinius Abascantus (no. 371).

see no. 370. early second c. CE. since she was the daughter of Oriens aliment(arius) Saepinati(um scil. servus) (no. 370) and of Thalia (no. 364), Oriens’ fellow-slave, she probably was a public slave.

369. Fortunatus Saepinat(ium scil. servus)25 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6655. early second c. CE.

FORTVNATVS SAEPINAT FECIT, i. e., Fortunatus Saepinat(ium scil. servus).

370. Oriens aliment(arius) Saepinati(um scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2472 = ILS 6519 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 89; cf. Halkin 1897, 245; Ricci 2020, 84 no. 38. early second c. CE.

D(is) [M(anibus)]. / L(ucio) Saepinio Orienti, Aug(ustali), / et L(ucio) Saepinio Oresti, / I̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ vir(o) aed(ili), et Felicul(a)e, / filiae, Oriens aliment(arius) / Saepinati(um scil. servus) patri et fratr(i) / et Thalia, conserva eius, / b(ene) m(erentibus) f(ecerunt).

23 24 25

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

355

371. L(ucius) Saepinius Abascantus26 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6653; cf. Luciani 2019c, 288 no. 20; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 35. late first c. BCE/early second c. CE.

L SAEPINIVS ABASCANTVS FEC̣ // PVBLIC SAEPIN, i. e., L(ucius) Saepinius Abascantus fec(it) ̣ // Public(um) Saepin(atium). Note:

before manumission, he was Abascantus Saep(inatium scil. servus) (no. 367).

372. C(aius) Saepinius municipi(i) [l(ibertus)] Albanus Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2533 = ILS 6520 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L26; cf. Halkin 1897, 245; Ricci 2020, 84 no. 39. late first/early second c. CE.

Aucta sibi / et C(aio) Saepinio / municipi(i) [l(iberto)] Albano, / patrono, [et] l(iberto) / C(aio) Saepinio Diomedi / et Dion[y]siae matri.

373. L(ucius) Saepinius Oriens, Aug(ustalis) Source: Date: Note:

374. Thalia

Source: Date: Note:

see no. 370 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L27; cf. Halkin 1897, 245; Ricci 2020, 84 no. 38. early second c. CE. since he was the father of Oriens aliment(arius) Saepinati(um) (no. 370), he had most likely been a former public slave, who had at some point been manumitted.

see no. 370 = Weiss 2004, 205 no. 89. early second c. CE. since she was a fellow-slave of Oriens aliment(arius) Saepinati(um) (no. 370), she was a public slave and possibly his partner too.

375. Verus Saepin(atium scil. servus)27 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 6656; cf. Luciani 2019, 288 no. 18; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 33. late first c. BCE/early c. CE.

VERVS SAEPIN FEC, i. e., Verus Saepin(atium scil. servus) fec(it).

376. Zosimus Saepin(atium) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2483 = Weiss 2004, 205 no.  90; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; Ricci 2020, 83 no. 32. late first/early second c. CE.

Zosimo Saepin(atium) / ser(vo) cul(tores) / Flaminiani.

26 27

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

356

Appendices

Telesia 377. Epitynchanus Telesinorum ser(vus) ark(arius) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2244 = ILS 6511 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 91; cf. CIL IX, p. 674; Halkin 1897, 236; Ricci 2020, 84 no. 40. unknown date.

Epitynchano / Telesinorum / ser(vo) ark(ario) / Adiutor / vicar(ius).

Terventum 378. Terventinia Calliste Source: Date: Note:

see no. 379 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L28; cf. Ricci 2020, 84 no. 41. late first/early second c. CE. since she was the partner of [- - -]nus rei p(ublicae) Terv[e(ntinatium)] ser(vus) ark(arius) (no. 379), she was most likely a public freedwoman.

379. [- - -]nus rei p(ublicae) Terv[e(ntinatium)] ser(vus) ark(arius) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 2606 = Weiss 2004, 206 no.  92; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; Ricci 2020, 84 no. 41. late first/early second c. CE.

[- - -]ṇo rei p(ublicae)  / Ṭerv[e(ntinatium)] ser(vo) arḳ(ario),  / Terṿentinia  / Caḷliste con(iugi) / et / [+?]Aṛcị[̣ - -] / - - - - - -?

Trebula Suffenas 380. T(itus) Trebulanus municip(um) [l(ibertus)] Albanus Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 3513; cf. EphEp IX, p. 468; Luciani 2019c, 288 no. 17. first c. CE.

Cerviae filiae / Gulae (sic), matri / piissimae, / A(ulo) Cervio A(uli) f(ilio) Ani(ensi) / Plebeio, fratri, / C(aius) Cervius A(uli) f(ilius) Ani(ensi) / Flaccus fecit / M(arco) Minervino, / T(ito) Trebulano municip(um) [l(iberto)] / Albano, / [- - ]triliae [- - -]arini / [T(ito)] Trebulano municip(um) [l(iberto) R]e[p]entin(us) / [- - -]andiae [- - -] maiori.

381. [T(itus)] Trebulanus municip(um) [l(ibertus) R]e[p]entin(us)? Source: Date:

see no. 380. first c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

357

382. Felicissim[us] ser(vus) praef(ecturae) Aveiat(ium) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 3627; cf. Luciani 2019c, 288 no. 21. first c. CE?

- - - - - -? / IL[- - -] C/ornel[ia Fau]/stina ma[ter] / et Felicissim[us] / ser(vus) praef(ecturae) Avei/at(ium). V(ixit) a(nnis) II, m(ensibus) III, d(iebus) XXV. / P(osuerunt).

Regio V Asculum 383. Ianuarius [c]ol(onorum) di[sp(ensator)] Source: Date:

EphEm VIII, 217 = ILS 6565 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 94. late first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / M(arco) Valerio col(onorum) l(iberto) / Vernae sexvir(o) / Aug(ustali) et Tib(eriali), / Ianuarius [c]ol(onorum) di[sp(ensator)], / q̲ ui fuerat [arc]arius / eiu[s i] tem / Vibia Primil[l]a uxo[r] / [s]ib[i e]t po[ste]ris eorum.

384. Rufus col(onorum) disp(ensator) arc(a)e summar(um) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 5177 = CIL XI, 635* = ILS 5450 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 93; cf. CIL V, 83; Halkin 1897, 236. 172 CE, July 21st.

Fortunae Reduci.  / Rufus cól(onorum) disp(ensator) arc(a)e summár(um),  / omní cultu exornát(- - -) dé suo posu/it ìdemque decrét(o) órdin(is) templum  / a solo, sumptu suo maximo conláto, / perficiendum curávit, cuius dedicati/one singulis in collégio ((sestertios)) XX n(ummos) ded(it).  / Dedicatum XII kal(endas) Aug(ustas), Orfito et Maximo co(n) s(ulibus). / Si qui clipeum ponere volet dabit arce ((sestertium)) II ((milia)) n(ummum).

385. M(arcus) Valerius col(onorum) l(ibertus) Verna, sexvir Aug(ustalis) et Tib(erialis) Source: Date:

see no. 383 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L29. late first c. CE.

Firmum Picenum 386. Heracla pub(licus scil. servus) Fir(manorum) Source: Date:

Tentori Montalto 2020. late second/early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus)  / Secun/di. Heracla  / pub(licus scil. servus) Fir(manorum)  / sodali k(arissimo).

358

Appendices

Hadria 387. [-] Venerius col(onorum) l(ibertus) Felix, mag(ister) Aug(ustalis) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 5020 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L30; cf. CIL XI, 735*,1; Halkin 1897, 245. late second/early third c. CE.

[-] Venerius / col(onorum) l(ibertus) Felix, / mag(ister) Aug(ustalis) sibi / et Platoriâe Aprullae / coniugi et suis, / v(ivus) f(ecit). / In f(ronte) p(edes) XXX, / in agr(o) p(edes) LXXXV.

Incerulae 388. Communi Incerulanorum servus Source: Date:

AE 1968, 152 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 96. unknown date.

Communi / Incerula/norum / servo iuve/nes Taresuni / p(osuerunt).

Interamna Praetuttiorum 389. Droserus Int(eramnatium scil. servus) Source: Date:

EphEm VIII, 209 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 97. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Valeriae / Praetutti/anae, coiu/gi, Drose/rus Int(eramnatium scil. servus) / b(ene) m(erenti).

Regio VI Ameria 390. Ampliatus ser(vus) public(us) Source: Date:

SupplIt 18, 2000, 274–275 no. 25 = AE 2000, 511 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 102. late first c. CE.

D(is) [M(anibus)]  / Ampliati  / ser(vi) public(i),  / Cesena Primiti/va coniugi  / b(ene) m(erenti).

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

359

391. Felix servus publicus Amerinorum Source: Date:

CIL XI, 4421 = Weiss 2004, 206–207 no. 99; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; SupplIt, 18, 2000, 234. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Felici servo publico  / Amerinorum,  / Clusinatia Auge  / coniugi carissim(o) / bene merenti fecit.

392. Pa(r)thenop(a)eus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 393. second c. CE. since he was the brother of [P]hilum[e]nus servus rei p(ublicae) (no. 393), he was most likely a public slave.

393. [P]hilum[e]nus servus rei p(ublicae) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 4426 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 101; cf. SupplIt 18, 2000, 236. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / [P]hilum[e]/ni seṛ/vi rei p(ublicae), / Pa(r)theno/p(a)eus fra/ter piis/ simus / b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit).

394. Secundus ark(arius) rei p(ublicae) Amerinor(um) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 4382 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 100; cf. CIL XI, p. 1369; SupplIt 18, 2000, 228. late second c. CE.

T(ito) Atilio T(iti) f(ilio), T(iti) n(epoti)  / Clu(stumina) Adiatroni,  / omnibus honoribus functo,  / item curatori kal(endarii) Amerinorum  / dato ab optimo ac nobilissimo  / imp(eratore) / [[- - -]] Aug(usto) [[- - -]], ho/mini optimo ac de se benemerito, / Secundus ark(arius) rei p(ublicae) / Amerinor(um).

395. familia publica Source: Date:

CIL XI, 4391 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 98; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; SupplIt, 18, 2000, 230. second c. CE.

Iuliae M(arci) f(iliae) Felicitati  / uxori  / C(ai) Curiati Eutychetis  / IIIIvir(i), magistrae Fortu/nae Mel(ioris), coll(egium) centonarior(um) / ob merita eius. Quo honore / contenta sumptum omnem / remisit et ob dedic(ationem) ded(it) sin/gulis ((sestertios)) XX n̅ (ummos) et hoc amplius / arkae eorum intul(it) ((sestertium)) V m(ilia) n(ummum) / ut die natalis sui (scil. ante diem) V Id(us) Mai(as) / ex usuris eius summae epu/lantes imperpetuum divider(ent),  / quod si divisio die s(upra) s(cripta) celebrata non  / fuerit tunc pertineb(it) omn(is) summa / ad familiam publicam.

360

Appendices

Asisium 396. C(aius) Publicius munic[ipum] Asisinatium libe[rtus] Verecundus, VIvir [Aug(ustalis)] Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5411 = Weiss 2004, 238 no. L32; cf. SupplIt 23, 2006, 289. first c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / C(ai) Publici munic̲ [ipum] / Asisi̲ natium libe̲ [rti] / Verecundi, V̅ I̅ vir̲ (i) [Aug(ustalis)], / C(aius) Publicius Allius Pr̲ [- - -] / patri piissimo [- - -?].

397. Successus publicus municipum Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5375 = ILS 3039 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 103; cf. Halkin 1897, 236; SupplIt 23, 2006, 270. first c. CE.

Iovi Paganico sacr(um). / Ex indulgentia dominorum / Successus publicus municipûm / Asisinatium ser(vus) Amoenianus / aedem cum porticibus a solo / sua pec(unia) fecit item mensam et aram / d(ono) d(edit).

Carsulae 398. Primiti(v)us p(ublicus) saltuarius Car(sulanorum) Source: Date:

AE 2012, 466; cf. Luciani 2019, 289 no. 23. late second/early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Primiti(v)us, p(ublicus) / saltuarius Car(sulanorum), / Q̣ uịṇt(ae) R[e] stitu/taẹ, Car(sulanorum scil. servae), / b(ene) m(erenti).

399. L(ucius) Publicius Celer municipum Cars(ulanorum) lib(ertus) Source: Date:

AE 2000, 534; cf. Luciani 2019, 289 no. 24. first c. CE.

L(ucius) Publicius Ceḷer, / municipum Carṣ(ulanorum) / lib(ertus).

400. Quint(a) R[e]stituta Car(sulanorum scil. serva) Source: Date:

see no. 398. late second/early third c. CE.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

361

Hispellum 401. Hispellatia Valentina Source: Date: Note:

see no. 402. second c. CE. since she was the partner of Ianuarius r(ei) p(ublicae) c(oloniae) His(pellatium) a(ctor?) (no. 402), it is likely that she also was a public slave, who had then been manumitted.

402. Ianuarius r(ei) p(ublicae) c(oloniae) His(pellatium) a(ctor?) Source: Date:

Sensi 2012–13, 291–296; cf. Luciani 2019c, 289 no. 25. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus)  / Hispellatiae  / Valentinae.  / Ianuarius  / r(ei) p(ublicae) c(oloniae) His(pellatium) a(ctor?) / coniugi / b(ene) m(erenti).

403. Pronomus publicus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5284 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 104. unknown date.

Pronomus / publicus.

Mevania 404. P(ublius) Mevanas municip{i}um l(ibertus) Faustus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5114 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L33. unknown date.

P(ublius) Mevanas municip{i}um / l(ibertus) Faustus, Meligerus / lib(ertus).

Pisaurum 405. P(ublius) Pisaur(ensis) col(onorum) lib(ertus) Achillas Source: Date:

CIL XI, 6316 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L34. late first/early second c. CE.

Silvani / signum / cum bas(i) / P(ublius) Pisaur(ensis) / col(onorum) lib(ertus) / Achillas / posuit.

362

Appendices

Pitinum Mergens 406. Fructus pub(licus) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5968 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 105. late first/early second c. CE.

S̲ abiṇo / Fructi pub(lici) sẹ[r(vi)] / vicario.

Sassina 407. Florentinus mun(icipii) Sass(inatium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 6531 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 106. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus)  / Protes.  / Florentinus  / mun(icipii) Sass(inatium scil. servus)  / contubern(ali) / bene de se / meritae.

Sentinum 408. Ianuarius Sent(inatium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5737 = ILS 4215 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 107; cf. Halkin 1897, 236. third c. CE.

col. III, l. 3: Ianuarius Sent(inatium scil. servus)

409. Sentin(as) Ianuarius Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5737 = ILS 4215. third c. CE.

col. I, l. 5: Sentin(as), pater leonum, Ianuarius Note:

since he bore a nomen derived from the toponym of his city and is mentioned with Ianuarius Sent(inatium scil. servus) (no. 408), he was most likely a public slave.

410. Sentin(as) Velentin(us) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 5737 = ILS 4215. third c. CE.

col. II, l. 10: Sentin(as) Velentin(us) Note:

since he bore a nomen derived from the toponym of his city and is mentioned with Ianuarius Sent(inatium scil. servus) (no. 408), he was most likely a public slave.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

363

Tifernum Mataurense 411. [- - -]us vilicus p[ub(licus?)] Source: Date:

AE 2004, 539; cf. Luciani 2019, 289 no. 26. mid first c. BCE.

[Geni]o ordinis, Fọrṭ[i] / [Fort]unae, Lar[i]bus / sacr(um). / [Perm]ịssú decurionum / [- - -] us ví ̣ḷịcus p[ub(licus?)] / cultó[ribus? - - -] / [fecit?].

Tuder 412. Anonymous sceleratissimus servus publicus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 4639, cf. p. 1372 = ILS 3001, cf. AE 1985, 364 = Weiss 2004, 207–208 no. 109; cf. Halkin 1897, 236. Flavian age.

Pro salute / coloniae et ordinis / decurionum et populi / Tudertis. Iovi Opt(imo) Max(imo), / Custodi, Conservatori, / quod is sceleratissimi servi / publici infando latrocinio / defixa monumentis ordinis / decurionum nomina / numine suo eruit ac vindi/cavit et metu periculorum / coloniam civesque liberavit. / L(ucius) Cancrius Clementis lib(ertus) / Primigenius, / sexvir et Augustalis et Flavialis, / primus omnium his honoribus / ab ordine donatus, / votum solvit. // C(aio) Vibio [- - -] / Iulio [- - -] / co(n)ss(ulibus).

Urvinum Mataurense 413. Verecundus Urv(inatium) vil(icus) ab alim(entis) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 6073 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 110; cf. Halkin 1897, 236. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Secundi, / Octobris / vernae, / Secundinâe. / Vicari(i)s, / Verecun/dus Urv(inatium) / vil(icus) ab alim(entis).

364

Appendices

Regio VII Falerii 414. C(aius) Faliscus Felix28 Source: Date:

SupplIt 1, 1981, 149–150 no. 29 = AE 1982, 278; cf. Weiss 2004, 208 no. 111. unknown date.

C FALISCVS FELIX FEC // C̣ FALISCVS FELIX FEC̣ // C FALI[SCVS FELIX FEC] // C F[ALISCVS FELIX FEC], i. e., C(aius) Faliscus Felix fec(it). // C̣(aius) Faliscus Felix ̣ fec(it). // C(aius) Fali[scus Felix fec(it)]. // C(aius) F̣[aliscus Felix fec(it)]. ̣ Note:

before manumission, he was Felix ser(vus) municipi Falisci (no. 415).

415. Felix ser(vus) municipi Falisci29 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 3155a 1–2 = ILS 8702a = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 111; cf. Halkin 1897, 237; SupplIt 1, 1981, 122. unknown date.

FELIX SE[R] MVNICIPI FALISCI [FEC] // FELIX SER MVNICI[PI FALISCI FEC], i. e., Felix se[r(vus)] municipi Falisci [fec(it)]. // Felix ser(vus) munici[pi Falisci fec(it)]. Note:

he was then manumitted and became C(aius) Faliscus Felix (no. 414).

416. September ser(vus) rei pub(licae) Faliscor(um)30 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 3155b = ILS 8702b = Weiss 2004, 208 no.  112; cf. Halkin 1897, 237; SupplIt 1, 1981, 122. unknown date.

SEPTEMBER SER REI PVB FALI[S]COR FEC, i. e., September ser(vus) rei pub(licae) Fali[s]cor(um) fec(it).

Rusellae 417. E(- - -) s(ervus?) p(ublicus) R(usellanorum)31 Source: Date: Note:

28 29 30 31

see no. 418. second/third c. CE. he was specifically entrusted with the task of smelting lead.

He is mentioned on the stamps on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes. He is mentioned on the stamps on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

365

418. [Se]cundus publicus Russellanoru(m)32 Source: Date:

AE 1964, 254 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 113. second/third c. CE.

1: a) PVB COL RVS // [SE]CVNDVS PVBLICVS RVSSELLANORV FEC b) PVB COL RVS // E S P R FVD // PV[B COL RVS] // [SECVNDVS PVBLICVS RVSELL] ANORV FEC, i. e., a) Pub(licum) col(oniae) Rus(sellanorum) // [Se]cundus publicus Russellanoru(m) fec(it). b) Pub(licum) col(oniae) Rus(sellanorum) // E(- - -) s(ervus?) p(ublicus) R(usellanorum) fud(it) // Pu[b(licum) col(oniae) Rus(ellanorum)] // [Secundus publicus Rusell]anoru(m) fec(it); 2: PVB [COL RVS] // [SECVNDVS PVBLICVS RVSELL]ANORV FEC, i. e., Pub(licum) [col(oniae) Rus(ellanorum)]. // [Secundus publicus Rusell]anoru(m) fec(it).

Saturnia 419. Primitivus c(olonorum) s(ervus) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 2656 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 114; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus) / Secundae / publicae, / vixit a(nnos) VII / m(enses) X. / Tertius et / Publicia For/tunata par(entes) / filiae karis(simae) f(ecerunt). / Saturniae For/tunatae, v(ixit) a(nnos) XXXIII,  / Primitivo c(olonorum) s(ervo), v(ixit) a(nnos) XIIX,  / m(enses) IV, d(ies) VII, coniugi / et fil(io) Tertius c(olonorum) s(ervus).

420. Publicia vel Saturnia Fortunata Source: Date:

see no. 419 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L35; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. unknown date.

421. Secunda publica Source: Date:

see no. 419 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 114; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. unknown date.

422. Tertius c(olonorum) s(ervus) Source: Date:

32

see no. 419 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 114; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. unknown date.

He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes.

366

Appendices

Veii 423. Veientius Ianuarius lib(ertus) ark(arius) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 3780 = ILS 6580 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L36; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. 249 CE.

Dedicata  / III Non(as) Ian(uarias)  / Aemiliano II et Aquilino co(n)s(ulibus)  / P(ublio) Sergo Maximo / M(arco) Lollio Sabiniano / IIvir(is) q(uin)q(uennalibus) / cura agente / Veientio Ianuario lib(erto) ark(ario) // Victoriae  / August(ae)  / sacrum  / restitutae post anti/quissimam vetusta/tem / ordo Veientium.

Volaterrae 424. Urbicus vilicus publicus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1751 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 115; cf. CIL XI, p. 1272; Halkin 1897, 237. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus)  / Urbico vilico pu/blico d(ecreto) o(rdinis) ĉuius  / multa b(eneficia) ĥabens / q(ui) ac(tum) egit anni/s XLIIII, sin̂e ull(a) / macula vixit.

Volsinii 425. Charis Vols(iniensium scil. serva) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 3419 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 119; cf. CIL XI, pp. 1464–1465. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus). / Charis Vols(iniensium scil. serva) / coniugi bene / merenti p(ia) p(osuit) / (scil. Volsinio) Didae lib(erto) Vol(siniensium).

426. Eutyches rei p(ublicae) Vols(iniensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 2715 = Weiss 2004, 208–209 no. 117; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late second/third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Sereni. / Eutyches / rei p(ublicae) Vols(iniensium scil. servus).

427. Primitivus r(ei) p(ublicae) ser(vus) act(or) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 2714 = Weiss 2004, 208 no. 116; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. unknown date.

Rufiae  / Primitivae  / contubern[a][[li]]  / sanctissimae  / Primitivus  / r(ei) p(ublicae) ser(vus) act(or) / b(ene) m(erenti) fec(it).

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

367

428. (scil. Volsinius) Dida lib(ertus) Vol(siniensium) Source: Date:

see no. 425 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L37. unknown date.

429. Volsinius [V]ictorinus, [q(uin)]q(uennalis) coll(egii) fabr(um), Augustal[is] [ta]bul(arius) rei publ(icae) [V]olsiniens(ium) [i]t(em) Ferentiensium Source: Date:

CIL XI, 2710a = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L38. unknown date.

[- - -] Volsinio / [V]ictorino, / [q(uin)]q(uennali) coll(egii) fabr(um), / Augustal[i], / [ta]bul(ario) rei publ(icae) / [V]olsiniens(ium) / [i]t(em) Ferenti/ensium.

Regio VIII Bononia 430. [- P]oblicius [Bo]noniens(ium) l(ibertus) [- - -]tus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 6840 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L39. late first/early second c. CE.

[- P]ọblicius / [Bo]noniens(ium) l(ibertus) / [- - -]ṭus v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi / [et - - -] / - - - - - -

Concordia Brixillum 431. C(aius) Concordius Brixil(lanorum) l(ibertus) Primus, V̅ I̅ vir Aug(ustalis) gr(atuitus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) Source: Date:

AE 1931, 10 = AE 1933, 154 = AE 1975, 396; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 27. late first c. CE.

C(aio) Concordio  / Brixil(lanorum) l(iberto) Prímo,  / V̅ I̅ vir(o) Aug(ustali) gr(atuito) d(ecreto) / d(ecurionum), / C(aio) Concordio C(ai) l(iberto) / Rhéno, II̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ Iviro / Augustali, viro, / Concordiae C(ai) f(iliae) / Festae, filiae, / Munatia C(ai) et ((mulieris)) l(iberta) / Rufilla / v(iva) f(ecit).

Parma 432. Callistrat(us) Source: Date: Note:

see no. 436. second c. CE? since he was the brother of Politicus publi[c]us (no. 436), he was most likely a public slave.

368

Appendices

433. Eucharistus publ(icus) disp(ensator) pec(uniae) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1066 = ILS 6672 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 120; cf. CIL V, 686*; Halkin 1897, 237; SupplIt 11, 1993, 131. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus)  / Euchar/isti publ(ici)  / disp(ensatoris) pec(uniae).  / Chryseuêl/pịṣ ̣ tus ser(vus) / b(ene) m(erenti) d(edit).

434. Helenus Source: Date: Note:

See no. 435. late first/early second c. CE. since he was the foster-brother of Kalocaerus publicus (no. 435), he was most likely a public slave.

435. Kalocaerus publicus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1067 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 121; cf. Halkin 1897, 237; SupplIt 11, 1993, 131. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Kalocaerus / publicus / Heleno, / col(l)actio / b(ene) m(erenti).

436. Politicus publi[c]us Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1068 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 122; cf. Halkin 1897, 237; SupplIt 11, 1993, 131. second c. CE?

D(is) M(anibus) / Politici / publi[c]i. / Posuerunt / Callistrat(us), / frat[e]r, et / Victoria, co(n)iu(n)x, / b(ene) m(erenti).

Placentia 437. Onesimus c(olonorum) P(lacentinorum) s(ervus) vil(icus) macelli Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1231 = ILS 6673 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 123; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late first/early second c. CE

D(is) M(anibus) / Onesimi, / c(olonorum) P(lacentinorum) s(ervi) / vil(ici) / macelli. / Allia Prim(a) / bene me/renti / cu/m quo vi/xit annis / - - - - - -

438. Publicius Plac(entinorum) lib(ertus) Theseus Source: Date:

AE 1922, 111 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L40. first c. CE

D(is) M(anibus) / Flaviae / Pyrallid(i) / Publicius / Plac(entinorum) lib(ertus) / Theseus / coniugi / rarissi/mae.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

369

Regium Lepidi 439. Agathyrsus Reg(iensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL XI, 979 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 124. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus)  / Agathyrsi  / Reg(iensium scil. servi) Catia  / Ianuaria f(aciundum) c(uravit) / et sibi viva.

Veleia 440. Cladus Veleiatium (scil. servus) [= Veleiatium (scil. servus) Cladus] Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1205 = ILS 6672 = AE 1993, 725 = Weiss 2004, 209 no. 125. early first c. CE

V(ivus) f(ecit) / [-] Po˹bl˺icius / Vẹ[leia]tium lib(ertus) / Seṛ[- - -], II̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ Ivir, / siḅ[i et] / Aebutiaẹ Ṣalvie, / Caerelliae Ṭertị(ae), / Veleiatium (scil. servo) / Clado, / L(ucio) Granio L(uci) f(ilio) Prisc[o].

441. [-] Po˹bl˺icius Ve[leia]tium lib(ertus) Seṛ[- - -], II̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ Ivir Source: Date:

see no. 440 = Weiss 2004, 239 no. L41; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. early first c. CE

Regio X Altinum 442. Publicia Amabilis Source: Date: Note:

See no. 443. early first c. CE. since she bore the nomen Publicia and is mentioned with Virilis m(unicipum) A(ltinatium) s(ervus) vilic(us) aer(arii) (no. 443), she was most likely a former public slave who had been manumitted.

443. Virilis m(unicipum) A(ltinatium) s(ervus) vilic(us) aer(arii) Source: Date:

AE 2001, 1049; cf. AE 2010, 548; cf. Luciani 2019, 291 no. 36. early first c. CE.

Veneri Aug(ustae) / Publicia / Amabilis et / Virilis, / m(unicipum) A(ltinatium) s(ervus) / vilic(us) aer(arii), / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito).

370

Appendices

Aquileia 444. Abascantus colonorum Aquil(eiensium) ser(vus) officio luc(or)um Herculis Source: Date:

InscrAq 3260 = Weiss 2004, 210–211 no. 137. second c. CE.

Locum datum Abas/canto colonorûm / Aquil(eiensium) ser(vo) officio lu/c(or)um Herculis, ami/co optimo.

445. Acutio [r]ei p(ublicae) ser(vus) [off]icio [- - -] Source: Date:

Pais, SupplIt 166 = InscrAq 322 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 130; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late first/early second c. CE.

Nemesi / Aug(ustae) / Acutio / [r]ẹi p(ublicae) ser(vus) / [off]ịcio / - - - - - -

446. L(ucius) Aquileiensis Agathius Source: Date: Note:

see no. 453 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L43. late first/early second c. CE. since he bore a nomen derived from the toponym of the city of Aquileia and is mentioned with Helius colonorum (scil. servus) (no. 453), he was most likely a former public slave who had been manumitted.

447. Aq(uileiensis) Demet(rius)33 Source: Date:

CIL V, 8117, 2b, e-d = Luciani 2010, 276–278. second c. CE.

AQ DEMET F, i. e., Aq(uileiensis) Demet(rius) f(ecit). Note:

before manumission, he probably was Deme(trius) col(onorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus) (no. 450).

448. C(aius) Aquileiens(is) Felix vilic(us) summarum Source: Date:

CIL V, 737 = ILS 4869 = InscrAq 129 = Weiss 2004, 239–240 no. L42; cf. Pais, SupplIt 1115; Halkin 1897, 245. late first second c. CE.

Apollini  / Bẹḷẹṇo [Aug(usto)?]  / C(aius) Aquileiens(is)  / Felix.  / Quod vịlic(us)  / sụṃṃạrum / [vovit, lib(ertus) solvit].

33

He is mentioned on the stamps on three lead pipes.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

371

449. Bellicus colo[nor(um) A]quileiens(ium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 1127 = InscrAq 550 = AE 2000, 245 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 128; cf. CIL V, p. 1026; Halkin 1897, 237. second c. CE.

Bellico / colo[nor(um) A]quileiens(ium scil. servo) / (qui) vi[xit an]nos XXVI / Pri[- - - e] t Suavis / [frat?]res.

450. Deme(trius) col(onorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus)29F34 Source: Date:

Maionica 1889, 294. second c. CE.

DEME COL A F, i. e., Deme(trius) col(onorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus) f(ecit). Note:

he was probably manumitted at some point, thus becoming Aq(uileiensis) Demet(rius) (no. 447).

451. Eglect(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus)35 Source: Date:

AE 2010, 531; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 32. second c. CE.

a) EGLECT C AQ, i. e., Eglect(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus). b) EGLẸ[CT C AQ], i. e., Eglẹ[ct(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus)].

452. Habilis publicus Source: Date:

InscrAq 566 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 135. late first/early second c. CE.

Habilis / publicus / sibi et / Primae fecit.

453. Helius colonorum (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 1084 = InscrAq 475 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 127; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. late first/early second c. CE.

- - - - - - / Caesaris n̄ (ostri) se[r(vo)], / filio piissimo, / et L(ucio) Aquileiensi Agathio / et Helio colonorum (scil. servo).

454. [M]artialis c(olonorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

InscrAq 243 = AE 2000, 259. second c. CE.

Iovi / sacruṃ / [M]ạrtialis / c(olonorum) A(quileiensium scil. servus).

34 35

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

372

Appendices

455. Priscus colono[r(um)] Aquil(eiensium) s[er(vus)] Source: Date:

Pais, SupplIt 198 = InscrAq 552 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 131; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. second c. CE.

Priscuṣ / colono[r(um)] / Aquil(eiensium) s[er(vus)].

456. Sedat(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus)36 Source: Date:

CIL V, 8110,133 = CIL V, 8117,6a-b = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 129; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. unknown date.

SEDAT C AQ, i. e., Sedat(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus).

457. Silvan(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) 1 Source: Date:

AE 2010, 528; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 30. late third/early fourth c. CE.

D(is) [M(anibus)]. / Hav[e - - -] / M. Caecịḷ[ius - - -] / vivus fec[it sibi et] / Caecil(iae) Urḅ[anae?], / Silvano colon[or(um scil. servo)], / lib(ertis) lib(ertabus)q(ue) post(erisque) ẹ[or(um)].

458. Silvan(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) 237 Source: Date:

AE 2010, 530; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 31. unknown date.

SILV̂AN C AQ, i. e., Silv̂an(us) c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus).

459. Steph[anus]? m(unicipum) Aq(uileiensium) actor summ(arum) Source: Date:

InscrAq 556 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 134. first c. CE.

- - - - - - / Stepḥ̣ [anus]? ṃ(unicipum) Aq(uileiensium) / actor sumṃ(arum).

460. Surio c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus)38 Source: Date:

Pais, SupplIt 1082,2 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 133. unknown date.

SV̂RIO C AQ F, i. e., Sûrio c(olonorum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) f(ecit).

36 37 38

He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on one lead pipe.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

373

461. [- - -]rius p(ublicus) c(olonorum) A(quileiensium) s(ervus) Source: Date:

InscrAq 555 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 136. late first/early second c. CE.

[- - -]rii39 p(ublici) c(olonorum) A(quileiensium) s(ervi) vic(arius).

462. [- - - co]lon(orum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

Pais, SupplIt 211 = Pais, SupplIt 1139 = InscrAq 699 = Weiss 2004, 210 no. 132; cf. Halkin 1897, 237. first c. CE.

- - - - - -? / [- - -]lion / [- - - co]ḷon(orum) Aq(uileiensium scil. servus) / - - - - - -?

Ateste 463. Philetus publ(icus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 2634 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 138; cf. Halkin 1897, 238; SupplIt 15, 1997, 94. early first c. CE.

Graccellia P(ubli) f(ilia) / Secunda / sibi et suis, / P(ublio) Graccellio / L(uci) f(ilio), patri, / Acellasiae L(uci) f(iliae)  / Maxim̂ae, m̂atri.  / Q(uo)q(uo)v(ersus) p(edes) XX.  / Phileto publ(ico) / loc(um) dedit.

Atria 464. Hedomacus pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 141* = CIL V, 429*,202 = AE 1987, 444 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 140. first c. CE.

Ceṛeri Aug(ustae). / Hedomacus, pub(licus), / [I̅ ]I̅ I̅ vir, mag(ister), ob hon(orem) / Lib(eri) P̣aṭr(is) et Hercul(is) Aug(usti).

465. Hylas m(unicipum) A(trianorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 2343 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 139; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. first c. CE.

Hylas m(unicipum) A(trianorum scil. servus).

39

Cf. InscrAq 555 and Weiss 2004, 210 no. 136: [- - -]NII. My reading is based on autopsy. [- - -]rii could also be the ending part of a simplex nomen, or the end of the word tabularius or arcarius in the genitive case.

374

Appendices

Brixia 466. Ascula publicu(s) Source: Date:

CIL V, 4194 = InscrIt X, 5, 874 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 147. late second c. CE.

Clodiae L(uci) l(ibertae) / Priscae, ornat(rici), / Ascula publicu(s) / posuit.

467. Catil(lus)? Brixano[r(um scil. servus)?] Source: Date:

CIL V, 4186 = InscrIt X, 5, 900 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 142; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. late second c. CE.

[- - -]ECVM Catil(lus)? Brixâno[r(um scil. servus)?].40

468. Cosmus Brixianor(um scil. servus) vilic(us) Source: Date:

CIL V, 4507 = InscrIt X, 5, 302 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 143; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE?

Nigrino / vicario, / Cosmus / Brixianor(um scil. servus) / vilic(us).

469. Faustinus Brixiano[r(um scil. servus)] Source: Date:

CIL V, 4686 = InscrIt X, 5, 497 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 145; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. late first/early second c. CE.

Q(uinto) Pub[licio]  / Fausto et  / Pub(liciae) Quint[a]e.  / Faustinus Brixiano[r(um scil. servus)] / parentib(us) / `incomparabilib(us)´?.

470. Pub(licia) Quint[a] Source: Date: Note:

see no. 469 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L45; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. late first/early second c. CE. since she was the mother of Faustinus Brixiano[r(um scil. servus)] (no. 469) and the partner of Q(uintus) Pub[licius] Faustus (no.  472), he was a former public slave who had been manumitted.

471. P(ublius) Public[ius] Brixian[or(um) l(ibertus)] Source: Date:

CIL V, 4685 = AE 1976, 259 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L44; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. late first/early second c. CE.

P(ublius) Public[ius] / Ḅṛịx̣ịạṇ[or(um) l(ibertus)] / sịbị ẹṭ P̣ubḷịc(iae) / uxori, / P(ublio) ̣ Public(io) Dor[o?], / P(ublio) Public(io) Mag[io?], / Public(iae) Artemi[di?], / (scil. Puḅ liciae?) Doryp̂horidi, / (scil. P(ublio)? Publicio) Onesimo, / V̅ I̅ viro Aug(ustali).

40

Another possible transcription is: [- - -]e cum C(aio) Atil(io)? Brixîâno?. In this case, it should be expunged from the corpus of public slaves.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

375

472. Q(uintus) Pub[licius] Faustus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 469 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L45; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. late first/early second c. CE. since he was the father of Faustinus Brixiano[r(um scil. servus)] (no. 469) and the partner of Pub(licia) Quint[a] (no. 470), he was a former public slave who had been manumitted.

473. Quartio Brix(ianorum scil. servus) vilic(us) a[rk]ar(ius) Source: Date:

CIL V, 4503 = InscrIt X, 5, 296 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 144; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE.

Clodiae  / Varillae,  / Quartio Brix(ianorum scil. servus)  / vilic(us) a[rk]ar(ius),  / contubernal(i) / optimae.

474. Trophimus s(ervus?) p(ublicus?) Source: Date:

CIL V, 4739 = InscrIt X, 5, 551 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 146; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Trop̂himi / s(ervi?) p(ublici?), / Severa / contubern(ali).

475. Victor Brixianorum (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 4287 = ILS 4888 = InscrIt X, 5, 67 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 141; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. late first/early second c. CE.

Noc ̣ṭuṛno / Victor Brixianorum (scil. servus), v(otum) [s(olvit)].

Cremona 476. A(ulus) Poblici(us) populi l(ibertus) Ap(h)ro[di]si(us) Source: Date:

AE 1975, 449 = AE 1987, 455 = AE 2004, 616 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L46. early first c. CE.

Q(uintus) Domatius C(ai) f(ilius) bonum tempus / mihi meaque aetati. / Id ego mando ⌜d⌝emandata / quo(d) i(i)s apud deos iferos ut pereant / et defigantur quo(d) ego heres sim: / pupilḷus Corani(us) C(ai) f(ilius), A(ulus) Poblici(us) populi l(ibertus) / Ap(h)ro[di] si(us), Corneliu(s). Meo sum(p)tu / defigo illos quo(d) pereant.

376

Appendices

Feltria 477. off(iciales) pub(lici) Source: Date:

AE 1908, 107 = ILS 9420 = AE 1947, 19 = SupplIt 5, 1989, 253–254 no. 3 = AE 1990, 396; cf. Luciani 2019, 291 no. 35. 323 CE, August 28th.

Severo et Rufino co(n)s(ulibu)s  / V K(alendas) Sept(embres).  / Acceperunt coll(egia) fab(rum) et c(entonariorum)  / ((denariorum)) quingenta milia, computata  / usura anni uni(us) centensima (sic) u[n]a  / ((denariorum)) LX (milia), de qua usura per singulọs an(nos) / die V Idu(s) Ian(uarias) natale ipsius ex usura s(upra) s(cripta) / at (sic) memoriam Hos(tili) Flaminini refriger(are) / se [de]⌜v⌝ebunt et IIIIvir(is) et sex princ(ipalibus) / et off(icialibus) pub(licis) spor(tularum) no(mine) ạureos den(os) et sil(iquam) / sing(ulam), neicnon et per ros(am) at (sic) memor(iam) eius  / refrigerar(e) deveb(unt). N̅ (- - -) CCCLXII.

Iulia Concordia 478. Eutyches c(olonorum) C(oncordiensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

AE 2010, 542; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 33. second c. CE.

EVT̂YCĤES C C FAC̣, i. e., Eut̂ycĥes c(olonorum) C(oncordiensium scil. servus) fac(it). ̣

Opitergium 479. Fructus publicus Source: Date:

CIL V, 2007 = Weiss 2004, 211 no. 148; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / [- - -]ia P̣ṛobata Fructo,  / conịụci (sic) s(u)o pientissi/mo, ̣ publico, idem si/[bi] et viro fortissi/mo. In fronte p(edes) VIII, / in a[g]ro p(edes) XXXX.

480. C(aius)? Poblicius m(unicipum) Op(iterginorum) l(ibertus) Germanus Source: Date:

AE 2010, 544; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 34. late first/early second c. CE.

C(aius)? Poblicius m(unicipum) Op(iterginorum) l(ibertus)  / Germanus v(ivus) f(ecit)  / sibi et Secundae / - - - - - -

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

377

Parentium 481. Leontiscus col(onorum scil. servus?) Source: Date:

CIL V, 8190 = Pais, SupplIt 28 = InscrIt X, 2, 222 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 149. first c. CE

D(is) M(anibus). / Aquilino an(norum) VII / Leontiscus col(onorum scil. servus?), / filio infeliciss(imo) / fecit.

Patavium 482. Anonymous villicus (sic) aerarii Source: Date:

CIL V, 2803 = CLE 861 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 150; cf. Halkin 1897, 238; SupplIt 28, 2016, 130–132. early first/late second c. CE.

Villicus (sic) aerarii quondam, nunc cultor agelli / haec tibi perspectus templa, Priape, dico. / Pro quibus officieis, si fas est, sancte, paciscor, / adsiduus custos ruris ut esse velis, / improbus ut si quis nostrum violabit agellum, / hunc tu – sed tento, scis puto quod sequitur.

483. familia thermensi(s) thermarum urban{i}a[r(um)] Source: Date:

CIL V, 2886 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 151; cf. Halkin 1897, 238; cf. SupplIt 28, 2016, 186–187. Imperial age.

[Pro salute et per]/[p]etuitate dominorum / familiae / thermensi(s) / thermarum urban{i} a[r(um)].

Pola 484. Evancelus (sic) colonorum Polensium (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 7 = ILS 4893 = InscrIt X, 1, 2 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 152; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. first c. CE

Evancelus (sic)  / colonorum  / Polensium (scil. servus)  / Boriae v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

485. Pollentia Processa Source: Date: Note:

see no. 486. late first/early second c. CE she was a fellow freedwoman (colliberta) of (scil. Pollentius) col(onorum) Pol(ensium) lib(ertus) Valerianus summarum dispensat(or) (no. 486)

378

Appendices

486. (Scil. Pollentius) col(onorum) Pol(ensium) lib(ertus) Valerianus summarum dispensat(or) Source: Date:

CIL V, 83 = ILS 6677 = InscrIt X, 1, 104 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L47; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. late first/early second c. CE

D(is) M(anibus) / Pollent̂iae / Processae / (scil. Pollentius) col(onorum) Pol(ensium) lib(ertus) / Valerianus / summarum / dispensat(or) / collibertâe / rarissimâe / posuit.

487. Sabinus colonor(um) Polens(ium scil. servus) Source: Date:

InscrIt X, 1, 103; cf. Luciani 2019c, 290 no. 28. first c. CE

Ḍ(is) [M(anibus)]. / Claudiae / Pusillae, / co(n)iugi kariss(imae), / Sabinus colọ/nor(um) Polens(ium scil. servus) / v(ivus) f(ecit).

Tarvisium 488. L(ucius) Publicius Eutyches mun(icipum) Tar(visanorum) lib(ertus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 2109 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L48; cf. Halkin 1897, 245. first c. CE.

Isid(i) Reg(inae) / L(ucius) Publicius / Eutyches / mun(icipum) Tar(visanorum) / lib(ertus).

Tergeste 489. Felix publ(icus scil. servus) Terg(estinorum)41 Source: Date:

CIL V, 8117, 1a-b = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 153; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. first c. CE

a) FELIX PVBL TERG F, i. e., Felix publ(icus) Terg(estinorum) f(ecit). b) [FELIX] PVBL TERG [F], i. e., [Felix] publ(icus) Terg(estinorum) [f(ecit)].

490. Hermes Terg(estinorum) dis[p(ensator)] Source: Date:

InscrIt X, 4, 79a = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 154; cf. SupplIt 10, 1992, 223. second c. CE

- - - - - -? / [·]ARTVO / Paulli s(ervo) / Heṛṃes / Terg(estinorum) / dis[p(ensator)].

41

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

379

491. Q(uintus) Publicius Tergest(inorum) l(ibertus) Felix Source: Date:

CIL V, 628 = ILS 6683 = InscrIt X, 4, 79 = AE 1997, 573 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L49; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. early first c. CE.

Q(uinto) Publiciọ Teṛgest(inorum) l(iberto)  / Felici, Sẹptumia Sp(uri) f(ilia)  / Sexta, ̣ Q(uintus) P̣ublicius / Felicis l(ibertus) Iṇgenuus v(ivi) f(ecerunt).

Tridentum 492. Amphion Trident(inorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

AE 1977, 285 = SupplIt 6, 1990, 155–156 no. 15 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 155. second c. CE.

M(arco) Publicio  / Trid(entinorum) lib(erto)  / Metrodoro,  / V̅ I̅ viro Aug(ustali),  / Amphion / Trident(inorum scil. servus), / bene m[erenti].

493. M(arcus) Publicius Trid(entinorum) lib(ertus) Metrodorus, V̅ I̅ vir Aug(ustalis) Source: Date:

see no. 492 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L50. second c. CE.

Verona 494. Caesianus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 497. second c. CE? since he was the son of Heliodorus Veronens(ium scil. servus) (no.  497) and Veronia Caesia (no. 502), he was most likely a public slave

495. C[hr]estus Veronensium (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 3832 = IG XIV, 2312 = Weiss 2004, 212–213 no. 159; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE.

- - - - - -? / Vẹṛoṇịạ(e) / Chṛẹsṭe, / Veṛọṇius / C̣e[l]sus, con/iugị [in]com/pa[r]ạbị[l]i, vi/ ̣ ṿe[ns] f(ecit) siḅi et / C[hr]estus Vero/nensium (scil. servus) / matri piissimae.

496. Festus Veron(ensium) ser(vus) tab(ularius) Source: Date:

CIL V, 8850 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 160; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE?

Festi / Veron(ensium) seṛ(vi) / tab(ularii).

380

Appendices

497. Heliodorus Veronens(ium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 3470 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 157; cf. Halkin 1897, 238; AE 2007, 634. second c. CE?

Veroniae / Caesiae / Heliodorus et / Caesianus, fili, / matri pientissim(ae) / et Heliodorus / Veronens(ium scil. servus), coniugi / karissimae et sibi.

498. Heliodorus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 497. second c. CE? since he was the son of Heliodorus Veronens(ium scil. servus) (no.  497) and Veronia Caesia (no. 502), he was most likely a public slave

499. Phoebus Veronens(ium scil. servus) vilicus plumbarior(um) Source: Date:

AE 1946, 136 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 161. first c. CE.

Ịovi Lustrali / Phoebus Veronens(ium scil. servus) / vilicus plumbarior(um), / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

500. Pothinus Veronensium (scil. servus) Source: Date:

AE 2010, 570; cf. Luciani 2019c, 291 no. 37. late second c. CE.

Aeliae / Fortunatae, / contubern(ali) / pientissim(ae), / Pothinus / Veronensiûm (scil. servus).

501. Syntropus publicus Source: Date:

CIL V, 3550 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 158; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE.

V(iva) f(ecit) / Cassia C(ai) f(ilia) / Exorata / sibi et Cassiâe / C(ai) f(iliae) Priscae et / Antoniae L(uci) f(iliae) / Marcellae / et Syn/tropo publico. / In fron(te) p(edes) XXV, in / agr(o) p(edes) XXXI.

502. Veronia Caesia Source: Date: Note:

see no. 497 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L51; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. second c. CE? since she was the partner of a public slave, Heliodorus Veronens(ium scil. servus) (no. 497), and the mother of Heliodorus (no. 498) and Caesianus (no. 494), who were most likely public slaves too, she has to be interpreted as a freed public slave.

Appendix 2 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in Italian Towns

381

503. Veronia Chreste Source: Date: Note:

see no. 495 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L52; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. second c. CE. since she was the mother of C[hr]estus Veronensium (scil. servus) (no. 495), she was most likely a freed public slave.

504. Veronius Ce[l]sus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 495 = Weiss 2004, 240 no. L52; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. second c. CE. since he was the partner of Veronia Chreste (no. 503), he was most likely a freed public slave.

505. Anonymous limocincti tribunalis (scil II̅ I̅ Iviri iure dicundo) Source: Date:

CIL V, 3401 = ILS 6696 = Weiss 2004, 212 no. 156; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. second c. CE.

Honori  / M. Gavi(i) M. f.  / Pob(lilia) Squillian̂i,  / eq(uo) pub(lico), IIIIvir(i) i(ure) d(icundo), / II̅ I̅ Ivir(i) a(edilicia) p(otestate), v(iri) b(oni), / curator̂i(s) Vicetinor(um), / apparitores et / limocincti / tribunalis eius.

Vicetia 506. P(ublius) Poblicius m(unicipum) V(icetinorum) l(ibertus) Valens, IĪĪĪĪIvir Source: Date:

CIL V, 3139 = Weiss 2004, 240–241 no. L53; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. early first c. CE.

P(ublio) Poblicio m(unicipum) V(icetinorum) l(iberto) / Valenti, / IĪĪĪĪIvir(o), / Matienae Q(uinti) l(ibertae) / Rufae, / Matiena P(ubli) et / ((mulieris)) l(iberta) Suavis / patronis et sibi / viva fecit.

Regio XI Comum 507. Bucolus m(unicipum) C(omensium) ser(vus) vi[l(icus)] Source: Date:

CIL V, 5668 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 163. unknown date.

Dianae  / Bucolus  / m(unicipum) C(omensium) ser(vus)  / vi[l(icus)]  / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

382

Appendices

508. Trophimus m(unicipum) C(omensium) act(or) Source: Date:

CIL V, 5318 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 162. first c. CE.

Surionis / vicari(i) / Trophimi m(unicipum) C(omensium) / act(oris).

Mediolanum 509. Epitynchan(us) m(unicipum) M(ediolanensium) ser(vus) vi[l]ic(us) ark(arius) Source: Date:

CIL V, 5858 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 164; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus). / Epitynchan(us) / m(unicipum) M(ediolanensium) ser(vus) / vi[l]ic(us) ark(arius).

510. C(aius) Poblicius municipum Mediolaniens(i)u(m) l(ibertus) Alexsander Source: Date:

CIL V, 6630 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L54; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. unknown date.

I(ovi) Ọ(ptimo) [M(aximo)]. / C̣(aius) Pobliciuṣ / municipum / Mediolaniens(i)u(m) / l(ibertus) Alexsander / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

511. C(aius) Publicius m(unicipum) M(ediolanensium) lib(ertus) Eutyches Source: Date:

AE 1974, 346 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L55. early second c. CE.

C. Publicio  / m̄ (unicipum) M̅ (ediolanensium) lib(erto)  / Eutycheti  / et Pomponiae  / C. f. Daphne, / coniugi eius, / et Potiriae C. f. / [P]aulae, fil(iae) eorum, / Q. Ingenu(u)s / Maximinus / ob mult(a) benef(icia) / et aditum sibi / familiarem / domus eor(um).

Vercellae 512. Zosimus m(unicipum) V(ercellensium) vilicus Source: Date:

CIL V, 6673 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 165; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Severino, / Zosimi m̄ (unicipum) V̅ (ercellensium) / vilici vicar(io), / qui vixit ann(os) / XXVI, dies XVI, / Severus / fratri / desiderant̂issi(mo).

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

383

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces Africa proconsularis Thysdrus 513. Bictor (sic) colon(orum) c(oloniae) Nov(a)e estrumetarius (sic)? Source: Date:

AE 2000, 1611; cf. Luciani 2019, 293 no. 51. late second/early third c. CE?

(H)os (sic) opera ritine (sic) / mi(hi) Patelaria Menor (sic) / amor piger n(obis) // E{c}x of(f)icina magica  / Donatus t(u)is hoc tibi o(p)tamus  / te bidere (sic) // Bictor (sic)  / colon(orum) / c(oloniae) Nov(a)e es/trumeta/rius (sic) (h)o no/bis o(p)tamus / AEE // Ave / Mater / ave. Note:

estrumetarius would be a variant spelling of instrumentarius, which would indicate a bureaucratic office within the civic administration (Foucher 2000, 59–60).

Aquitania Avaricum 514. Pixtirix ancil(la) pub(lica)

Source: Provost et al. 1992, 127 no. 429; cf. Luciani 2019c, 293 no. 47. Date: unknown. Pixtirigi / ancil(lae) pub(licae) / Âugustal̂is con(iugi?).

Burdigala 515. Nemetogena ancilla publ[i]ca Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 603 = ILS 7039 = ILA (Bordeaux) 43 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 197; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus), / Nemẹtogenae an/cillae publ[i]cae, d(efunctae annorum) / XXI, et Apalaus/tro, mar(i)ṭ(o), / (et) Primitivo publ(ico).

516. Primitivus publ(icus) Source: Date:

see no. 515 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 197; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. late second c. CE.

384

Appendices

Baetica Astigi 517. Graecinus colon(iae) Aug(ustae) Firm(ae) ser(vus) tabul(arius) Source: Date:

CIL II, 1480 = CILA II, 701 = CIL II2/5, 1176 = Weiss 2004, 214 no. 170; cf. CIL II, p 869; Halkin 1897, 239. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / Graecinus colon(iae)  / Aug(ustae) Firm(ae) ser(vus)  / tabul(arius) ann(orum) XXXI / pius in suis / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis).

518. Septiminus r(ei) p(ublicae scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL II, 1472 = CILA II, 688 = CIL II2/5, 1163 = Weiss 2004, 214 no. 169; cf. CIL II, p XLIII; Halkin 1897, 239. late second/early third c. CE.

Aram / Deo / Marti / Septimi/nus r(ei) p(ublicae scil. servus) / ex voto / posuit.

Benatae (modern name) 519. Maternus ser(vus) pub(licus) Source: Date:

CILA III, 596 = Hep 1995, 385 = Weiss 2004, 215 no. 177. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / Maternus  / ser(vus) pub(licus) meritus  / annorum LXX  / h(ic) s(itus) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis). / D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Paternus d/espensator (sic) / meritus annorum / LXXXXVII / h(ic) s(itus) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis).

Carmo 520. Omp(h)e r(ei) p(ublicae) s(erva)? vel De(- - -) r(ei) p(ublicae) s(ervus)? Source: Date:

AE 1961, 49 = AE 2001, 1195; cf. Luciani 2019, 292 no. 42. late first/early second c. CE.

Reading 1: Om/p(h)e r(ei) p(ublicae) s(erva) / August(a)e / Nemesi. Reading 2: O M / De(- - -) r(ei) p(ublicae) s(ervus) / August(a)e / Nemesi. Reading 3: D(- - -) M(- - -) / DERPS(- - -) / August(a)e / Nemesi.

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

385

Corduba 521. A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus, sacerdos, [fa]miliae publicae [c(olonorum) c(oloniae)] P(atriciae) perpetuus mag(ister) II Source: Date: Note:

see no. 522 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L64. late first/early second c. CE. since he had been a magister of the collegium of the familia publica c(olonorum) c(oloniae) P(atriciae) twice, he was most likely a freed public slave; he probably was the former master of [Tr]ophimus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) P(atriciae) ser(vus) [e]mpt(icius) Germanianus (no. 522).

522. [Tr]ophimus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) P(atriciae) ser(vus) [e]mpt(icius) Germanianus Source: Date:

CIL II, 2229 = CIL II2/7, 315 = Weiss 2004, 214 no. 171; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. late first/early second c. CE.

A(ulo) Publicio  / [Ge]rmano sacerdoti,  / [fa]miliae publicae  / [c(olonorum) c(oloniae)] P(atriciae) perpetuo mag(istro) II,  / [Tr]ophimus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) P(atriciae) ser(vus) / [e]mpt(icius) Germanianus / d(e) s(uo) d(edit). Note:

before being purchased by the colony of Corduba, he was probably the slave of A(ulus) Publicius [Ge]rmanus (no. 521).

523. [fa]milia publica [c(olonorum) c(oloniae)] P(atriciae) Source: Date:

see no. 522 = Weiss 2004, 214 no. 171; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. late first/early second c. CE.

Irni 524. servi communes limocincti Source: Date:

AE 1986, 333 = Weiss 2004, 214–215 no. 173. Flavian age.

Chapter 18, ll. 42–43: [… Eisque IIviris servos communes] municipum eius / [municipii limo cinctos habere liceto. …] Chapter 19, ll. 16–17: … eisque aedilibus servos communes municipum eius mu/nicipii qui is appareant limocinctos habere liceto …

386

Appendices

525. servi communes Source: Date:

AE 1986, 333 = Weiss 2004, 214–215 no. 173. Flavian age.

Chapter 20, ll. 30–32: … eis/que servos communes municipum eius municipi qui is appareant / in eo municipio secum habere liceto …

526. male and female servi publici (to be manumitted) Source: Date:

AE 1986, 333 = Weiss 2004, 214–215 no. 173. Flavian age.

Chapter 72: R(ubrica). De servis publicis manumittendis. / Si quis [duovir i(ure) d(icundo)] servum publicum servamve publicam ma/numittere volet, is de eo deve ea ad decuriones conscrip/tosve, cum duae partes non minus decurionum conscripto/rumve aderunt, referto censeantne eum eam{q}ue manumit/ti. Si eum qui aderunt non minus duae partes manumitti / censuerint et si is eave eam pecuniam, quam decuriones / ab eo eave accipi censuerint, in publicum municipibus mu/nicipi Flavi Irnitani dederit solverit satisve fecerit, tum  / {i}is IIvir{is} i(ure) d(icundo) eum servom eamve servam manumittito, / liberum liberamve esse iubeto. Qui ita manumissus li/berve esse iussus erit liber et Latinus esto, quaeve ita / manumissa liberave esse iussa erit libera et Latina esto, / ei[dem]que munici[pes] municipi Flavi Irnitani sunto, neve / quis ab is amplius quam quod decuriones censuerint ob / libertatem capito, ne[ve] facito quo quis ob eam rem eove / nomine quid capiat, inque eius, qui ita manumissus ma/ numissaue erit, hereditate{m} bonorum possessione pe/tenda operis dono munere idem iu{ri}s municipi Flavi Irni/tani esto, quod esset, si municipi Italiae libertus liberta / esset. Qui adversus ea quid fecerit sciens d(olo) m(alo), is, quanti / ea res erit, tantum in publicum municipibus muni/cipi Flavi Irnitani d(are) d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae deque / ea pecunia municipi eius municipi qui volet, cuique / per h(anc) l(egem) licebit, actio petitio persecutio esto.

527. servus publicus Source: Date:

AE 1986, 333 = Weiss 2004, 214–215 no. 173. Flavian age.

Chapter 78: R(ubrica) ut decuriones consulantur cui negotio quisque servus publicus praeponatur / du(u)mvir quicumque erit in diebus quinque {erit in diebus quin/que} quibus primum in municipio Flavio Irnitan˹i˺ erit ad / decuriones conscriptosve quam frequentissimos poterit re/ferto quos serv{u}os publicos cuiqu[e] negotio prae(e)sse placeat / facitoque uti de ea re decurione[s] conscriptive decernant {de/cernant} quodque maior pars eo[r]um decreverit it fiat sine d(olo) m(alo).

528. qui municipibus serviant Source: Date:

AE 1986, 333 = Weiss 2004, 214–215 no. 173. Flavian age.

Chapter 79 (Tab. IXA), ll. 5–6: … cibaria vestitum emptionesque eorum qu[i] / municipibus [s]erviant …

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

387

Italica 529. Ζώσιμος π(ούβλικος) Ἰταλιχήσιουμ Λύκιος = Zosimos p(ublicus) Italicensium Lykios Source: Date:

AE 1941, 92 = AE 1984, 502 = AE 2007, 754 = Weiss 2004, 215 no. 174. Hadrian age.

Αὐγούσταε Νέμεσι Ζώσιμος // π(ούβλικος) Ἰταλιχήσιουμ Λύκιος.

530. [- - -] reip(ublicae) Ita[licensium] serva Source: Date:

CILA II, 541 = Weiss 2004, 215 no. 175 = AE 2005, 802. second/third c. CE.

- - - - - -  / rei p(ublicae) Ita[licensium]  / serv(a)e B[- - -]  / fecit PI[- - -]  / h(ic) s(itus) [e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis) vel - - - - - -  / reip(ublicae) Ita[licensium]  / serv(a)e be[nemerent(i)] / fecit Ph[- - -] / h(ic) s(ita) e(st) [s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis)].

Munigua 531. T(itus) Flavius Baeticus lib(ertus) rei p(ublicae) Muniguensium Source: Date:

AE 1972, 254 = CILA II, 1062 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L65. late second c. CE.

[Iovi P]antheo Aug(usto) sacrum / T(itus) Flavius Baeticus lib(ertus) rei p(ublicae) / Muniguensium accepto loco / ex decreto ordinis d(onum) [d(edit)].

Nescania 532. C(aius) Publicius Fortunatus libertus m(unicipii) F(lavi) Nesca[n(iensis)] Source: Date:

CIL II, 2009 = CIL II2/5, 841 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L66; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. second c. CE.

Numini divorum Augg(ustorum) / C(aius) Publicius Fortunatus / libertus m(unicipii) F(lavi) Nesca[n(iensis)] / aram solo pub(lico) / s(ua) p(ecunia) d(onum) d(edit) d(edicavit).

Ossigi Latonium 533. M(arcus) Public(ius) pop(uli) l(ibertus) Victor Source: Date:

CIL II2/7, 2a = AE 1995, 848 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L67. second c. CE.

M(arcus) Public(ius) pop(uli) l(ibertus) / Victor v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

388

Appendices

Urso 534. publici cum cincto limo IIII Source: Date:

CIL II2/5, 1022 = Crawford 1996, 393–454 no.  25 (the lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis) = Weiss 2004, 215 no. 176; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. Flavian copy of a Caesarian law.

Chapter 62 (Tab. a, col. I), ll. 15–17: … quique in ea colonia aedil(es) erunt / iis aedil(ibus) in eos aedil(es) sing(ulos) scribas sing(ulos) public/cos cum cincto limo IIII …

Belgica Augusta Treverorum 535. Sabinus ser(vus) p(ublicus) Source: Date:

AE 1934, 95 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 205; cf. AE 1939, 104. second c. CE?

Genio / Vosu/gonum / Sabinus / ser(vus) p(ublicus).42

Dacia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa 536. Publicius Anthus Source: Date:

See no. 539 = Weiss 2004, 244 no. L82. late second/early third c. CE.

537. Publ(icius) Cletus Source: Date:

42

See no. 539 = Weiss 2004, 244 no. L82. late second/early third c. CE.

This transcription was proposed by Oxé 1938, 239–240 (= AE 1939, 104) and accepted by: Ternes 1969, 146–147 no. VII; Wilhelm 1974, 55 no. 345; Lazzaro 1993, 89–90 no. 30; Weiss 2004, 219 no. 205. Different (though less convincing) interpretations have been suggested by: Keune 1933, 120; Forrer 1937, 155–160.

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

389

538. (scil. Publicius) Servator lib(ertus) publicus Source: Date:

AE 1959, 302 = IDR III, 2, 14 = AE 1999, 1289; cf. AE 2014, 1096; cf. Luciani 2019, 293 no. 52. late second/early third c. CE.

Cl(audius) Maximus et Ing(enuius?) Superst[es] / [s]tateram publicam cu[m] / [S]ervatore lib(erto) publico po[suer(unt)] / l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).43

539. lib(erti) et servi p(ublici) Source: Date:

CIL III, 7906 = ILS 7138 = IDR III, 2, 218 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 219, 244 no. L82; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. late second/early third c. CE.

Genio / lib(ertorum) et servorum / p(ublicorum) Publicius / Anthus et Publ(icius) / Cletus d(onum) d(ederunt) d(edicaverunt).

Dalmatia Aquae S(- - -) 540. Charmidis col(onorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 13858 = ILS 4879; cf. ILJug 92 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 214. third c. CE?

Apollin[i] / Tadeno / Charm̂idis / col(oniae scil. servus) d(onum) d(edit).

Gallia Lugdunensis Aulerci 541. Crescens servus publicus Source: Date:

AE 1960, 319a = ILTG 343 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 198. first c. CE?

Aug(usto) et / Marti Mulloni / Crescens servus / publicus l(ibens) m(erito).

43

For the interpretation of ll. 2–3 see Solin 2014, 388, 395–396. For an alternative (though less likely) transcription, i. e., cu[m]servator (sic) (scil. staterae publicae) lib(ertus) publicus, see IDR III, 2, 14 = AE 1999, 1289: in that case, Claudius Maximus and Ingenuius Superstes would have set up a public balance, with a public freedman as a keeper.

390

Appendices

Lugdunum 542. Claudia Suavis colonor(um) lib(erta) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 1914 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L71; cf. Halkin 1897, 247. unknown date.

Claudia / Suavis colonor(um) / lib(erta) hic adq(uiescit) / ann(orum) XXIIX Flaccus c(o) ni(ugi) / piissumae.

Gallia Narbonensis Alba Helviorum 543. Albanus ser(v)us publ(icus) Iunianus Source: Date:

ILGN 375 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 184. second c. CE?

Albanus / ser(v)us publ(icus) / Iunianus / v(ixit) a(nnos) XL.

Aquae Sextiae 544. Sex(tus) Pu˹bl˺ic(ius) (sic) colon(iae) Aq[uens(is)] libertus Anten[or], IIIIIIvir Augustalis co[rp(oratus)] item [cor]porat(us) centonar(ius) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 523 = ILN III, 36 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L69; cf. CIL XII, p. 814. second c. CE.

Sex(tus) Pu˹bl˺ic(ius) (sic) colon(iae) Aq[uens(is)] / libertus Anten[or] / IIIIIIvir Augustalis co[rp(oratus)] item [cor]/porat(us) centonar(ius) sibi [et] / Mercatiae [- - -]rinilla[e uxo]/ ri piissimae in suo v(ivus) f(ecit).

Arelate 545. Potitus Ar(e)latensium (scil. servus)44 Source: Date:

CIL XII, 5683,347 = Weiss 2004, 216 no.  184; cf. Halkin 1897, 239 (unknown date). unknown.

Potito Ar(e)latensium (scil. servus).

44

He is mentioned on an ink-writing on a clay amphora.

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

391

Dea Augusta Vocontiorum 546. Messinus ser(vus) [V]oc(ontiorum) Source: Date:

ILGN 241 = ILN VII.1, 32 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 188. second c. CE.

[D(is) M(anibus)?] / [G?]ratinae, / Maximini lib(ertae). / Messinus ser(vus) / [V]oc(ontiorum), coiiugi (sic) / [c]arissimae.

547. Myron Voc(ontiorum) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 1595 = ILN VII.1, 33 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 186; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. late second/early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Severi. / Myron / Voc(ontiorum) ser(vus) / et Verina, / fil(io) kar(issimo). / V(ixit) a(nnum) I, d(ies) X.

548. [- - -]us Voc(ontiorum) serv(u)s [- - -]rius Source: Date:

CIL XII, 1598 = ILN VII.1, 34 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 187; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. first c. CE.

[- - -]us Voc(ontiorum) serv(u)s / [- - -]rius45 / [- - - sibi fe]cit et suis.

Narbo 549. Faustus col(onorum) Narbone(n)sium servus Source: Date:

CIL XII, 4451 = ILS 6974 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 190; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. unknown date.

Myrin[e]  / Fausti col(onorum)  / Narbon/e(n)sium servi  / vicaria  / hic est sepult(a).  / [B]oethus con/tubernalis.

550. [Ge]minia Chrest[e et] Chrysogonus col(onorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 4450 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 189; cf. CIL XII, p. 846; Halkin 1897, 239. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) [- - -]  / Geminiae  / Chrysidi v[i]/xit an(nos) XIII[- - -]  / [Ge]minia Chrest[e] / [et] Chrysogonus / col(onorum scil. servus) / [f]ratres vel [p]atres.

45

France 2000, 215 proposed to restore the word as [- - - tabula]rius, but the alternative lectures [- - victima]rius and [- - - arka]rius are also possible: cf. CIL XII, 1598 (Otto Hirschfeld); Halkin 1897, 161; Weiss 2004, 217 no. 187.

392

Appendices

551. [-] Martius [c]ol(onorum) l(ibertus) Diocha[res] Source: Date:

CIL XII, 4983 = AE 2014, 864; cf. Luciani 2019, 292 no. 45. early first c. CE.

[-] Martius / [c]ol(onorum) l(ibertus) Diocha[res] / Sabidia N(umeri) [- - -] / [L]ucaea / hic est sepul[ta].

Nemausus 552. Secundio col(onorum) ser(vus) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 3310 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 191; cf. CIL XII, p. 837; Halkin 1897, 239. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Secundioni / col(onorum) ser(vo) / I(u)ventia Fortunata / contuber(nali).

Valentia 553. Valentinus villicus c(olonorum) Va(lentianorum) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 1755 = ILN VIII, 37 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 191; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / [- - -] Valentini / vi˹l˺lici c(olonorum) Va(lentianorum) / [- - -]inus [e]t Attia / Victori[na f]ilio p/iiss(imo) qui vix(it) ann(os) XXI / m(enses) V d(ies) VIII s(ub) a(scia) d(edicaverunt).

554. [- - -]inus Source: Date: Note:

See no. 553. late second c. CE. Since he was the father of Valentinus villicus c(olonorum) Va(lentianorum) (no. 553) and the mother of the latter was an incerta (Attia Victori[na]), whether a freeborn or a freed woman, he must have been a public slave too.

Vasio 555. Calomallus Vas(iensium) tabul(arius) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 1283 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 194; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. unknown date.

Genio / Forensi / Calomallus / Vas(iensium) tabul(arius).

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

393

Vienna 556. Geminus a tabulario public(o) Source: Date:

AE 1952, 73 = ILN V.1, 104 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 196. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Gemini a tabu/lario public(o). / Annia Teren/tia coniugi / carissimo / et sibi viva / posuit / et s(ub) a(scia) d(edicavit).

557. C(aius) Iulius Hermes col(oniae) lib(ertus) Source: Date:

AE 1894, 114 = ILGN 273 = ILN V.1, 130 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L70; cf. Halkin 1897, 247. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Anniae Domitillae. / C(aius) Iulius Calemer(us) et / Valeria Domitia / matri piissimae / ponendum curav(erunt) / C(aius) Iulius Hermes / col(oniae) lib(ertus) / coniugi sanctissimae.

558. Rhesus p(ublicus) V(iennae) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 1925 = ILN V.1, 266 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 195; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. unknown date.

Rhesi p(ublici) V(iennae).

559. Secundus c(urae) aq(uarum) c(oloniae) I(uliae) V(iennensium scil. servus?) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 5701,43 = AE 2011, 728; cf. Luciani 2019c, 292 no. 46. first/third c. CE.

SECVNDVS C AQ C I V F, i. e., Secundus c(urae) aq(uarum) c(oloniae) I(uliae) V(iennensium scil. servus?) f(ecit).

560. Anonymous ad horologium administrandum serv(u)s

Source: CIL XII, 2522 = ILS 5624 = ILN V.3, 739 = Weiss 2004, 217 no. 192. Provenance: from Annecy (modern name; ancient Boutae?). Date: first c. CE.

Horologium cum suo aedificio et / signis omnibus et clatris / C(aius) Blaesius C(ai) fil(ius) Voltinia Gratus ex HS n(ummum) X(milibus)  / et eo amplius ad id horologium adminis/trandum serv(u)m HS n(ummum) IIII(milium) d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(edit).

394

Appendices

Germania inferior Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium 561. Senecio limocinctus Source: Date:

AE 1894, 171 = CIL XIII, 8334 = ILS 7070 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 199; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. late first c. CE?

D(is) M(anibus). / Senecioni / limocincto / Geron filio / piissimo.

Germania superior Andemantunnum/Civitas Lingonum 562. (A)elia liberta p(ublica) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 5711 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L73; cf. CIL XIII 4, p. 75; Halkin 1897, 243. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / (A)eliae li/bertae p(ublicae) / Arari/cus frat(er) / p(onendum) c(uravit).

563. (scil. Aelius) Moderatus libertus coloniae Lingonum Source:

Date:

CIL XIII, 5883; cf. CIL XIII 4, p. 74; Halkin 1897, 247 = Weiss 2004, 246–247 (where the inscription is recorded among the “nicht aufgenommene Inschriften”). early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / (scil. Aelio) Moderato / liberto / coloniâe / Lingonum.

564. Fructus col(onorum) Ling(onum) lib(ertus) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 5693 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L72; cf. Halkin 1897, 247. early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Fructi col(onorum) / Ling(onum) lib(erti) / Urbicus Leston(i) / d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(edit).

565. Novellus c(olonorum) L(ingonum) s(e)r(vus) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 5694 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 200; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. early third c. CE.

Mossianu/s. // D(is) Mani(bus).  / Novello  / c(olonorum) L(ingonum) s(e)r(vo)  / cura(n)te / Belatul/la Idmi s(erva).

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

395

566. Regalis servus pu(b)lic{i}us Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 5695 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 201; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Regali / servo / pu(b)lic{i}o.

567. Tilicus servus publicus Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 5696 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 202; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. second c. CE?

Mon(umentum) Tilici / servi publici.

Civitas Vangionum 568. Decorata eius libert(a) public(a) Source: Date:

AE 1933, 113 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L74. 250 CE.

Matri Deum  / Magnae et nu/minibus loci  / signum Dian(ae)  / Gratinus rei p(ublicae)  / civ(itatis) Vang(ionum) serv/us arcarius et / Decorata eius / libert(a) public(a) / ex voto posu/erunt ll(ibentes) ll(aeti) m(erito) / Imp(eratore) d(omino) n(ostro) Traia(no) / Decio Aug(usto) et Grato co(n)s(ulibus).

569. Gratinus rei p(ublicae) civ(itatis) Vang(ionum) servus arcarius Source: Date:

see no. 568 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 204. 250 CE.

Lusitania Augusta Emerita 570. Herennius col(onorum) Emer(itensium) ser(vus) Source: Date:

AE 2016, 671; cf. Luciani 2019c, 291 no. 38. early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Herennius / col(onorum) Emer(itensium) ser(vus) / annor(um) XXVII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis) / Lucceia Herennia / mater fec(it).

571. Publicia Em[er(itensium) l(iberta)] Ebora Source: Date:

CIL II, 504 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L60. mid first c. CE.

Publicia Em[er(itensium) l(iberta)] / Ebora ann(orum) LII[- - -].

396

Appendices

572. Publicia coloniae l(iberta) Graecul[a] Source: Date:

AE 1998, 747; cf. Luciani 2019c, 291 no. 39. mid first c. CE.

Publicia / coloniae / l(iberta) Graecul[a] / hic s(ita) e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis).

Balsa 573. Laetilianus Balsensium (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL II, 4989, cf. CIL II, 5161 = Weiss 2004, 213–214 no. 167. late second c. CE.

T(ito) Rutilio Gal(eria) / Tuscilliano, / Q(uinti) Rutil(i) Rusti/cini f(ilio), T(iti) Man/lii Martialis  / nepoti, in ho/norem eorum amici,  / cur(antibus) L(ucio) Pacc(io) Marci/ano et L(ucio) Gell(io) Tuto, / L(ucius) Pacc(ius) Basileus, / P(ublius) Rutil(ius) Antigonus, / T(itus) Manl(ius) Eutyches, / T(itus) Manl(ius) Eutychio, / T(itus) Meclon(ius) Cassius, / Publicius Alexander, / Laetilianus Balsensium (scil. servus).

574. Publicius Alexander Source: Date: Note:

see no. 573 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L58. late second c. CE. since he is mentioned with Laetilianus Balsensium (scil. servus) (no. 573), he was most likely a freed public slave.

575. Speratus Bals(ensium) dis[p(ensator)] Source: Date:

CIL II, 5164 = Weiss 2004, 214 no. 168; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. second c. CE.

- - - - - -  / Aug(usto?) s[ac(rum)]  / Speratus  / Bals(ensium) dis[p(ensator)]  / animo li[b(ens)] / po[s(uit)].

Eburobrittium 576. Epaphra publ(icus) Source: Date:

AE 2003, 858; cf. Luciani 2019c, 291 no. 40. second c. CE.

Epaphra, Felix, / Thesmus, publ(ici), / Fausto conser(vo).

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

577. Faustus Source: Date: Note:

397

see no. 576. second c. CE. since he was a fellow slave (conservus) of the public slaves Epaphra (no. 576), Felix (no. 578) and Thesmus (no. 579), he was most likely a public slave too.

578. Felix publ(icus) Source: Date:

see no. 576. second c. CE.

579. Thesmus publ(icus) Source: Date:

see no. 576. second c. CE.

Civitas Igaeditanorum 580. Flavius Igaedit(anorum) lib(ertus) Ariston Source: Date:

AE 1967, 138 = AE 1996, 859 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L62. late first c. CE.

Marti / Flavius / Igaedit(anorum) lib(ertus) / Ariston.

581. (scil. Flavius) Crhyseros Igaeditanorum lib(ertus) Source: Date:

CIL II, 435 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L61; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. second c. CE.

Iovi / Crhyse/ros / Iga/editano/rum lib(ertus) / v(otum) l(ibens) a(nimo) s(olvit).

Collippo 582. Callaecus r(eipublicae) s(uae) l(ibertus) Source: Date:

CIL II, 353 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L59; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / Sulpiciae Col/lippone(n)si(ae) an(norum)  / XXXV Callaecus / r(eipublicae) s(uae) l(ibertus) uxori / p(ientissimae) p(oni) c(uravit).

398

Appendices

Pax Iulia 583. publici liberti Source: Date:

Portillo – Rodríguez Oliva – Stylow 1985, 202–203 no. 25 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L63; cf. AE 2004, 568. late first/early second c. CE.

D(ecimo) Iulio D(ecimi) f(ilio) Ga[l(eria)] / Sat[ur]nino / publici liberti.

Macedonia Dion 584. Eracleo publicus tabularius Source: Date:

AE 2003, 1582a; cf. Luciani 2019, 293 no. 53. second c. CE?

I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Eracleo publicus tabularius.

585. [- - -] col(oniae) Diensis tabularius Source: Date:

Šašel Kos 1979, 81 no. 187. late first/early second c. CE.

[- - -] / col(oniae) Dien/sis tabula/rius v(ir) d(evotissimus).

Philippi 586. Orinus coloniae (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 633 = ILS 5466 = Weiss 2004, 226 no. 253; cf. CIL III, p. 989; Halkin 1897, 241; AE 1939, 194. second c. CE.

l. 10: Orinus coloniae (scil. servus)

587. Phoebus coloniae (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 633 = ILS 5466 = Weiss 2004, 226 no. 253; cf. CIL III, p. 989; Halkin 1897, 241; AE 1939, 194. second c. CE.

l. 31: Phoebus coloniae (scil. servus)

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

399

588. Phoibus colon(iae scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 633 = ILS 5466 = Weiss 2004, 226 no. 253; cf. CIL III, p. 989; Halkin 1897, 241; AE 1939, 194. second c. CE.

l. 55: Phoibus (sic) colon(iae scil. servus)

589. Tharsa coloniae (scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 633 = ILS 5466 = Weiss 2004, 226 no. 253; cf. CIL III, p. 989; Halkin 1897, 241; AE 1939, 194. second c. CE.

l. 30: Tharsa coloniae (scil. servus)

Mauretania Caesariensis Caesarea 590. [Claud?]ia iib(erta) (sic) r(ei) p(ublicae) C(aesariensis) Source: Date:

CIL VIII, 21073 = Weiss 2004, 245 no. L90. late second/early third c. CE.

[D(is)] M(anibus) s(acrum). / [- - -]ạ v(ixit) a(nnos) III, m(enses) IIII, d(ies) X. / [Claud?] ia iib(erta) (sic) r(ei) p(ublicae) C(aesariensis) filiae / [- - -]CCCMN / - - - - - -

Miliana 591. coll(iberti?) publ(ici) Source: Date:

AE 1984, 948; cf. Luciani 2019c, 293 no. 48. unknown date.

- - - - - - / [- - - a]nn(os) XXXV coll(iberti?) / publ(ici) fecer(unt).

Sitifis 592. Cocceia Felicitas Source: Date: Note:

see no. 596. second c. CE? before manumission, she was the public slave named Felicitas (no. 594). NB.: at Sitifis, public freedmen and freedwomen took either the nomen Cocceius or Publicius.

400

Appendices

593. M(arcus) Cocceius Tertius lib(ertus) col(oniae) Source: Date:

AE 1972, 714 = Weiss 2004, 245 no. L91. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum).  / M(arcus) Cocceius Tertius lib(ertus)  / col(oniae) v(ixit) a(nnos) LXX Victor / et [- - -] lib(erti)? patri rarissimo.

594. Felicitas Source: Date: Note:

595. Publicia Source: Date: Note:

see no. 596. second c. CE? since she was the sister of Publicia (no. 595), who was the mother of the public slave Secundula pub(lica) ser(va) (no. 596), she was a public slave too; she was probably manumitted, thus becoming Cocceia Felicitas (no. 592).

see no. 596 = Weiss 2004, 245 no. L92. second c. CE? since she was the mother of the public slave Secundula pub(lica) ser(va) (no. 596), she was most likely a public slave who had then been manumitted. NB.: at Sitifis, public freedmen and freedwomen took either the nomen Cocceius or Publicius.

596. Secundula pub(lica) ser(va)

Source 1: AE 1972, 737 = Weiss 2004, 235 no. 304. Date: second c. CE? D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Secundula pub(lica) / ser(va) v(ixit) a(nnos) XV Cocceia Felici/{ci}tas fec(it). Source 2: AE 1972, 733. Date: second c. CE? D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Publicia / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXXVIIII. / Felicitas so/ror et Secundula / filia fec(erunt).

Tipasa 597. Teucer Iunior rei p(ublicae) ser(vus) act(or) Tip(asentium) Source: Date:

AE 1971, 531 = Weiss 2004, 235 no. 305. second c. CE?

D(is) M(anibus). / Teucro Iu/niori rei p(ublicae) / ser(vo) act(ori) Tip(asentium) / Felix fra(tri) piis(simo).

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

401

Noricum Celeia 598. Batro Celeian(orum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 5235 = ILLPRON 1692 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 207; cf. CIL V, 23*,6. late first c. CE.

Sex(tus) Publicius Fronto, anno(rum) LX,  / Batro Celeian(orum scil. servus), anno(rum) LXX,  / Servatus Celeian(orum scil. servus), anno(rum) XXXV,  / Insequens Celeian(orum scil. servus), anno(rum) LXX / hic s(iti).

599. Claudia Secunda Source: Date: Note:

see no. 601. late first c. CE. since she was the partner of Cupitus Celeian(orum scil. servus) (no. 601), she was most likely a freed public slave.

600. Ti(berius) Claudiu[s] municipii Celeia[e] lib(ertus) Favor Source: Date:

CIL III, 5227 = ILLPRON 1593 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L77; cf. CIL III, p. 1830; ILJug 401. late first/early second c. CE.

Ti(berius) Claudiu[s] / municipii Celeia[e] / lib(ertus) Favor v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et / Iuliae Pusillae / coniugi suae et suis.

601. Cupitus Celeian(orum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 5228 = ILLPRON 1687 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 206; cf. CIL III, p. 1830. late first c. CE.

Claudiae / Secundae / annor(um) XXXII / contubernali / h(ic) s(itae) et / C(aio) Cornelio Felici et / vivis et sibi Cupitus / Celeian(orum scil. servus) [f(aciendum)]? curavi[t]?.

602. [E]xoratus [C]eleianor(um scil. servus) Source: Date:

AE 1980, 673 = ILLPRON 1592 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 208. late first/early second c. CE.

Successus / Celeianor(um scil. servus), / ann(orum) XXXX, / h(ic) s(itus) e(st). / Successus  / Cel(eianorum scil. servus), ann(orum) XXV.  / [E]xoratus  / [C]eleianor(um scil. servus), / [ann(orum)] XXV, h(ic) s(itus) est.

603. Insequens Celeian(orum scil. servus) Source: Date:

see no. 598 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 207. late first c. CE.

402

Appendices

604. Sex(tus) Publicius Fronto Source: Date: Note:

see no. 598 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L76. late first c. CE. since he is mentioned with three public slaves (nos. 598, 603, 605), he was most likely a freed public slave too.

605. Servatus Celeian(orum scil. servus) Source: Date:

see no. 598 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 207. late first c. CE.

606. Successus Celeianor(um scil. servus) 1 Source: Date:

see no. 602 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 208. late first/early second c. CE.

607. Successus Cel(eianorum scil. servus) 2 Source: Date:

see no. 602 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 208. late first/early second c. CE.

608. [- - -] Celeian[orum] l(ibertus) [- - -] Source: Date:

CIL III, 5282 = ILLPRON 1730 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L78. late first/early second c. CE.

- - - - - -? / [- - -] Celeian/[orum] l(iberto) / [- - -] an(norum) LXXI / [- - -]llae uxori / [paren]tibus et / [- - -] fil(io) an(norum) / [- - -] an(norum) XXXV.

Flavia Solva 609. Pollybius (sic) Solvens(ium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 5347 = ILLPRON 1182 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 210. first/third c. CE.

Pollybio (sic) Sol/vens(ium scil. servo) et Velleciae / matri.

610. [- - -]si[s] Solv(ensium scil. servus actor) summ(arum) Source: Date:

CIL III, 5349 = ILLPRON 1377 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 211. first/third c. CE.

[- - -]si[s] Solv(ensium scil. servus actor) summ(arum)  / vi(vus) [f(ecit) s(ibi) et?]  / Lucan[ae?] / [con(iugi)?] an(norum) [- - -] / cogna[tisque].

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

403

Lauriacum 611. [- - - lim]ocincti Source: Date:

AE 1953, 124 (lex Lauriacensis) = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 209. 211–217 CE.

ll. 1–3: … lim]/ocinctos du[umviri - - - mu]/nicipum eius [municipii …

Virunum 612. Adiuto(r) publicus s(ervus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 4872 = ILLPRON 531 = Weiss 2004, 219 no. 212. second c. CE.

Adiuto(ri) / publico / s(ervo) Paulina / con(iunx) v(iva) f(ecit).

613. Ianuar[ius] Virunen[s(ium scil. servus)?] Source: Date:

CIL III, 15205 = ILLPRON 831 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 213. second c. CE.

Fortun[ae] / Aug(ustae) / Ianuar[ius] / Virunen[s(ium scil. servus)?] / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito)].

614. C(aius) Publicius Viruniensium (sic) lib(ertus) Asiaticus Source: Date:

CIL III, 4870 = ILLPRON 570 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L79; cf. Halkin 1897, 248. second c. CE.

C(aius) Publicius / Viruniensium (sic) / lib(ertus) Asiaticus / fec(it) sibi et Lupul(a)e / coniugi karissimae.

Numidia Inter Hipponem et Calamam 615. Macedo pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL VIII, 5279 = CIL VIII, 17464 = ILAlg I, 445 = Weiss 2004, 234 no. 301; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. late second/early third c. CE?

Baldir Aug(usto) / sacrum / Macedo / pub(licus) / votum solv/it li(bens) an(imo).

404

Appendices

Cuicul 616. Onesimus vilicus Cuicul(itanorum) Source: Date:

ILAlg II, 7728 = Weiss 2004, 235 no. 302. early third c. CE?

D(eo) D(omino) S(aturno) s(acrum). Onesimus / vilicus Cuicul(itanorum) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) a(nimo).

Sigus 617. Cresce(n)s publicus Source: Date:

CIL VIII, 5711 = ILAlg II, 6529 = Weiss 2004, 235 no. 303; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. early third c. CE?

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Cresce(n)s publicus / v(ixit) a(nnos) LXX et Nina co(n)iux / v(ixit) a(nnos) LXV.

Cirta 618. P(ublius) Publicius coloni(a)e lib(ertus) Fortis Source: Date:

CIL VIII, 19521 = ILAlg II, 802 = Weiss 2004, 245 no. L89; cf. Halkin 1897, 248. late second/early third c. CE?

D(is) M(anibus).  / P(ublius) Publicius  / coloni(a)e l/ib(ertus) Fortis  / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXXX / h(ic) s(itus) e(st).

Pannonia inferior Sirmium 619. Euca[rpus?] col(onorum) S[irm(iensium scil. servus)?] Source: Date:

F. und O. Harl, Ubi Erat Lupa, http://lupa.at/26348 (last access: 22/11/2020). late first/early second c. CE?

- - - - - - / et [- - -]? / Euca[rpus?] / col(onorum) S[irm(iensium scil. servus)?] / - - - - - -

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

405

Pannonia superior Iulia Emona 620. L(ucius) Publ(icius) Aper, lib(ertus) et tabul(arius) rei publ(icae), Augustalis gratuitus Source: Date:

CIL III, 3851 = Weiss 2004, 244 no. L80; cf. Halkin 1897, 244. late first c. CE.

Diiṣ Man(ibus).  / L(ucio) P̣ubl(icio) Apro,  / lịb(erto) ẹṭ ṭạḅul(ario)  / reị publ(icae), ̣ Aug(ustali) / gratuiṭọ. / Vivus fec(it) sịb(i) / - - - - - -?

Neviodunum 621. Charito Neviod(unensium scil. servus actor) summ(arum) Source: Date:

CIL III, 3921 = ILS 4189 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 215; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. late second/early third c. CE.

Invicto / deo / Char̂ito / Neviod(unensium scil. servus actor) / summ(arum).

Savaria 622. Daphnus col(oniae) Sav(ariae) vil(icus) kal(endarii) Septimiani Source: Date:

CIL III, 4152 = ILS 7119 = RIU 87 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 217; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. early third c. CE.

Genio  / candidat(orum),  / Ven(eri) Vict(rici)  / Daphnus  / col(onorum) Sav(ariensium) vîl(icus)  / ḳal(endarii) Septimi/ạni, sac(erdote) P(ublio) Ael(io)  / Ṣabiniano, d(onum) d(edit).

623. Sicundinus (sic) col(onorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 4150 = IDRE 264 = RIU 22 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 216; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. 188 CE.

Curia II, l. 11: Sicundinus (sic) col(onorum scil. servus)

624. Sileucus (sic) colonor(um scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 4150 = IDRE 264 = RIU 22 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 216; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. 188 CE.

Curia V, l. 50: Valentinus col(onorum scil. servus)

406

Appendices

625. Valentinus col(onorum scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL III, 4150 = IDRE 264 = RIU 22 = Weiss 2004, 220 no. 216; cf. Halkin 1897, 241. 188 CE.

Curia II, l. 5: Valentinus col(onorum scil. servus)

Sardinia Aquae Ypsitanae (later included within the urban area of Forum Traiani) 626. [Fe]lix Ypsit[anorum (scil. servus)] Source: Date:

ILSard I, 194. early second c. CE.

- - - - - - / [- - - Fe]lix Ypsit[anorum (scil. servus)] / piscina [- - -].

Caralis 627. C(aius) Iulius municipi l(ibertus) Felicio Source: Date:

CIL X, 7844 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L57; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. first c. CE.

C(aius) Iulius municipi l(ibertus) Felicio / Viduo loc(um) amplìavìt v(oti) c(ompos) l(ibens) m(erito).

628. C(aius) Iulius mun[icipi l(ibertus)?] Saecularis Source: Date:

CIL X, 7682 = Weiss 2004, 241 no. L56; cf. Halkin 1897, 246. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Meviae Ur+[- - -], / vix(it) ann(is) XVỊỊ[- - - mense] / I, diebus X[- - -]. / C(aius) Iulius mụṇ[icipi l(ibertus) ?] / Saecularis c[oniugi] / carissimae ḅ(ene) [m(erenti) ̣ f(ecit)].

Tharrus 629. Hilarus Source: Date: Note:

see no. 630. first/second c. CE. Since he was the father of Rogatus ser(vus) pub(licus) (no. 630) and the mother of the latter was an incerta (Claudia), whether a freeborn or a freed woman, he must have been a public slave too.

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

407

630. Rogatus ser(vus) pub(licus) Source: Date:

CIL X, 7903 = Weiss 2004, 213 no. 166; cf. Halkin 1897, 238. first/second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Rogato ser(vo) pub(lico), / vix(it) ann(is) XXV, / et Claudiae, / vix(it) ann(is) L. Hilarus / filio et coniugi / b(ene) m(erentibus) f(ecit).

Tarraconensis (Hispania citerior) Caesaraugusta 631. Artemas c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) f(ecit)46 Source: Date:

CIL II, 2992 = Beltrán Lloris 1997, 301–302 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 178; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. first c. CE.

VERNA C C SE F // ARTEMAS C C SE F // M IVL ANTONIANI AED, i. e., Verna c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) f(ecit) // Artemas c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) f(ecit) // M(arci) Iul(i) Antoniani aed(ilis).

632. Verna c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus)47 Source: Date:

see no. 631. first c. CE.

Clunia 633. Festus rei publicae Cluniensium servus Source: Date:

de Palol – Vilella 1987, 32 no. 21; cf. Luciani 2019c, 292 no. 43. first c. CE.

Festus / rei publicae / Cluniensi/um servus / Numini the[a/thri - - -] / - - - - - -

46 47

He is mentioned on the stamp on one lead pipe together with Verna c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) (no. 632). He is mentioned on the stamp on one lead pipe together with Artemas c(olonorum) C(aesaraugustanorum) se(rvus) f(ecit) (no. 631).

408

Appendices

Santacris 634. Athenio dispensator publicus Source: Date:

AE 1971, 199 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 181. first c. CE?

Athenioni / dispensa/tori publi/co Ant(onia) C(h)ry/saeis fe(cit).

Saguntum 635. Publicia m(unicipum) S(aguntinorum) l(iberta) Acirtilla Source: Date:

CIL II, 6027 = CIL II2/14, 378 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L68. first c. CE.

Publicia Sag(untinorum)  / l(iberta) Sacerdos,  / Publicia m(unicipum) S(aguntinorum) l(iberta) / Acirtilla an(norum) XXX.

636. Publicia Sag(untinorum) l(iberta) Sacerdos Source: Date:

see no. 635 = Weiss 2004, 242 no. L68. first c. CE.

Segobriga 637. [Barba]rae rei [publi]cae Segob[rige]nsium [serva] Source: Date:

EphEm VIII, 182 = AE 1903, 186 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 182. second c. CE?

[Barba]rae rei / [publi]cae Segob/[rige]nsium / [servae f]amil(ia) / [pub]lica / [f]ecit.

638. [f]amil(ia) [pub]lica Source: Date:

see no. 637 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 182. second c. CE?

Valeria 639. Hermia s(ervus) r(ei) p(ublicae) Val(eriensium scil. servus) Source: Date:

CIL II, 3181 = CLE 123 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 183; cf. Halkin 1897, 239. unknown date.

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Ael(io) Herme/roti aurig(a)e / defuncto / [Ili]ci ann(orum) XXIII  / Hermia s(ervus)  / r(ei) p(ublicae) Val(eriensium scil. servus)  / f[ili]o in/conpa-

Appendix 3 Public Slaves, Freedmen and Freedwomen in the Western Provinces

409

ra/bili s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis) / frequens viator / saepe qui transis lege / natus pro te sum / [- - -]ST[- - -]IOI[- - -]CO[- - -].

Veleia 640. [E]ucar[p]us r(ei) p(ublicae) Veleian(orum) ser(vus) Source: Date:

AE 2012, 777; cf. Luciani 2019c, 292 no. 44. late second/early third c. CE.

[E]ucar/[p]us r(ei) p(ublicae) / Veleian(orum) / ser(vus) / Matri / deae / dedi[c]avit.

410

Appendices

Appendix 4 Incerti a) Rome 641. Ti(berius) Claudius Glyptus, hymnologus de campo Caelemontano Source: Date:

CIL VI, 9475; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 881 no. 1190 (who date the inscription to the second/third c. CE). first c. CE.

Glypte Benedict(e). / D(is) M(anibus). / Ti(berio) Claudio Glyp/to, hymnologo de / campo Caelemon/tano, vixit annis / XXV me(n)sibus VIII fe/cit L(ucius) Ceionius Ma/gnus filiastro / bene merenti / et Ti(berius) Claudius Chrysogon(us) / fratri pientissimo.

642. Ti(berius) Claudius Velox hymnolog[us] primus M(atris) D(eum) I(daeae) e[t] Atti[n]is publicus Source: Date:

CIL VI, 32444 = ILS 4164; cf. Rüpke – Glock 2005, 894 no. 1246 (who date the inscription to the second/third c. CE). first c. CE.

Ti(berio) Claudio Veloci, / hymnolog[o] primo / M(atris) D(eum) I(daeae) e[t] Atti[n]is publico, / Amerimnus lib(ertus) / patrono optimo. / H(uic) m(onumento) d(olus) m(alus) a(besto).

643. Anonymous aedituus (scil. aedis Iovis Optimi Maximi in Capitolio)

Source 1: Tac. Hist. 3.74; cf. Halkin 1897, 68–69; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 664 no. 12. Date: early second c. CE (with reference to events of 69 CE). Domitianus prima inruptione apud aedituum (scil. sedis Iovis Optimi Maximi in Capitolio) occultatus, sollertia liberti lineo amictu turbae sacricolarum immixtus ignoratusque, apud Cornelium Primum paternum clientem iuxta Velabrum delituit. ac potiente rerum patre, disiecto aeditui contubernio, modicum sacellum Iovi Conservatori aramque posuit casus suos in marmore expressam; mox imperium adeptus Iovi Custodi templum ingens seque in sinu dei sacravit. Source 2: Suet. Dom. 1; cf. Halkin 1897, 68–69; Rüpke – Glock 2005, 664 no. 12. Date: early second c. CE (with reference to events of 69 CE).

Bello Vitelliano (scil. Domitianus) confugit in Capitolium cum patruo Sabino ac parte praesentium copiarum, sed irrumpentibus adversariis et ardente templo apud aedituum clam pernoctavit, ac mane Isiaci celatus habitu interque sacrificulos variae superstitionis, cum se trans Tiberim ad condiscipuli sui matrem comite uno contulisset, ita latuit, ut scrutantibus qui vestigia subsecuti erant, deprehendi non potuerit.

Appendix 4 Incerti

411

b) Italy Regio I Capua 644. Campania Albina Source: Date: Note:

see no. 645. second/third c. CE. partner of Dexter aedituus (no. 645) and mother of Dexter Duroni(an)us a basilica (no. 646).

645. Dexter aedituus Source: Date:

AE 1895, 156 = AE 1987, 243 = Chioffi 2005, 91–92, no. 85. second/third c. CE.

Dextro Dextri / aeditui et Campaniae / Albinae filio Duroni(an)o / a basilica / cum suis uixit annis / XXVI mensib(us) III diebus XIX. Note:

father of Dexter Duroni(an)us a basilica (no.  646) and partner of Campania Albina (no. 644).

646. Dexter Duroni(an)us a basilica Source: Date: Note:

see no. 645. second/third c. CE. son of Dexter aedituus (no. 645) and Campania Albina (no. 644).

647. Evagogus a flam(mis) Source: Date:

CIL X, 3967. late first c. BCE/early first c. CE.

Eutychus vilic(us) / a plumbo, / Euagogus a flam(mis) / fecerunt sibi et suis.

648. Eutychus vilic(us) a plumbo Source: Date:

See no. 647. late first c. BCE/early first c. CE.

412

Appendices

Lanuvium 649. Hermes48

Source 1: CIL XIV, 2129 = CIL XV, 7812 = AE 1994, 337. Date: Hadrianic period.

R P L[A]NIVINORVM // [H]ERMES FECIT, i. e., R(ei) p(ublicae) L[a]nivinorum. // [H]ermes fecit. Source 2: EphEp IX, 628; cf. AE 1994, 337. Date: Hadrianic period. HERMES FECIT, i. e., Hermes fecit. Note:

since he is mentioned on stamps on water lead pipes for common use, he was most likely a public slave.

Minturnae 650. Anonymous public slave entrusted with the task of executing Marius in 88 BCE? Source 1: Vell. Pat. 2.19. Date: early first c. CE.

Tum Sulla contracto exercitu ad urbem rediit eamque armis occupavit, duodecim auctores novarum pessimarumque rerum, inter quos Marium cum filio et P. Sulpicio, urbe exturbavit ac lege lata exules fecit. Sulpicium etiam adsecuti equites in Laurentinis paludibus iugulavere, caputque eius erectum et ostentatum pro rostris velut omen inminentis proscriptionis fuit. Marius post sextum consulatum annumque septuagesimum nudus ac limo obrutus, oculis tantummodo ac naribus eminentibus, extractus arundineto circa paludem Maricae, in quam se fugiens consectantis Sullae equites abdiderat, iniecto in collum loro in carcerem Minturnensium iussu duumviri perductus est. Ad quem interficiendum missus cum gladio servus publicus natione Germanus, qui forte ab imperatore eo bello Cimbrico captus erat, ut agnovit Marium, magno eiulatu expromens indignationem casus tanti viri abiecto gladio profugit e carcere. Tum cives, ab hoste misereri paulo ante principis viri docti, instructum eum viatico conlataque veste in navem imposuerunt. At ille adsecutus circa insulam Aenariam filium cursum in Africam direxit inopemque vitam in tugurio ruinarum Carthaginiensium toleravit, cum Marius aspiciens Carthaginem, illa intuens Marium, alter alteri possent esse solacio.

48

He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes.

Appendix 4 Incerti

413

Source 2: Val. Max. 2.10.6. Date: early first c. CE. C(aius) etiam Marius, in profundum ultimarum miseriarum abiectus, ex ipso vitae discrimine beneficio maiestatis emersit: missus enim ad eum occidendum in privata domo Minturnis clausum servus publicus, natione Cimber, et senem et inermem et squalore obsitum, strictum gladium tenens, adgredi non sustinuit, et claritate viri occaecatus, abiecto ferro, attonitus inde ac tremens fugit. Cimbrica nimirum calamitas oculos hominis praestrinxit, devictaeque gentis suae interitus animum comminuit, etiam dis immortalibus indignum ratis ab uno eius nationis interfici Marium quam totam deleverat. Minturnenses autem, maiestate illius capti, compressum iam et constrictum dira fati necessitate incolumem praestiterunt. nec fuit eis timori asperrima Sullae victoria, cum praesertim ipse Marius eos a conservando Mario absterrere posset. Note:

the episode is also reported by other sources that do not refer to the executioner as a public slave; in general, its historicity is doubtful.

Ostia 651. M(arcus) Ostiensis Asclepiades49

Source 1: CIL XIV, 2002 = CIL XV, 7766. Date: second/third c. CE. EX OFF M OST ASCLEPIAD, i. e., Ex off(icina) M(arci) Ost(iensis) Asclepiad(is). Source 2: CIL XIV, 5309,40. Date: second/third c. CE. OFF M OST ASCLEPIAD, i. e., (Ex) off(icina) M(arci) Ost(iensis) Asclepiad(is).

652. C(aius) Ostiensius Felicissimus50 Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2003 = CIL XV, 7736β-γc. second c. CE.

C OSTIENSIVS FELICISSIMVS FEC, i. e., C(aius) Ostiensius Felicissimus fec(it).

653. Q(uintus) Ostiensis Felix, aedituus aedis Romae et Aug(usti) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 73. late first c. CE.

Imperio / Q(uintus) Ostiensis / Felix, / aedituus / aedis Romae et Aug(usti), / fecit.

49 50

He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes. He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes.

414

Appendices

654. Ostiensis Her(mes) vel Herc(ula)n(eus)51 Source 1: CIL XIV, 1980 = CIL XV, 7743. Date: second c. CE.

[IMP A]NTONINI AVG SVB CVR FLE[GONTIS]  / AVG LIB PROC OF OS HER CN[- - -] vel HERCN[- - -], i. e., [Imp(eratoris) A]ntonini Aug(usti), sub cur(a) Fle[gontis],  / Aug(usti) lib(erti) proc(uratoris), (ex) of(ficina) Os(tiensis?) Her(metis?) CN[- - -] vel Herc(ula)n[eus? - - -]. Source 2: CIL XIV, 5309,19. Date: second c. CE. [- - -] ANTONINI AVG SVB CVR FLEG / AVG LIB PROC OF OS HER CN[- - -] vel HERCN[- - -] // VIII, i. e., [Imp(eratoris)] Antonini Aug(usti), sub cur(a) Fleg(ontis), / Aug(usti) lib(erti) proc(uratoris), (ex) of(ficina) Os(tiensis?) Her(metis?) CN[- - -] vel Herc(ula)n[eus? - - -] // VIII.

655. Ostiensis Praetorinus52 Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2004 = CIL XV, 7767. second/third c. CE.

EX OFICINA OSTENSIS PRAETORINI, i. e., Ex of(f)icina Ost(i)ensis Praetorini.

656. A(ulus) Ostiensis Trophimus53 Source: Date:

AE 1977, 168. second c. CE.

A OSTIENSIS TROPHIMVS FEC, i. e., A(ulus) Ostiensis Trophimus fec(it).

Tibur 657. [- Tibu?]rtius Plocamus54 Source: Date:

AE 1987, 207. unknown.

[- - -]RTIVS PLOCAMVS FEC, i. e., [- Tibu?]rtius Plocamus fec(it).

51 52 53 54

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

Appendix 4 Incerti

415

658. C(aius) Tiburtius Verna55

Source 1: CIL XIV, 3708 = CIL XV, 7909b = InscrIt IV, 1, 626. Date: second c. CE. C TIBVRTIVS VERNA FEC, i. e., C(aius) Tiburtius Verna fec(it). Source 2: CIL XV, 7909a. Date: second c. CE. C TIBVRTIVS VERNA FECIT, i. e., C(aius) Tiburtius Verna fecit.

Trebula Mutuesca 659. T(itus) Treb[ulanus? - - -]56 Source: Date:

Persichetti 1906, 384. unknown.

EX OF T TREB[- - -], i. e., Ex of(ficina) T(iti) Treb[ulani? - - -].

Tusculum 660. M(arcus) Tusculanius Amianthus, mag(ister) aeditu(um) Castoris Polluc(is), Augustalium h(onore) f(uncto) Source: Date:

CIL XIV, 2637 = ILS 6215. first c. CE.

M(arco) Tusculanio / Amiantho, / mag(istro) aeditu(um) / Castoris Polluc(is), / Augustalium h(onore) f(uncto), / M(arcus) Tusculanius / M(arci) f(ilius) / Receptus, / fratri.

Regio II Canusium 661. Anonymous tabularius civitatis Source: Date:

AE 1984, 250 = AE 2003, 359 (the so-called “Tavola di Trinitapoli”). 321–375 CE.

lines 7–11: [- - - dei]ṇceps ad praepositis pagorûm vel ab his quos  / [reliquorum maxim]e cûra con̂plectitûr mestruis brevẹs fideliter deligen̂terq(ue) / [subdantur? et offi]cio con̂peten̂ti 55 56

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

416

Appendices

a ++ tabûlario civitatis scribtûra tradatûr qûa praes[to?] que/[atur cog]nosci qûan̂tûm et in qûa specie diebus singûlis singûli quiq(ue) dissolverin quid/v̂ ẹ ab ûnoquoq(ue) trahatûr in̂ reliquis …

Regio III Locri Epizephyrii 662. Publicius T(h)allus Source: Date:

CIL X, 8339d. third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Publicius / T(h)allus vi/xit an(nos) XXXV / colegius (sic) / canof(orum) (sic) fe(cit).

Regio IV Amiternum 663. Amiternius Aries57 Source: Date:

SupplIt 9, 1992, 190 no. 210 = AE 1992, 502. unknown.

AMITERNIVS / [A]RIES FEC, i. e., Amiternius / [A]ries fec(it).

664. Q(uintus) Amiternius Primigenius58 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 4223. unknown.

Q AMITERNIVS / PRIMIGENIVS FEC, i. e., Q(uintus) Amiternius / Primigenius fec(it).

665. Q(uintus) Amiter[nius - - -]59 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 4224. unknown.

Q PIENS Q AMITER[- - -] / ALBA, i. e., Q(uintus?) PIENS?, Q(uintus?) Amiter[nius? - - -] / Alba.

57 58 59

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

Appendix 4 Incerti

417

Auximum 666. Restutus actor ali(mentorum) Source: Date:

CIL IX, 5859 = Weiss 2004, 206 no. 95; cf. CIL XI, 735*,1; Halkin 1897, 236. late second/early third c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Octaviae / Priscae / vixit ann(os) / XXVIII, men(ses) / V, dies XXIII. / Restutus / actor ali(mentorum) / coiugi / b(ene) m(erenti).

Reate 667. A(ulus) Reatin(us) Callimorphus60 Source: Date:

CIL IX, 4700; cf. SupplIt 18, 2000, 77. unknown.

A REATIN CALLIMORPHVS / F, i. e., A(ulus) Reatin(us) Callimorphus / f(ecit).

Sulmo (from pagus Interpromium) 668. C(aius) Sulmonius Fortunatus61

Source 1: CIL IX, 3046 = ILS 5609. Date: late second c. CE.

[CC(aii)] Sụlmonii Primus et Fortunatus  / [p]onḍerarium pagi Interpromini  / [vi] terrạe motus dilapsum a solo / [s]ua pecuṇia restiṭuerunt. Source 2: CIL IX, 6083, 142. Date: late second c. CE. C(ai) Sulm(oni) Fo/rtunati.

669. C(aius) Sulmonius Primus Source: Date:

60 61

see no. 668. late second c. CE.

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned both on a limestone building-inscription and on a bronze seal.

418

Appendices

Telesia 670. Herculan(us) Tel(esinorum)? ark(arius)62 Source: Date:

CIL XV, 8249; cf. Weiss 2004, 41 n. 43. unknown.

HERCVLAN / TEL (?) ARK, i. e., Herculan(i) / Tel(esinorum)? ark(arii). Note:

A different reading is provided in CIL XV, 8249: HERCVLAN / T FL ARK, i. e., Herculan(i) / T(iti) Fl(avi) ark(arii).

Regio VI Spoletium 671. Potitus ser(vus)63 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 4844 = Weiss 2004, 207 no. 108; cf. Paci et al. 2021, 117. early first c. BCE.

POP SPOL // POTITVS SER FECIT, i. e., Pop(licum) Spol(etinorum) // Potitus ser(vus) fecit. Note:

since he is mentioned on a stamp on a water lead pipe for common use, he was most likely a public slave.

Regio VII Pisae 672. Q(uintus) Obsequentius Severinus, Augustalis Source: Date:

CIL XI, 1444 = ILS 6600 = InscrIt VII, 1, 27. second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus).  / Mettia Ianuaria hic adq(uiescit) conî(ugi)  / b(ene) m(erenti)  / Q(uintus) Obsequentius Severinus, Augustalis Pisis, cur(ator) kal(endarii) Florentinor(um) / sibi posterisq(ue) suis.

62 63

He is mentioned on a bronze seal. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

Appendix 4 Incerti

419

Regio VIII Bononia 673. Acutus vilic(us)64 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 731. early first c. CE.

ACVTO VILIC, i. e., Acuto vilic(o).

674. Aphrodisius vil(icus)65 Source: Date:

AE 1976, 214a. early first c. CE.

1: [- - -]RO APHRODISIO VIL, i. e., [Supe]ro et Aphrodisio vil(icis); 2: SVPERO ET APHRO[- - -], i. e., Supero et Aphro[disio vil(icis)].

675. Callistus vil(icus)66 Source: Date:

Susini 2001, 133. early first c. CE.

C̣ẠḶḶỊSTO. VỊḶ, i. e., C̣ạḷḷịsto vil(ico).

676. Campanus vil(icus)67 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 732. early first c. CE.

CAMPANO VIL, i. e., Câmpano vil(ico).

677. Cinnam(us) vilic(us)68 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 725. early first c. CE.

L RVFIO SEX PONTIO Q // CINNAM VIL, i. e., L(ucio) Rufio, Sex(to) Pontio q(uaestoribus) // Cinnam(o) v̂îlic(o).

64 65 66 67 68

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

420

Appendices

678. Dignus vilicus69 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 733. early first c. CE.

DIGNO VILICO, i. e., Digno vilico.

679. Lausus vil(icus)70 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 734. early first c. CE.

LAVSO VIL, i. e., Lauso vil(ico).

680. Peculiaris vilicus71 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 735. early first c. CE.

PECVLIARE VILICO, i. e., Peculiare vilico.

681. L(ucius) Publicius Asclepius vil(icus)72 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 736a-e. early first c. CE.

L PVBLICIO ASCLEPIO VILICO, i. e., L(ucio) Publicio Asclepio vilico.

682. Superus vil(icus)73 Source: Date:

see no. 674. early first c. CE.

683. [- - -] Vedian(us) r(ei) p(ublicae scil. servus)?74 Source: Date:

CIL XI, 6675,4. first c. CE?.

[- - -]VEDIAN R P, i. e., [- - -] Vedian(us) r(ei) p(ublicae scil. servus)?

69 70 71 72 73 74

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamp on a clay tile.

Appendix 4 Incerti

421

Regio IX 684. Ianuarius75 Source: Date:

Iulia Dertona

SupplIt 26, 2012, 152–153 no. 32. late first/early second c. CE

SVB CV P VA SAB / FA IANVARIVS, i. e., Sub cu(ra) P(ubli) Va(leri) Sab(ini) / fa(cit) Ianuarius. Note:

he was most likely a public slave that was at some point manumitted, thus becoming C(aius) Iul(ius) Ianuarius (no. 685).

685. C(aius) Iul(ius) Ianuarius76 Source: Date:

SupplIt 26, 2012, 151–152 no. 31a–b. late first/early second c. CE

C IVL IANVARIVS FAC DER, i. e., C(aius) Iul(ius) Ianuarius fac(it) Der(tonae). Note:

before manumission, he was probably Ianuarius (no. 684) and most likely a public slave.

Regio X Aquileia 686. Aq(uileiensis) Iuvenal(is)77 Source: Date:

Pais, SupplIt 1082,1. first c. CE.

AQ IVVENAL F // [- - -] IVVENAL F, i. e., Aq(uileiensis) Iuvenal(is) f(ecit). // [Aq(uileiensis)] Iuvenal(is) f(ecit).

687. Aquileiensis [- - -]nus, [de vel ex ho]rreo Maronian(o) Source: Date:

InscrAq 567. late first c. CE.

[- Aqu]ileiensi / [- - -]no, / [de vel ex ho]rreo / Maronian(o), / heredes dedere.

75 76 77

He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe. He is mentioned on the stamps on two lead pipes. He is mentioned on the stamp on a lead pipe.

422

Appendices

688. P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio78 Source: Date:

CIL V, 715 = Pais, SupplIt 1107 = ILS 6683 = InscrIt X, 4, 340; cfr. SupplIt 10, 1990, 235–236. first c. CE.

P(ublius) Public(ius) Ursio  / v(ivus) s(ibi) f(ecit) et  / coniugị kariss(imae)  / Voltịliae Satụnn(ae). / Duṃ saltus pu/blicos ˹c˺uro ḍe/cidi ḥoc in pri/vatọ agellọ. ̣

Brixia 689. Q(uintus) Pub(licius) Abascant(us) Source: Date:

CIL V, 4911 = InscrIt X, 5, 1134. late first/early second c. CE.

Gen(io) pop(uli) pag(i) Iuḷ(ii), / bene mer(enti), / Q(uintus) Pub(licius) Abascant(us).

690. [P]ublicius Eu[ty]chius aeditu(u)s Source: Date:

AE 1952, 133 = InscrIt X, 5, 75. third c. CE.

Victor(iae) Âu[g(ustae)] / [P]ublicius Eu[ty]/chius, aeditu(u)s, / ex voto.

691. Ti(berius) Public(ius) Primitivos (sic), saltuar(ius) pagi Veneri Source: Date:

InscrIt X, 5, 1124 = SupplIt 25, 2010, 297–298 no. 109 bis = AE 2010, 592. first c. CE.

Iuventuti / Ti(berius) Public(ius) / Primitiuos (sic), / saltuar(ius) pagi / Veneri, / d(ono) d(edit).

Comum 692. Anonymous actor publicus Source: Plin. Ep. 7.18. Date: early second c. CE.

C. PLINIVS CANINIO SVO S. 1. Deliberas mecum quemadmodum pecunia, quam municipibus nostris in epulum obtulisti, post te quoque salva sit. Honesta consultatio, non expedita sententia. Numeres rei publicae summam: verendum est ne dilabatur. Des agros: ut publici neglegentur. 2. 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; eundem vectigali imposito recepi, tricena milia annua datu78

He may also have been a public freedman of Tergeste.

Appendix 4 Incerti

423

rus. 3. Per hoc enim et rei publicae sors in tuto nec reditus incertus, et ager ipse propter id quod vectigal large supercurrit, semper dominum a quo exerceatur inveniet. 4. Nec ignoro me plus aliquanto quam donasse videor erogavisse, cum pulcherrimi agri pretium necessitas vectigalis infregerit. 5. Sed oportet privatis utilitatibus publicas, mortalibus aeternas anteferre, multoque diligentius muneri suo consulere quam facultatibus. Vale.

Montebelluna (modern name; ancient Berua?) 693. C(aius) Publicius Antero(s) Source: Date:

AE 2015, 453. first c. CE.

L(ucio) Horatio Longo, / tr(ibuno) c(o)hor(tis) I̅ I̅ vigil(um), / I̅ I̅ I̅ I̅ vir(o) i(ure) d(icundo), / C(aius) Puḅlicius Anterọ(s), / Ḷ(ucius) P̣ublicius Pe/[re]nnis patrono.

694. L(ucius) Publicius Pe[re]nnis Source: Date:

See no. 693. first c. CE.

Patavium 695. P(ublius) Pobl(icius) Alexander Source: Date:

CIL V, 8110, 282. late first/early second c. CE.

P POBL NYC[- - -], / P POBL ALE[- - -], i. e., P(ublius) Pobl(icius) Nyc[hius], / P(ublius) Pobl(icius) Ale[xander].

696. T(itus) Poblicius Crescens Source: Date:

CIL V, 2795 = ILS 3625. first c. CE.

Genio dom(i)nor(um) (et) Cereri. / T(itus) Poblicius Crescens Laribus / publicis dedit imagines argent(eas) duas / testamento ex HS ((milia)) ((milia)).

697. P(ublius) Pobl(icius) Nyc[hius] Source: Date:

See no. 695. late first/early second c. CE.

698. P(ublius) Poblicius Xys(tus) Source: Date:

CIL V, 8110, 283a-b. late first/early second c. CE.

P POBL XYS, i. e., P(ublius) Poblicius Xys(tus).

424

Appendices

Pola 699. Entell[us] (scil. colonorum servus?) Source: Date:

CIL V, 396b = InscrIt X, 2, 229; cf. CIL V, p. 1021. second c. CE?

- - - - - -? / [- - -]S?[- - -] / Ẹṇṭell[us] / et Helen̂a / colon[or(um scil. servi)?]. Note:

he may also have been a colonus.

700. Helena colon[or(um scil. serva)?] Source: Date: Note:

see no. 699. second c. CE? she may also have been a colona.

Tergeste 701. Q(uintus) Publicius Charito, sacerdos Source: Date:

CIL V, 519 = ILS 4110 = InscrIt X, 4, 11; CIL V, cf. p. 1022; SupplIt 10, 1992, 211. second c. CE.

M(atri) d(eum) M(agnae). / Q(uintus) Publicius / Charito, / sacerdos, êt / C(aius) Publicius / Hermes, / âedituus, / et / Secunda, / cymbalistria.

702. C(aius) Publicius Hermes, aedituus Source: Date:

see no. 701. second c. CE.

703. L(ucius) Publicius Syntropus, archigallus Source: Date:

CIL V, 488 = InscrIt X, 3, 8; cf. SupplIt 10, 1992, 191. first c. CE.

L(ucius) Publicius / Syntropus, / archigallus, / v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et. / H(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredes) n(on) s(equetur).

704. Secunda, cymbalistria Source: Date:

see no. 701. second c. CE.

Appendix 4 Incerti

425

Verona 705. Veronia Trofime, sacer(dos) Matris deum Source: Date:

CIL V, 3438. late first c. CE.

C(aius) Veron̂ius / Carpus, / V̅ I̅ vir Cḷ(audialis) mai(or), / Veroniae / Trofime, sacer(doti) / Matris dẹum, / mạtri / sancṭissiṃae, / et Veroniọ P̣rimo / - - - - - - -

706. C(aius) Veronius Carpus, V̅ I̅ vir Cl(audialis) mai(or) Source: Date:

see no. 705. late first c. CE.

707. Veronius Primus Source: Date:

see no. 705. late first c. CE.

Regio XI Mediolanum 708. C(aius) Poblicius Olymp[us], sacerdos M(atris) d(eum) Source: Date:

CIL V, 5881. second c. CE.

V(ivus) f(ecit) / C(aius) Poblicius Olymp[us], / sacerdos M(atris) d(eum), sibi et / Pobliciae T(h)isbe / lib(ertae) suae.

c) Western Provinces Baetica Corduba 709. Publicius Fortunatus Source: Date:

CIL II2/7, 233. 234 CE.

Pro salute / Imp(eratoris) domini n(ostri) [[M(arci) Aureli]] / [[Severi Alexandri]] Pii Felicis / Aug(usti) / tauribolium fecit Publicius / Fortunatus t(h)alamas suscepit / c{h}rionis

426

Appendices

Coelia Ianuaria / adstante Ulpio Heliade sacerdo[te] / aram sacris suis d(onum) d(ederunt) / Maximo Urbano co(n)s(ulibus).

Nescania 710. servi stationarii Source: Date:

CIL II, 2011 = CIL II2/5, 847. second c. CE.

C(aio) Mario Quir(ina) Clementi Nescaniensi. / Ordo Nescaniensium statuam poni iussit / et decrevit. Fabia Restituta mater / honore accepto impensam remisit, / epulo dato decurionibus et filiis / eorum Nescaniensium singulis X (denarios) / binos civibus atque incolis item / servis stationariis singulis X (denarios) / singulos dedicavit.

Belgica Divodurum Mediomatricorum 711. T(itus) Publicius Tertius saltuarius Source: Date:

Finke 1927, 200 no. 328 = Lazzaro 1993, 106–107 no. 61, 407; cf. Luciani 2017, 54–55. early third c. CE.

- - - - - - / T(iti) Publici Terti / saltuari.

Dalmatia Iader 712. M(arcus) Publicius Campanus Source: Date:

CIL III, 2902 = ILS 4050. late first/early second c. CE.

Apollini Lycio  / M(arcus) Publicius  / Campanus, ae/dituus, iussu  / ipsius d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).

Appendix 4 Incerti

427

Gallia Lugdunensis Lugdunum 713. Tib(erius) Cl(audius) [C]hrestus, clavic(ularius) carc(eris) p(ublici) Lug(uduni) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 1780 = ILS 3549; cf. Halkin 1897, 177; Weiss 2004, 111–112. late first c. CE.

Deo Silvano  / Aug(usto)  / Tib(erius) Cl(audius) [C]hres/tus, clavic(ularius)  / carc(eris) p(ublici) Lug(uduni), / aram et sig/num inter / duos arbo/res cum ae/dicula ex vo/to posuit.

Gallia Narbonensis Arausio 714. Sex(tus) Publicius [- - -]anus Source: Date:

CIL XII, 1222. 185–191 CE.

Num(ini) Aug(usti) / Matri deum / pro salut(e) Imp(eratoris) / M(arci) Aur(eli) [[Commo]]/[[di]] Antonini Pii / Felicis / tauropolium (sic) / fecerunt / Sex(tus) Publicius / [- - -] anus / [- - -]iana.

Cularo 715. Fronto actor huius loci Source: Date:

CIL XII, 2250 = ILN V.2, 387; cf. Halkin 1897, 239; Weiss 2004, 59. late second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus) / Frontonis / actoris huius / loci Materna / coniugi karissimo, / [Ph]ilusa patri dul/cissimo / facien/dum curavit (sic) / et Eudrepites / filius parenti / optimo sub ascia / d[edicav(erunt?)].

Vienna 716. Secundus c(urae) aq(uarum) c(oloniae) I(uliae) V(iennensium scil. servus?) Source: Date:

CIL XII, 5701,43 = AE 2011, 728. first/third c. CE.

SECVNDVS C AQ C I V F, i. e., Secundus c(urae) aq(uarum) c(oloniae) I(uliae) V(iennensium scil. servus?) f(ecit).

428

Appendices

Germania superior Bad Kreuznach (modern name; ancient Cruciniacum) 717. Mansuetus Senodatium (scil. servus?) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 7553 = Weiss 2004, 218 no. 203. second c. CE?

Inimicorum / nomina ad / inferos // ICLVM // Inimicorum nomina // ad infe/ros // Optatus Silonis / Faustus Ornatus? / Terentius Atisso / Atticinus Ammonis / Latinus Valeri / Adiutor Iuli / Tertius Domiti / Mansuetus Senodatium (scil. servus?) / Montanus materiarius / Aninius Victor / Quartio Severi / Sinto Valentis / Lutumarus lanius / Similis Crescentis / Lucanus Silonis / Communis Mercatoris / Publius offector / Aemilius Silvanus // Cossus Matuini.

Lusitania Augusta Emerita 718. Publicius Mysticus, arc(h)igallus Source: Date:

CIL II, 5260 = ILS 4156. late second c. CE.

M(atri) d(eum) s(acrum)  / Val(eria) Avita  / aram tauriboli(i)  / sui natalici red/diti d(onum) d(edit), sacerdo/te Doccyrico Vale/riano, arc(h)igallo / Publicio Mystico.

Macedonia Dyrrhachium 719. Eutychius79

Source 1: AE 1984, 811 = AE 1994, 1574 = AE 2014, 1177a. Date: Hadrianic period. COL IVLIAE AVG DYRRACHIN / AQ HCERIAN / S CVR TELL GAET ET AVIDIO CAMVRIAN, i. e., Col(oniae) Iuliae Aug(ustae) Dyrrachin(orum) / aq(ua) Hadrian(a) / s(ub) cur(a) Tell(uti) Gaet(ulici) et Avidi{o} Camurian(i)

79

He is mentioned on the stamps on four lead pipes.

Appendix 4 Incerti

429

Source 2: AE 1984, 812 = AE 1994, 1573 = AE 2014, 1177b. Date: Hadrianic period. AQVAE HCERIAN / COL IVL AVG DYRR / OFFIC EVTYCH P E // AQVAE HA[D] RIAN / COL IVL AVG DYRR / OFFIC EVTYCHIVS P E, i. e., Aquae Hadrian(ae) / col(oniae) Iul(iae) Aug(ustae) Dyrr(achinorum)  / offic(inator) Eutych(ius) p(ecunia) ˹p˺(ublica?) // Aquae Ha[d]rian(ae) / col(oniae) Iul(iae) Aug(ustae) Dyrr(achinorum) / offic(inator) Eutychius p(ecunia) ˹p˺(ublica?). Source 3: AE 2014, 1177c. Date: Hadrianic period. AQVAE A[DRIA]N  / COL IVL AVG DYRR  / OFFIC EVTYCHIVS, i. e., Aquae (H) a[dria]n(ae) / col(oniae) Iul(iae) Aug(ustae) Dyrr(achinorum) / offic(inator) Eutychius. Source 4: AE 1984, 813 = AE 2014, 1177c. Date: Hadrianic period. S C P P EYT[YCHI]V[S] F[EC], i. e., S(enatus) c(onsulto) p(ecunia) p(ublica) E˹u˺t[ychi] u[s] f[ec(it?)].

Mauretania Caesariensis Caesarea 720. Cl(audius) Publicius Fortunatus Source: Date:

CIL VIII, 9425; cf. p. 1984. late first/early second c. CE.

D(is) M(anibus). / Cl(audio) Publicio Fortu/nato, aedituo, vixit / annis LX / Attica uxor et Crescens, Ianuarius, / Fortunata, fili(i), patri optimo. / H(ic) s(itus) e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis).

Numidia Cirta 721. Publicius Nam(p)hamo Source: Date:

CIL VIII, 7077 = ILAlg II, 803. second c. CE?

D(is) M(anibus) / Publici Nam(p)/hamon̂is patris / dulcissimi v(ixit) a(nnos) LXV / [[[- - -] isus]] tabulari/us et [[[- - -]]]  / [[[- - -]iva]] nura et [[I[·]V[·]]]/[[[- - -]V[- - -]]] et [[[- - -]]] / Urbanica Felicis/sima Esmara Coilia (sic) / nepotes avo dulcis/simo fecerunt.

430

Appendices

722. [[[- - -]isus]] tabularius Source: Date:

See no. 721. second c. CE?

Pannonia inferior Aquincum 723. P(ublius) Ael(ius) Maximinus, t̂ab(ularius) c(ivitatis) {C} Er(aviscorum) Source: Date:

CIL III, 10408 = AE 1941, 14 = Kovács – Szabó 2009, 80 no. 85. late second c. CE

Iunon̂i / Regin̂âe / P(ublius) Ael(ius) Ma/ximinus, t̂ab(ularius) c(ivitatis) {C} Er(aviscorum), / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

Intercisa 724. [- - -]limus stat(ionarius) [p]ub(licus)? Source: Date:

CIL III, 10308 = RIU 5, 1101. third c. CE?

[D]eo Soli Au[g(usto)] / [- - -]limus stat(ionarius) / [p]ub(licus)? v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

Pannonia superior Savaria 725. L(ucius) Savarensis Ionius80

Source 1: CIL III, 4692a-b = Weiss 2004, 247. Date: unknown date. L SAVAR̂ ENSIS ION̂I, i. e., L(uci) Savar̂(i)ensis Ion̂i(i).

Source 2: CIL III, 4693a-c = Weiss 2004, 247. Date: unknown date. EX OF L S I, i. e., Ex of(ficina) L(uci) S(avariensis) I(onii).

80

He is mentioned on the stamps on two clay tiles.

Appendix 4 Incerti

431

Sicilia Tyndaris 726. [- - -]s t̂ âb̂ (ularii) civ(itatis scil. servus)? Source: Date:

Manganaro 1989, 164 no. 17. first c. CE.

[- - -]s t̂âb̂(ularii) civ(itatis scil. servus)?81

Tarraconensis (Hispania citerior) Caesaraugusta 727. Anonymous libertus tabu[larius? - - -] Source: Date:

AE 2006, 676 (the so-called lex rivi Hiberiensis). second c. CE.

Col. II, line 35: Si quis libertum tabu[larium? - - -].

Cantabri et Varduli 728. +uraito Polecensium (scil. servus?) Source: Date:

EphEm VIII, 159 = Weiss 2004, 216 no. 179 = AE 2010, 709 = Hep 2010, 269; cf. EphEm VIII, p. 517. first c. CE?

Cabuniaegino / Doider[a] Tridia/na pro salut(e) / +uraitonis / Polecensium (scil. servi)? / l(ibens) m(erito) s(olvit).

81

For a different interpretation, see Manganaro 1989, 164 no. 17: [- - - Aditu]s Tâb(ularii) civ(itatis).

432

Appendices

Appendix 5 Slaves and Freedmen of the Provinces Baetica 729. P(ublius) Publicius provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) Fortunatus, marmorarius signuarius, verna urbicus Source: CIL II2/7, 301; cf. Luciani 2019c, 292 no. 41. Provenance: Cordoba. Date: early second c. CE.

P(ublius) Publicius  / provinc(iae)  / Baetic(ae) lib(ertus)  / Fortunatus  / marmorarius sig/nuarius verna ur/bicus ann(orum) LXXV / p(ius) i(n) s(uis) / [h(ic) s(itus)] e(st). S(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis).

730. C(aius) Public(ius) provinc(iae) Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) [- - -]

Source: CIL II, 2230 = CIL II2/7, 300; cf. CIL II, p 869; Halkin 1897, 246. Provenance: Cordoba. Date: late first/early second c. CE. D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / C(aius) Public(ius) provinc(iae) / Baetic(ae) lib(ertus) [- - -] / ------

Britannia 731. Anencletus provinc(iae scil. servus)

Source: CIL VII, 28 = RIB I, 21; cf. Luciani 2019c, 293 no. 49. Provenance: Londinium. Date: late first c. CE. D(is) M(anibus) / Cl(audiae) Marti/nae, an(norum) XIX. / Anencle/tus / provinc(iae scil. servus) / coniugi / pientissimae / h(ic) s(ita) e(st).

732. Tertullus provinc(iae scil. servus)82

Source: RIB II, 1, 2409,35; cf. Luciani 2019c, 293 no. 50. Provenance: Horrea Classis. Date: unknown date. TERTVLL̂ I PROVINC, i. e., Tertulti provinc(iae scil. servi).

82

He is mentioned on a bronze seal.

Appendix 5 Slaves and Freedmen of the Provinces

433

Tres Galliae (Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica) 733. Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus)

Source: CIL XIV, 328; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. Provenance: Ostia. Date: 177 CE, June, 27th.

D(is) M(anibus) / Modestiae Epigone, / animae dulcissimae. / Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus) / de se bene merenti fec(it). // `VIIII Kal(endas) Iul(ias)´ / `[[L(ucio) Aurelio Commodo Caes(are)]]´ / `M(arco) Plautio Quin̂tillo co(n)s(ulibus).´ Note:

he was then manumitted and became P(ublius) Claudius III Galliarum lib(ertus) Abascantus (no. 735).

734. Atticus I̅ I̅ I̅ provinciarum Galliarum servus Source: CIL VI, 29687; cf. Halkin 1897, 240. Provenance: Rome. Date: late first/early second c. CE.

Dis Manibus. / Attico I̅ I̅ I̅ provinciarum / Galliarum servo, / C(aius) Licinius Ianuarius / parenti optumo / et Licinia Calliope / coniugi / sanctissimo.

735. P(ublius) Claudius III Galliarum lib(ertus) Abascantus Source 1: CIL XIV, 326; cf. Halkin 1897, 247. Provenance: Ostia. Date: late second c. CE.

- l. 23: P(ublius) Claudius III provinc[i]ar[um Galliarum? lib(ertus) Abascantus] Source 2: CIL XIV, 327; cf. Halkin 1897, 247. Provenance: Ostia. Date: mid-180s CE. V̲ I̲ d̲ u̲ s̲ Ḍẹc(embres).  / D(is) M(anibus)  / C(ai) Modesti Thesêi  / P(ublius) Cl(audius) ̣ trium Galliar(um) / lib(ertus) Abascantus / alumno dulcissimo, / qui vixit an(nis) VIII, / mens(ibus) V, dieb(us) XVIIII.

Source 3: Zevi 2018. Provenance: Ostia. Date: late second c. CE. D(is) M(anibus). // P(ublio) Cl(audio) P(ubli) fil(io) Modestio Firmo, (scil. P(ublius) Claudius) Abascantus et Arria filio dulcissimo qui vixit anno uno et dies VIIII / e˹x˺ce˹s˺sit vita X kal(endas) Februar(ias). Note:

before manumission, he was Abascantus Galliarum (scil. servus) (no. 733).

434

Appendices

Tarraconensis 736. L(ucius) Fabius provinc(iae) lib(ertus) Victor

Source: AE 1919, 25 = CIL II2/14, 1199 = HAE 813 = RIT 335. Provenance: Tarraco. Date: second c. CE. D(is) M(anibus). / Gaviae Athenaid(i) / L(ucius) Fabius provinc(iae) lib(ertus) / Victor contubern(ali) / carissimae et / amantissimae. / S(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis).

737. Provincial(is) Nereus p(rovinciae) l(ibertus)

Source: CIL II, 2410 = CIL II, 5559 = AE 1994, 940 = Hep 1996, 1026. Provenance: Bracara Augusta. Date: late second c. CE. D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum). / Provincial(is) / Nereus p(rovinciae) l(ibertus) / Provincial[i] / Protidi co/niugi karissi/m̂e an(norum) XXVI

738. Provincial(is) Protis

Source: See no. 737. Provenance: Bracara Augusta. Date: late second c. CE. Note: since she was the partner of Provincial(is) Nereus p(rovinciae) l(ibertus) (no. 737), she may also have been a freedwoman of the province.

Appendix 6 Slaves and Freedmen of Associations and Guilds

435

Appendix 6 Slaves and Freedmen of Associations and Guilds a) Rome 739. C(aius) Miniarius Atimetus, procu(rator) sociorum miniariarum (scil. officinarum) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 9634 = ILS 1876. late first/early second c. CE.

P(ublius) Apicátius P(ubli) f(ilius) Cla(udia) Celer,  / vix(it) ann(is) XXVI, mens(ibus) IIII, / diébus IIII, / Vettia ((mulieris)) liberta Erótice / Miniári Atiméti (scil. uxor), / C(aius) Miniárius Atimétus, procú(rator)  / sociórum miniáriárum (scil. officinarum),  / P(ublius) Apicatius P(ubli) f(ilius) Pricus, / v(ixit) a(nnis) XXVI, m(ensibus) IIII, d(iebus) III.

740. P(ublius) Monetius soc(ietatis) l(ibertus) Philogenes vasculari(us) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 9953. first c. CE?

P(ublius) Monetius soc(ietatis) l(ibertus) / Philogenes vasculari(us) / Veturia C(ai) l(iberta) Salvia / sibei et sueis.

741. L(ucius) Quaestorius Cinyra lib(ertus) librar(iorum) quaestor(iorum) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 1826 = ILS 1897. first c. CE?

L(ucius) Quaestorius / Cinyra / lib(ertus) librar(iorum) quaestor(iorum).

742. Turannus verna tab(ularius) apparitor(um) Source: Date:

CIL VI, 1959 = CIL VI, 4013 = ILS 7886. mid first c. CE.

Turannus verna tab(ularius) apparitor(um), / sacris omnium immunis; / is dedit Ti(berio) Claudio Aug(usti) l(iberto) Veterano / columbarium totum. // Is intulit Ianthum Aug(usti) l(ibertum) / fratrem suum.

743. T(itus) Velatius accensorum velatorum l(ibertus) Ganymedes Source: Date:

CIL VI, 32314 = ILS 1956. first c. CE.

T(itus) Velatius accensorum / velatorum l(ibertus) Ganymedes sibi et / Clạụḍịạṇọ [- - -].

436

Appendices

b) Italy Regio VI Pisaurum 744. M(arcus) Picarius socior(um) lib(ertus) Nuraeus Source: Date:

CIL XI, 6393; cf. Cresci Marrone – Mennella 1984, 329 no. 108. Imperial age.

M(arco) Picario socior(um) / lib(erto) Nuraeo.

Regio X Brixia 745. Fabricius Centonius collegiorum lib(ertus) Cresimus Source: Date:

CIL V, 4422 = ILS 7257 = InscrIt X, 5, 216. late second/early third c. CE.

Fabriciae / Centoniâe / Arethusae, uxori / optimae, êt Chresime / filiae carissim(ae), / Fabricius Centon̂ius / collegiorum lib(ertus) / Cresimus. Note:

his partner may well have been a freedwoman of the collegii of the fabri and centonarii too.

c) Western Provinces Baetica Corduba 746. M(arcus) Aerarius soc(ietatis) aerar(iorum) l(ibertus) Telemac(h)us Source: Date:

CIL II2/7, 334 = AE 1971, 181 = Remy 2010, 102 no. 12. early first c. CE.

M(arcus) Aerarius soc(ietatis) aerar(iorum) l(ibertus) / Telemac(h)us, medicus. / Hic quiescit. Vale.

Appendix 6 Slaves and Freedmen of Associations and Guilds

437

747. M(arcus) Argentarius s(ocietatis) S(isaponensis) l(ibertus) Philinus Source: Date:

CIL II2/7, 415a. early first c. CE.

M(arcus) Argentarius s(ocietatis) S(isaponensis) l(ibertus) Philinus, / A(ulus) Argentarius s(ocietatis) S(isaponensis) l(ibertus) Rufus, / M(arcus) Argentarius s(ocietatis) S(isaponensis) l(ibertus) / Succio / suo testamento fieri / iussit.

748. A(ulus) Argentarius s(ocietatis) S(isaponensis) l(ibertus) Rufus Source: Date:

See no. 747. early first c. CE.

749. M(arcus) Argentarius s(ocietatis) S(isaponensis) l(ibertus) Succio Source: Date:

See no. 747. early first c. CE.

Belgica Divodurum Mediomatricorum 750. Sex(tus) Public(ius) Decmanus (sic) col(legii) med(icorum) lib(ertus) Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 11359 = Weiss 2004, 243 no. L75 = Rémy 2010, 178–179. late first/early second c. CE.

Dis Manib(us) Sex(to) Public(io) / Decmano (sic) / col(legii) med(icorum) lib(erto).83

751. M(arcus) Publicius Secundanus nautarum Mosallicor(um) libertus tabularius, IIIIIIvir, Augustalis84 Source: Date:

CIL XIII, 4335. late first/early second c. CE?

M(arco) Publicio Sec[un]/dano nautaru[m]  / Mosallicor(um) liber[to]  / tabulario, [I]IIII[I]vi[ro] / Augustali.

83 84

For a different interpretation of the abbreviation at l. 3, i. e., col(oniae) Med(iomatricorum) lib(erto), see Weiss 2004, 243 no. L75. Meyers 1964, 117 preferred to view him as a public freedman working as a municipal archivist. Contra Waltzing 1895, 416 n. 2; Pflaum 1965, 395; Raepsaet-Charlier 1986, 228 n. 45.

List of Abbreviations AE CIL CILA II CILA III CLE

DA DE EphEp EpOst FIRA HAE Hep IDR IDRE IG IGUR ILA

= L’Année Épigraphique, Paris 1888-. = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin 1862-. = González, J. 1991, Corpus de inscripciones latinas de Andalucía, II. Sevilla, Tomo I. La Vega (Hispalis), Sevilla. = C. González Román, C., and Mangas Manjarrés, J. 1991, Corpus de inscripciones latinas de Andalucía, III. Jaén, Sevilla. = Bücheler, F. 1895–97, Anthologia latina sive poesis Latinae supplementum, II, 1–2. Carmina Latina epigraphica, Leipzig; Lommatzsch, E. 1926, Anthologia latina sive poesis Latinae supplementum, II, 3. Carmina Latina epigraphica, Leipzig. = Daremberg, C., and Saglio, E. 1887–1919, Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, Paris. = De Ruggiero, E. 1886-, Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane, Rome. = Ephemeris epigraphica, Corporis inscriptionum Latinarum supplementum, edita iussu Instituti Archaeologici Romani. Berlin 1872– 1913. = Caldelli, M. L. et al. (eds.) 2018, Epigrafia ostiense dopo il CIL. 2000 iscrizioni funerarie, Venice. = Bruns, K. G. 1909, Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui7, I, Leges et negotia, Tübingen (ed. Gradenwitz). = Hispania Antiqua Epigraphica. Suplemento anual de Archivo Español de Arqueología. Instituto de Arqueología “Rodrigo Caro”. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid. = Hispania Epigraphica. Archivo Epigráfico de Hispania. Universidad Complutense, Madrid 1989–. = Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Bucharest 1975–. = Petolescu, C. C. 1996, Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Inscriptiones extra fines Daciae repertae, Bucharest. = Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873–. = Moretti, L. 1968–1990, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, Rome. = Inscriptions latines d’Aquitaine, Bordeaux 1994.

List of Abbreviations

ILAlg ILGN ILJug ILLPRON ILLRP ILN ILS ILSard ILTG InscrAq InscrIt IRT LTUR LTURS Museo 1984 OLD OPEL III OPEL IV Pais, SupplIt RIU PIR2 RAC RE RIB RIT

439

= Inscriptions latines d’Algérie, Paris 1922–. = Esperandieu, É. 1929, Inscriptions latines de Gaule (Narbonnaise), Paris 1929. = Šašel, J., and Šašel, A. 1963, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt, Ljubljana. = Inscriptionum Lapidarium Latinarum Provinciae Norici usque ad annum MCMLXXXIV repertarum indices, Berlin 1986. = Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicae. I, Florence 1957; II, Florence 1963. = Inscriptions latines de Narbonnaise, Paris 1985–. = H. Dessau, Inscriptiones latinae selectae, Berlin 1892–1916. = G. Sotgiu, Iscrizioni latine della Sardegna, I-II, Padua 1961–1968. = Wuilleumier, P. 1963, Inscriptions latines des Trois Gaules, Paris 1963. = G. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, Udine 1991–93. = Inscriptiones Italiae, Rome 1931–86. = Reynolds, J. M., and Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1952, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, Rome. = Steinby, E. M. (ed.), 1993–99, Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, I–IV, Rome. = La Regina, A. (ed.) 1993–99, Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Suburbium, I–V, Rome. = Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture, I/7.1, Rome 1984. = Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1968. = Lörincz, B. 2000, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum, III, Wien. = Lörincz, B. 2002, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum, IV, Wien. = Pais, E. 1888, Corporis inscriptionum Latinarum Supplementa Italica, consilio et auctoritate Academiae Regiae Lynceorum edita, Fasciculus I. Additamenta ad vol. V Galliae Cisalpinae, Rome. = Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns, Amsterdam 1972. = Groag, E. et al. 1933-, Prosopographia Imperii Romani, Berlin  – Leipzig. = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 1950–. = Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1894– 1978. = Collingwood, R. G., and Wright, R. P. 1965–95, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Oxford. = Alföldy, G. 1975, Die Römischen Inschriften von Tarraco, Berlin.

440 SEG SupplIt SupplIt. Imagines Terme 2012 TLL TPN TPSulp

List of Abbreviations

= Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, 1923–. = Supplementa Italica. Nuova serie, Roma 1981–. = Supplementa Italica. Imagines. Supplementi fotografici ai volumi italiani del Corpus Inscriptiones Latinarum, Rome 1999–. = Terme di Diocleziano. La collezione epigrafica, Milan 2012. = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig 1900–. = Wolf, J. G. 2010, Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji. Tabulae Pompeianae Novae. Lateinisch und deutsch, Darmstadt. = Camodeca, G. 1999, Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (TPSulp.). Edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii, Rome.

Bibliography Abramenko, A. 1993, Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien, Frankfurt am Main. Alföldy, G. 1973, Flamines provinciae Hispaniae citerioris, Madrid. Alföldy, G. 1975, Römische Sozialgeschichte, Wiesbaden. Alföldy, G. 1997, Die Bauinschriften des Aquaeduktes von Segovia und des Amphitheaters von Tarraco, Berlin – New York. Alvar Ezquerra J. 1994, “Integración social de esclavos y dependientes en la Peninsula Ibérica a través de los cultos mistéricos”, in Annequin, J., and Garrido-Hory, M. (eds.), Religion et anthropologie de l’esclavage et des formes de dépendance. Besançon 4–6 novembre 1993 (Actes des colloques du Groupe de recherche sur l’esclavage dans l’antiquité, 20), Besançon, 275–293. Andreau, J. 1974, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus, Rome. Andreau, J. 2001, La banque et les affaires dans le monde romain (IVe siècle av. J.-C.  – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.), Paris. Andreau, J. 2003, Présence des cités et des hiérarchies civiques dans les tablettes de Pompéi, in Aubert 2003, 229–247. Andreau, J. 2016, “Agellus entre la pauvreté et la richesse”, in Bissa, M. A., and Santangelo, F. (eds.), Studies on Wealth in the Ancient World, London, 43–52. Antolini, S., and Marengo, “Dediche servili al Genius dei padroni”, in Dondin-Payre – Tran 2017, 129–140. Arce, J. 2002, “Estatuas y retratos imperiales en Hispania romana”, Archivo Espanol De Arqueologia 75, 235–250. Arnaud, P. 1995, “Les mensores des légions: mensores agrarii ou mensores frumentarii?”, in LeBohec, Y. (ed.), La hierarchie (Rangordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire, Paris, 251–256. Ashby, T. 1907, “The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna Part III Section I”, Papers of the British School at Rome 4, 3–157. Ashby, T. 1935, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, Oxford. Aubert, J.-J. 1993, “Workshop Managers”, in Harris, W. V. (ed.), The Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of instrumentum domesticum, Ann Arbor, 171–181. Aubert, J.-J. 1994, Business Managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B. C. – A. D. 250, Leiden – New York – Köln. Aubert J.-J. 1999, “La gestion des collegia: aspects juridiques, économiques et sociaux”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 10, 49–69. Aubert, J.-J. (ed.) 2003, Tâches publiques et entreprise privée dans le monde romain. Actes du Diplôme d’Etudes Avancées, Universités de Neuchatel et de Lausanne, 2000–2002, Genève. Aubert, J.-J. 2021, “The legal capacity of public slaves in the Roman Empire”, in Luciani 2021b, 21–29

442

Bibliography

Avenarius, M. 2005, Der pseudo-ulpianische liber singularis regularum: Entstehung, Eigenart und Überlieferung einer hochklassischen Juristenschrift. Analyse, Neuedition und deutsche Übersetzung, Göttingen. Avetta, L. (ed.) 1985, Roma – Via Imperiale (Tituli 3), Rome. Baccini Leotardi, P. 2004, “Flaviae Thumeles monumentum”, in LTURS 2, Rome, 259–260. Badian, E. 1965, “M. Porcius Cato and the Annexation and Early Administration of Cyprus”, The Journal of Roman Studies 55, 110–121. Badian, E. 1989, “The Scribae of the Roman Republic”, Klio 71, 169–226. Bandy, A. C. 1983, Ioannes Lydus, On Powers or the Magistracies of the Roman State. Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Commentary and Indices, Philadelphia. Bandy, A. C. 2013, Ioannes Lydus: On Powers or The Magistracies of the Roman State (De magistratibus reipublicae Romanae), Lewiston. Balty, J. C. 1991, Curia Ordinis. Recherches d’architecture et d’urbanisme antiques sur les curies provinciales du monde romain, Bruxelles. Baratta, G. (ed.) 2021, Instrumenta Inscripta VIII. Plumbum litteratum. Studia epigraphica Giovanni Mennella oblata, Rome. Baratte, F. 1991, “Arts précieux et propagande impériale au début de l’Empire romain: l’exemple des deux coupes de Boscoreale”, Revue du Louvre 1, 24–39. Barney, S. A. et al. 2006, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, Cambridge. Barrow, R. H. 1928, Slavery in the Roman Empire, London. Bassignano, M. S. 1981, “Il municipio patavino”, Padova antica 1981, 191–227. Bassignano, M. S. 1987, “La religione: divinità, culti sacerdozi”, Veneto 1987, 310–376. Bassignano, M. S. 2003, “Sacerdozi minori nella Venetia et Histria”, in Perini, S. (ed.), Tempi, uomini ed eventi di storia veneta. Studi in onore di Federico Seneca, Rovigo, 21–40. Bayet, J. 1926, Les origines de l’Hercule romain, Paris. Beard, M. et al. 1998, Religions of Rome, 1, Cambridge. Beard, M. 1985, “Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval Acta”, Papers of the British School at Rome 53, 114–162. Beard, M. 1990, “Priesthood in the Roman Republic”, in Beard, M., and North, J. (eds.), Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, London, 19–48. Beard, M. 2007, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge and London. Becher, I. 1991, “Der Kult der Magna Mater in augusteischer Zeit”, Klio, 73, 157–170. Bellardi, G. 1975, Le orazioni di M. Tullio Cicerone, Turin. Bellomo, M. 2019, Il commando militare a Roma nell’età delle guerre puniche (264–201 a. C.), Stuttgart. Beltrán Lloris, F. 1997, “Epigrafía Romana”, Caesaraugusta 72.2, 275–333. Beltrán Lloris, F. 2006, “An Irrigation Decree from Roman Spain: The lex rivi Hiberiensis”, The Journal of Roman Studies, 96, 147–197. Berger, A. 1957, “Nota minima sul servus vicarius”, Iura 7, 122–125. Berrendonner, C. 2009, “La surveillance des poids et mesures par les autorités romaines: l’apport de la documentation épigraphique latine”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 20, 351–370. Bertacchi, L. 1994, “Aquileia: teatro, anfiteatro e circo”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 41, 163–181. Binsfeld, A. 2021, “‘All human beings are either free or slave’? Servi publici in Late Antiquity”, in Luciani 2021b, 30–38. Biondo, B. 1988, “I Potizi, i Pinari e la statizzazione del culto di Ercole”, in Franciosi, G. (ed.), Ricerche sulla organizzazione gentilizia romana, 2, Naples, 189–210. Birley, A. R. 1979, The People of Roman Britain, London.

Bibliography

443

Birley, A. R. 2000, “Hadrian to the Antonines”, in Bowman, A. K. et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History Second Edition, XI2, The High Empire, A. D. 70–192, Cambridge, 132–194. Birley, A. R. 2005, The Roman Government of Britain, Oxford. Bispham, E. 2007, From Asculum to Actium. The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, Oxford – New York. Biundo, R. 2003, “Terre di pertinenza di colonie e municipi fuori del loro territorio: gestione e risorse”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 14, 131–142. Biundo, R. 2008, “La gestion publique de l’eau: finances municipales et centre du pouvoir à l’époque impérial”, in Ella, H. (ed.), Vers une gestion intégrée de l’eau dans l’empire romain. Actes du Colloque International Universite Laval, octobre 2006, Rome, 163–174. Bleckmann, B. 2011, “Roman Politics in the First Punic War”, in Hoyos, B. D. (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars, Chichester, 167–183. Boak, A. E. R. 1937, “Officium”, in RE 17.2, 2045–2056. Bodel, J., and Scheidel, W. 2017, On Human Bondage. After Slavery and Social Death, Chichester – Malden, MA. Bodel, J., and Tracy, S. 1997, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the USA: A Checklist, Rome. Bodon, G. 1991, “Studi antiquari fra XV e XVII secolo. La famiglia Maggi da Bassano e la sua collezione di antichità”, Bollettino del Museo Civico di Padova 80, 23–172. Bodon, G. 2005, Veneranda Antiquitas. Studi sull’eredità dell’antico nella Rinascenza veneta, Bern. Boffo, L. 1995, “Ancora una volta sugli archivi nel mondo greco”, Athenaeum 83, 91–130. Bömer, F. 1981, Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, I, Die wichtigsten Kulte und Religionen in Rom und im lateinischen West, Wiesbaden. Bonetto, J. 1999, “Gli insediamenti alpini e la pianura veneto-friulana: complementarità economica sulle rotte della transumanza”, in Santoro Bianchi, S. (ed.), Studio e conservazione degli insediamenti minori romani in area alpina. Atti dell’incontro di studi (Forgaria nel Friuli, 20 settembre 1997), Bologna, 95–106. Bonetto, J. 2004, “Agricoltura e allevamento in Cisalpina: alcuni spunti per una riflessione”, in Santillo Frizell, B. (ed.), PECUS. Man and animal in antiquity. Proceedings of the conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome (September 9–12, 2002), Rome, 57–66. Bonetto, J. 2007, “Allevamento, mercato e territorio in Aquileia romana”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 65, 687–730. Bonfante, P. 1987, Istituzioni di diritto romano, Milano. Boschung, D. 1987, Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms, Bern. Bouley, E. 1990, “Le culte de Némésis et les jeux de l’amphithéâtre dans les provinces balkaniques et danubiennes”, in Domergue, C. et al. (eds.), Spectacula I. Gladiateurs et amphitheatres. Actes du colloque tenu à Toulouse et à Lattes les 26, 27, 28 et 29 mai 1987, Lattes, 241–252. Boulvert, G., and Morabito, M., “Le droit de l’esclavage sous le Haut-Empire romain”, in ANRW II/14, 98–182. Boulvert, G. 1970, Esclaves et affranchis imperiaux 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. Bradley K. R., and Cartledge, P. (eds.) 2011, The Cambridge World History of Slavery, 1, The Ancient Mediterranean World, Cambridge. Bradley, K. R. 1987a, “On the Roman Slave Supply and Slavebreeding”, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Classical Slavery, London, 42–64. Bradley, K. R. 1987b, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. A Study in Social Control, Oxford.

444

Bibliography

Bradley, K. R. 1994, Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge. Bradley, K. R. 1999, “On the Roman Slave Supply and Slave-Breeding”, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Classical Slavery2, London, 53–81. Bradley, K. R. 2004, “On captives under the Principate”, Phoenix 58, 298–318. Brélaz, C. 2003, “Publicité, archives et séquence documentaire du contrat public à Rome”, in Aubert 2003, 27–56. Breuer, S. 1996, Stand und Status. Munizipale Oberschichten in Brixia und Verona, Bonn. Bricchi, A. 2006a, Review of Weiss 2004, Athenaeum 94, 321–327. Bricchi, A. 2006b, “Amministratori ed actores. La responsabilità nei confronti dei terzi per l’attività negoziale degli agenti municipali”, in Capogrossi Colognesi, L., and Gabba, E. (eds.), Gli Statuti Municipali, Pavia, 335–382. Broekaert, W. 2007, “‘Bread Baskets on the Marketplace’? A Short Note on CIL IX 2854 (ILS 5591)”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 167, 204–206. Broekaert, W. 2020, “Between Coercion and Compulsion? The Impact of Occupations and Economic Interests on the Relational Status of Slaves and Freedmen”, in Laes, C., and Huebner, S. R. (eds.), The Single Life in the Roman and Later Roman World, Cambridge, 85–102. Broughton R. R. S. 1951, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 1, New York. Broughton R. R. S. 1952, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2, New York. Broughton R. R. S. 1987, “Mistreatment of Foreign Legates and the Fetial Priests: Three Roman Cases”, Phoenix 41.1, 50–62. Brouwer, H. H. J. 1989, Bona Dea. The Sources and a Description of the Cult, Leiden – New York. Bruno, M. G. 19692, Il lessico agricolo latino, Amsterdam. Bruun C. 1989, “Statio aquarum”, in Steinby, E. M. (ed.), Lacus Iuturnae, 1, Rome, 127–147. Bruun, C. 1991, The Water Supply of Ancient Rome. A Study of Roman Imperial Administration, Helsinki. Bruun, C. 1996, “A Temple of Mater Matuta in the regio sexta of Rome”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112, 219–223. Bruun, C. 2003, “Medius fidius … tantam pecuniam Nicomedenses perdiderint! Roman Water Supply, Public Administration and Private Contractors”, in Aubert, J.-J. (ed.), Tâches publiques et entreprise privée dans le monde romain, Geneva, 305–325. Bruun C. 2007, “Aqueductium e statio aquarum. La sede della cura aquarum di Roma”, in Palombi, D. et al. (eds.), Res Bene Gestae. Ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby, Rome, 121–155. Bruun, C. 2008, “La familia publica di Ostia antica”, in Caldelli et al. 2008, 537–556. Bruun, C. 2010, “Instrumentum domesticum e storia romana. Le fistule iscritte della Campania”, in Chioffi, L. (ed.), Il Mediterraneo e la storia. Epigrafia e archeologia in Campania: letture storiche, Naples, 145–183. Bruun, C. 2015, “Slaves and Freed Slaves”, in Bruun, C., and Edmondson, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, Oxford, 605–626. Buchi, E. 1986, “C. I. L., V, 141*: 429*, 202 (Adria): un triumviro e il culto di Cerere, Libero padre ed Ercole”, Aquileia Nostra 57, 469–492. Buchi, E. 1992, “Le iscrizioni confinarie del Monte Civetta nel Bellunese”, in Gasperini, L. (ed.), Rupes loquentes. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio sulle iscrizioni rupestri di età romana in Italia (Roma – Bomarzo, 13–15 ottobre 1989), Rome, 117–149. Buckland, W. W. 1908, The Roman Law of Slavery. The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian, Cambridge (repr. Cambridge 1970).

Bibliography

445

Budischovsky, M. C. 1977, “Les cultes orientaux à Aquilée et leur diffusion en Istrie et en Vénétie”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 12, 99–123. Buongiorno, P. 2010, Senatus consulta Claudianis temporibus facta. Una palingenesi delle deliberazioni senatorie dell’età di Claudio (41–54 d. C.), Naples. Buonocore, M. 1994, “Lateres signati regionis IV”, in Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VIIe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 5–6 juin 1992), Rome, 361–369. Buonocore, M. 2002, L’Abruzzo e il Molise in età romana tra storia ed epigrafia, L’Aquila. Buonocore, M. (ed.) 2015, Gaetano Marini (1742–1815) protagonista della cultura europea. Scritti per il bicentenario della morte, Città del Vaticano. Buonopane, A., and Braito, S. (eds.), Instrumenta inscripta V. Signacula ex aere. Aspetti epigrafici, archeologici, giuridici, prosopografici, collezionistici. Atti del convegno internazionale (Verona, 20–21 settembre 2012), Rome. Buonopane, A., and Cenerini, F. (eds.) 2004, Donna e vita cittadina nella documentazione epigrafica. Atti del II Seminario sulla condizione femminile nella documentazione epigrafica (Verona, 25–27 marzo 2004), Faenza. Buonopane, A., and Zaccaria, C. 2017, “Curae municipali nella Regio X. Presenze e assenze”, in Granino Cecere 2017, 185–207. Buonopane, A. 2006, “Sevirato, augustalità e proprietà fondiaria nella Cisalpina: il caso di Verona”, in Sartori, A., and Valvo, A. (eds.) 2006, Hiberia-Italia. Italia-Hiberia. Convegno internazionale di Epigrafia e Storia Antica (Gargnano – Brescia, 28–30 aprile 2005), Milan, 253–267. Burgers, P. 1999, “Statio aquarum”, in LTUR 4, Rome, 346–349. Caldelli, M. L. et al. (eds.) 2008, Epigrafia 2006. Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’Épigraphie in onore di Silvio Panciera con altri contributi di colleghi, allievi e collaborator, Rome. Calderini, A. 1930, Aquileia romana. Ricerche di storia e di epigrafia, Milan. Calvelli, L. 2020, Il tesoro di Cipro Clodio, Catone e la conquista romana dell’isola, Venice. Cameron, A. 2011, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford. Camodeca, G., and Solin, H. (eds.) 2000, Catalogo delle iscrizioni latine del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (ILMN), 1, Roma e Latium, Naples. Campana, P. 2004, D. Iunii Iuuenalis Satura X, Florence. Campbell, B. 1996, “Shaping the Rural Environment: Surveyors in Ancient Rome”, The Journal of Roman Studies 86, 74–99. Campbell, B. 2000, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction Text, Translation and Commentary, London. Canto, A. M. 1984, “Les plaques votives avec plantae pedum d’Italica: un essai d’interpretation”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 54, 183–194. Cao, I. 2010, Alimenta. Il racconto delle fonti, Padua. Capogrossi Colognesi, L., and Gabba, E. 2006, Gli Statuti Municipali, Pavia. Carcopino, J. 1923, “Attideia, II. Galles et archigalles”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 40, 237–324. Carcopino, J. 1942, Aspects mystiques de la Rome païenne, Paris. Carlà, F. 2008, “Oro, bronzo e interessi bancari nel 323 d. C.: l’epigrafe di Feltre ILS III, 9420”, in Asolati, M., and Gorini, G. (eds.), I ritrovamenti monetali e i processi inflativi nel mondo antico e medievale. Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica e di Storia Monetaria (Padova, 12–13 ottobre 2007), Padua, 81–93. Carlsen, J. 1992, “Dispensatores in Roman North Africa”, L’Africa romana, 9, 97–104. Carlsen, J. 1995, Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284, Rome.

446

Bibliography

Carlsen, J. 1996, “Saltuarius: a Latin Job”, Classica et Mediaevalia 47, 245–254. Carlsen, J. 2013, Land and Labour. Studies in Roman Social and Economic History, Rome. Caruso, C. 2008, “La professione di cantante nel mondo romano. La terminologia specifica attraverso le fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche”, in Caldelli et al. 2008, 1407–1430. Cassola, F. 1962, I gruppi politici romani nel III secolo a. C., Trieste. Castello, C. 1989, “Un caso singolare di espropriazione per pubblica utilità e di concessione della cittadinanza romana durante la 2a guerra guerra punica”, in Serta historica antiqua, 2, Rome, 91–117. Catani, E. 2004, “Dedica tifernate al Genius ordinis, Fors Fortuna e Lares”, in Catani, E., and Monacchi, W. (eds.), Tifernum Mataurense, vol. I, Un municipio romano verso il terzo millennio, Rome, 43–57. Cébeillac-Gervasoni et al. 2010, Epigrafia latina. Ostia: cento iscrizioni in contesto, Rome. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M. 2009. “Les autorités politiques municipales et la vie économique locale”, in Brun, J.-P. (ed.), Artisanats antiques d’Italie et de Gaule. Mélanges offerts à Maria Francesca Buonaiuto, Naples, 23–30. Cecamore, C. 2002, Palatium. Topografia storica del Palatino tra III sec. a. C. e I sec. d. C., Rome. Cels, D. 1972, “Les Esclaves dans les ‘Verrines’”, in Actes du Colloque 1971 sur l’esclavage, Besançon 1971, Paris, 175–192. Cesano, L. 1906, “Genius”, in DE, 3, 449–481. Cesano, L. 1908, “Il denarius e la usura nel tempo costantiniano”, Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 17, 237–256. Chastagnol, A. 1995, La Gaule romaine et le droit latin: recherches sur l’histoire administrative et sur la romanisation des habitants, Paris. Chelotti, M. 2010, “Regio II. Apulia et Calabria. Sipontum”, in SupplIt 24, 13–47. Chevallier, R. 1983, La romanisation de la Celtique du Pô, Rome. Chioffi, L. 2005, Museo provinciale campano di Capua. La raccolta epigrafica, Capua. Chioffi, L. 2017, “Amans Domini, opseq(u)ens amicis. Vita da schiavi a Capua”, in Dondin-Payre and Tran 2017, 269–277. Cimarosti, E. 2005, “Schiave e liberte pubbliche nella documentazione epigrafica: note a CILA, 541”, in Buonopane and Cenerini 2005, 447–456. Cipriano, S., and Mazzocchin, S. 2003, “I laterizi bollati del Museo Archeologico di Padova: una revisione dei dati materiali ed epigrafici”, Bollettino del Museo Civico di Padova 92, 29–76. Cipriano, S., and Mazzocchin, S. 2007, “Produzione e circolazione dei laterizi nel Veneto tra I secolo a. C. e II secolo d. C.: autosufficienza e rapporti con l’area aquileiese”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 65, 633–686. Coarelli, F. 1981, L’area sacra di Largo Argentina, in Coarelli, F. et al. (eds.), L’area sacra di Largo Argentina, Rome, 9–51. Coarelli, F. 1985, Il Foro romano, 2, Periodo repubblicano e augusteo, Rome. Coarelli, F. 1993, “I luci del Lazio: la documentazione archeologica”, in de Cazanove, O., and Scheid, J. (eds.), Les bois sacrés. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Naples, 23–25 Novembre 1989), Naples, 45–52. Coarelli, F. 1996, “Iuturna, templum”, in LTUR 3, Rome, 162–163. Coarelli, F. 1997, Il campo Marzio dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica, Rome. Coarelli, F. 2012, Palatium. Il Palatino dalle origini all’impero, Rome. Coarelli, F. 2019, Statio. I luoghi dell’amministrazione nell’antica Roma, Rome. Cohen, B. 1984, Some Neglected Ordines: The Apparitorial Status Groups, in Nicolet C. (ed.), Des ordres a Rome, Paris, 23–60.

Bibliography

447

Coles, A. 2017, “Between Patronage and Prejudice: Freedman Magistrates in the Late Roman Republic and Empire”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 147, 179–208. Colombo, M. 2017, “Il prezzo dell’oro dal 300 al 325/330 e ILS 9420 = SupplIt V, 253–255 nr. 3”, Arctos 51, 41–61. Cooley, M. G. L. and Cooley, A. 20142, Pompeii and Herculaneum. A Sourcebook, London – New York. Cooley, A. 2012, The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge. Corbier, M. 1974, L’aerarium Saturni et l’aerarium militare: administration et prosopographie sénatoriale, Rome. Corbier, M. 1984, “De Volsinii à Sestinum: cura aquae et évérgetisme municipal de l’eau en Italie”, Revue des études latines 62, 236–274. Corbier, M. 1987, “L’écriture dans l’espace public romain”, in L’Urbs: l’espace urbain et histoire (Ier  iècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque international organisé par la Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l’École française de Rome (Rome, 8–12 mai 1985), Rome, 27–60. Corbier, M. 2005, “Usages publics de l’écriture affichée a Rome”, in Bresson, A. et al. (eds.), L’écriture publique du pouvoir, Bordeaux, 183–193. Corcoran, S. 20002, The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial pronouncements and government AD 284– 324, Oxford. Cortés Bárcena, C. 2015, “Riflessioni del cippo di confine di Bevke (AEp 2002, 532) alla luce di termini tra comunità appartenenti a province diverse”, Epigraphica, 77, 117–132. Cotton, H. 1981, Documentary letters of recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire, Königstein im Taunus. Crawford, M. H., and Beltrán Lloris, F. 2013, “The lex rivi Hiberiensis”, The Journal of Roman Studies 103, 233. Crawford, M. H. (ed.) 1996, Roman Statutes, 1–2, London. Crawford, M. H. 2006, I confini dei Vestini, dei Marrucini e dei Peligni, in Mattiocco, E. (ed.), Itinera Archaeologica. Contributi di archeologia abruzzese, Lanciano, 135–144. Cresci Marrone, G., and Mennella, G. 1984, Pisaurum, 1, Le iscrizioni della colonia, Pisa. Cristilli, A. 2015, “Macellum and Imperium. The Relationship between the Roman State and the Market-Building Construction”, Analysis Archaeologica 1, 69–86. Cristofori, A. 2004, Non arma virumque. Le occupazioni nell’epigrafia del Piceno, Bologna. Culham, P. 1989, “Archives and alternatives in Republican Rome”, Classical Philology 84, 100–115. Daguet-Gagey, A. 1997, Les opera publica à Rome: 180–305 ap. J.-C., Paris. Daguet-Gagey, A. 2015, Splendor aedilitatum. L’édilité à Rome (1. s. avant J.-C. – 3. s. après J.-C.), Rome. Dahlmann, H. 1988, “Priapeum 82: ein Gedicht Tibulls?”, Hermes 116, 434–445. Dalla Rosa, A. 2018, “Roms städtische Autoritäten unter Augustus: eine Revolution?” Wojciech, K., and Eich, P. (ed.), Die Verwaltung der Stadt Rom in der Hohen Kaiserzeit: Formen der Kommunikation, Interaktion und Vernetzung, Paderborn, 51–75. Dardaine, S. 1999, “Les affranchis des cités dans les provinces de l’Occident Romain: statut, onomastique et nomenclature”, in González, J. (ed.), Ciudades privilegiadas en el Occidente Romano, Sevilla, 213–228. David, J.-M. 2007, “Ce que les “Verrines” nous apprennent sur les scribes de magistrats à la fin de la République”, in Dubouloz, J., and Pittia, S. (eds.), La Sicile de Cicéron: lectures des Verrines. Actes du colloque (Paris 19–20 mai 2006), Besançon, 35–56. David, J.-M. 2019, Au Service de l’Honneur. Les appariteurs de magistrats romains, Paris. Davies, P. J. E. 2017, Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome, Cambridge.

448

Bibliography

De Ruggiero, E. 1895a, “Actor”, in DE, 1, 66–70. De Ruggiero, E. 1895b, “Aqua. Aquae Ductus”, in DE, 1, 537–565. De Ruggiero, E. 1895c, “Archigallus”, in DE, 1, 641–642. De Ruggiero, E. 1906, “Familia”, in DE, 3, 30–33. De Ruyt, C. 1983, Macellum. Marché alimentaire des Romains, Louvain. De Ruyt, C. 2007, “Les produits vendus au macellum”, Food and history 5, 135–150. Degrassi, A. 1926, “Iscrizione municipale di Cuma”, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54, 371–379. Degrassi, A. 1954, Il confine nord-orientale dell’Italia romana. Ricerche storico-topografiche, Bern. Degrassi, A. 1962, Scritti vari di antichità, I, Trieste. Degrassi, A. 1970, “Culti dell’Istria preromana e romana”, in Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua. Miscellanea Gregorio Novak dicata, Zagreb, 615–632. Degrassi, A. 1971, Scritti vari di antichità, IV, Trieste. Degrassi, N. 1950, “Brescia. Rinvenimenti di iscrizioni e di antichità varie nel territorio della città”, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 30–52. Deininger, J. 1965, Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum ende des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., München – Berlin. Del Chicca, F. 2004, Frontino. De Aquae ductu urbis Romae. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Rome. Della Corte, M. 1922a, “Nocera Inferiore. Titoli sepolcrali conservati nel ‘Castello del Parco’”, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 1922, 486–488. Della Corte, M. 1922b, “Epigrafi sepolcrali di Nuceria”, Archivio Storico della Provincia di Salerno 2, 183–184. Delplace, C., and Tassaux, F. (eds.) 2000, Les cultes polythéistes dans l’Adriatique romaine, Pessac. Demougin, S. 2001, “Le bureau palatin a censibus”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 113.2, 621–631. Deniaux, E. 1983. “Le passage des citoyennetés locales à la citoyenneté romaine et la constitution de clienteles”, in Les “bourgeoisies” municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. J.-C., Naples, 267–277. Di Stefano Manzella, I. 1994, “Accensi velati consulibus apparentes ad sacra: proposta per la soluzione di un problema dibattuto”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 101, 261–279. Di Stefano Manzella, I. 2000, “Accensi: profilo di una ricerca in corso (a proposito dei ‘poteri collaterali’ nella società romana)”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 11, 223–257. Di Stefano Manzella, I. 2011, “Signacula ex aere. Gli antichi timbri romani di bronzo e le loro impronte”, in Corbier, M. and Guilhembet, J.-P. (eds.), L’écriture dans la maison romaine, Paris, 345–378. Di Stefano Manzella, I. 2014, “Signacula ex aere e mercatura: indizi e ambiguità testuali”, in Buonopane – Braito 2014, 35–59. Dickmann, J.-A. 1999, Domus frequentata. Anspruchsvolles Wohnen im pompejanischen Stadthaus, Munich. Dix, T. K., and Houston, G. 2006, “Public Libraries in the City of Rome from the Augustan Age to the Time of Diocletian”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 118.2, 671–717. von Domaszewski, A. 1911, “Magna Mater in Latin Inscriptions”, The Journal of Roman Studies 1, 50–56. Dondin-Payre, M., and Tran N. (eds.) 2017, Esclaves et maîtres dans le monde romain. Expressions épigraphiques de leurs relations, Rome.

Bibliography

449

Dondin-Payre, M. 2010, “Les marques civiques sur brique et tuiles: état du dossier et interprétations”, in Silvestrini, M. (ed.), Le tribù romane. Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur L’Épigraphie (Bari 8–10 ottobre 2009), Bari, 443–450. Drews, R. 1988, “Pontiffs, Prodigies, and the Disappearance of the ‘Annales Maximi’”, Classical Philology 83.4, 289–299. Dubosson-Sbriglione, L. 2018, Le culte de la Mère des dieux dans l’Empire romain, Stuttgart. Dubuisson, M., and Schamp, J. 2006, Jean Le Lydien. Des Magistratures de l’État romain, Paris. Duncan-Jones, R. 1964, “The Purpose and Organisation of the Alimenta”, Papers of the British School at Rome 32, 123–146. Duthoy, R. 1978, “Les Augustales”, in ANRW II/16.2, 1254–1309. Easton, J. 2019, “The Elusive libertina nobilitas: A Case-Study of Roman Municipal Freedmen in the Augustales, Phoenix 73, 333–357. Easton, J. 2021, “Mostly Work and Some Play. Assessing the Associative Behaviors of the Roman Municipal familia publica”, Historia 70/2, 242–266. Eck, W. 1992, “Cura viarum und cura operum publicorum als kollegiale Ämter im frühen Prinzipat”, Klio 74, 237–245. Eck, W. 1995, Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der hohen Kaiserzeit. Ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge, 1, Berlin. Eck, W. 1996, Tra epigrafia, prosopografia e archeologia. Scritti scelti, rielaborati ed aggiornati, Rome. Eck, W. 1998, Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der hohen Kaiserzeit. Ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge, 2, Berlin. Eck, W. 1999, L’Italia nell’Impero romano. Stato e amministrazione in epoca imperiale, Bari. Eck, W. 2000, “Emperor, Senate and Magistrates”, in Bowman, A. K. et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, 11, The High Empire, Cambridge, 214–237. Eder, W. 1980, Servitus publica. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung, Entwicklung und Funktion der öffentlichen Sklaverei in Rom, Wiesbaden. Edmondson, J. 2011, “Slavery and the Roman Family”, in Bradley, K., and Cartledge, P. (eds.), The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Cambridge, 337–361. Edmondson, J. 2014, “Roman Family History”, in Bruun, C., and Edmondson, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Latin Epigraphy, Oxford, 559–581. Edmondson, J. 2016, “Glimpses inside the familia publica at Augusta Emerita (Mérida)”, in Carbonell Monils, J., and Gimeno Pascual, H. (eds.), A Baete ad fluvium Anam: Cultura epigráfica en la Bética Occidental y territorios fronterizos. Homenaje al profesor José Luis Moralejo Álvarez, Alcalá de Henares, 65–81. Egidi, R. 2004, “Dracones, ad”, in LTURS 2, Rome, 207–208. d’Encarnação, J. 1994, “Apostilas epigraficas”, in Humanitas 46, 217–230. Engelmann, H. 1999, “Inschriften aus Metropolis”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 125, 137–146. Eppers, M., and Heinen, H. 1984, “Zu den ‘Servi Venerii’ in Ciceros Verrinen”, in Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di A. Guarino, 1, Naples, 219–232. Erman, H. 1896, Servus vicarius. L’esclave de l’esclave romain, Lausanne (rist. Naples 1986). Evangelisti, S. 2014, “Signacula da Aeclanum in CIL (IX e X). Alcune note”, in Buonopane, A., and Braito, S. (eds.), Instrumenta inscripta V. Signacula ex aere. Aspetti epigrafici, archeologici, giuridici, prosopografici, collezionistici. Atti del Convegno (Verona, 20–21 settembre 2012), Rome, 257–266. Evans, H. B. 1994, Water distribution in ancient Rome. The evidence of Frontinus, Ann Arbor.

450

Bibliography

Evans Grubbs, J. 2015, “Making the Private Public: Illegitimacy and Incest in Roman Law”, in Ando, C., and Rüpke, J. (eds.), Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion, Berlin – Boston, 115–142. Fabre, G. 1981, Libertus. Recherches sur les rapports patron-affranchi à la fin de la république Romaine, Rome. Fagan, G. G. 1999, Bathing in Public in the Roman World, Ann Arbor. Faraguna, M. 2005, “Scrittura e amministrazione nelle città greche: gli archivi pubblici”, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 80, 61–86. Faraguna, M. 2006a, “Alcibiade, Cratero e gli archivi giudiziari ad Atene”, in Faraguna, M., and Vedaldi Iasbez, V. (eds.), Δύνασθαι διδάσκειν. Studi in onore di Filippo Càssola per il suo ottantesimo compleanno, Trieste, 197–207. Faraguna, M. 2006b, “Gli archivi e la polis (problemi nuovi e vecchi alla luce di alcuni recenti documenti)”, in Capdetrey, L., and Nelis-Clément, J. (eds.), La circulation de l’information dans les États antiques, Bordeaux, 53–71. Fassbender, A. 2005, Untersuchungen zur Topographie von Grabstätten in Rom von der späten Republik bis in der Spätantike, Köln. Fear, A. T. 1990, “Cives Latini, servi publici and the Lex Irnitana”, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 37, 149–166. Fear, A. T. 1996, Rome and Baetica. Urbanization in Southern Spain, c. 50 BC – AD 150, Oxford. Fear, A. T. 1998, “The Blásquez Festschrift”, Classical Review 48, 123–125. Ferroni, A. M. 1993, “Basilica Opimia”, in LTUR 1, Rome, 183. Fezzi, L. 2003, Falsificazione di documenti pubblici nella Roma tardorepubblicana (133–31 a. C.), Florence. Fezzi, L. 2010, Il tribuno Clodio, Bari. Finke, H. 1927, “Nachträge zu den neuen Inschriften”, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 17, 198–231. Finley, M. I. 1980, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, London. Fishwick, D. 1991, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, 2.1, Leiden. Fishwick, D. 1992, “On the Temple of Divus Augustus”, Phoenix 46, 232–255. Fless, F. 1995, Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrömischen historischen Reliefs. Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie, Funktion und Benennung, Mainz. Flower, H. I. 2017, The Dancing Lares and the Serpent in the Garden. Religion at the Roman Street Corner, Princeton. Fontana, F. 1997, I culti di Aquileia repubblicana. Aspetti della politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III e il II sec. a. C., Rome. Fontana, F. 2001, “Luoghi di culto nel centro romano di Tergeste”, Aquileia Nostra 72, 89–124. Fontana, F. 2004, “Topografia del sacro ad Aquileia: alcuni spunti”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 59, 401–424. Forrer, R. 1937, Vogésus-Voségus et Sécate-Ecate au Donon et la découverte d’un bas-relief inédit, Cahiers Alsaciens d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 105–110, 155–160. Fortea López, F. 1992, “El culto a Némesis. Estado de la cuestión y particularidades en la parte occidental del imperio romano”, Caesaraugusta 69, 45–62. Fortea López, F. 1994, Némesis en el Occidente romano: ensayo de interpretación histórica y corpus de materiales, Zaragoza. Fortunati, S. 2008, “Coppa di Tiberio da Boscoreale”, in La Rocca, E., and Tortorella S. (eds.), Trionfi Romani, Milan, 124–125.

Bibliography

451

Foucher, L. 1994, “Diana-Nemesis, patronne de l’amphithéâtre”, in Johnson, P. (ed.), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics (Bath, September 5–12, 1987), Ann Arbor, 229–237. Foucher, L. 2000, “Une inscription magique d’El Jem”, Antiquités africaines 36, 57–61. France, J. 2000, “Le personnel subalterne de l’administration financière et fiscale dans les provinces des Gaules et des Germanies”, Cahiers du Centre Glotz 11, 194–221. Frier, B. W. 1979. Libri annales pontificum maximorum. The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition, Rome. Fuchs, F. 1895, “Arca”, in DE, 1, 626–636. Fuhrmann, C. J. 2012. Policing the Roman Empire. Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order, Oxford – New York. Gabba, E. 1991, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome, Berkeley. Gager, J. 1992, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, Oxford. Gaggiotti, M. 1982, “Il periodo romano”, in Saepinum. Museo documentario dell’Altilia, Campobasso. Gaggiotti, M. 1990, “Macellum e magalia. Ricezione di elementi ‘culturali’ di origine punica in ambiente romano-repubblicano”, in Mastino, A. (ed.), L’Africa romana. Atti del VII Convegno di studio (Sassari, 15–17 dicembre 1989), Sassari, 773–782. Gallo, A. 2021, “Un servo del municipio e i Publicii in iscrizioni inedite di Taranto”, Historikà 11. Gamauf, R. 2016, “Slavery: Social Position and Legal Capacity”, in Du Plessis, P. J. et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, Oxford, 386–401. García Fernández, E. 2020, “El ius Latii y la legislación municipal Flavia”, in Russo, F. (ed.), Municipal Structures in Roman Spain and Roman Italy. A Comparison, Wien, 65–81. Gardner, R. 1958, Cicero. The Speeches: Pro Caelio, De provinciis consularibus, Pro Balbo, London – Cambridge. Gardner, R. 2001, “Making Citizens: The Operation of the Lex Irnitana”, in Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam, 215–229. Gargola, D. J. 1995, Lands, Laws, and Gods. Magistrates and Ceremony in the Regulation of Public Lands in Republican Rome, Chapel Hill – London. Garzetti, A. 1975, “Epigrafia e storia di Brescia romana”, in Atti del Convegno internazionale per il XIX centenario della dedicazione del “CAPITOLIUM” e per il 150° anniversario della sua scoperta (Ateneo di Brescia, 27–30 settembre 1973), Brescia, 19–61. Garzetti A. 1998, “Tribù romane e confini municipali”, in Kneissl, P., and Losemann V. (eds.), Imperium romanum. Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 75. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 275–287. George, M. 2011, “Slavery and Roman Material Culture”, in Bradley, K., and Cartledge, P. (eds.), The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Cambridge, 385–413. Geremia Nucci, R. 2006, “I plumbarii ostiensi: una sintesi delle nuove evidenze”, Archeologia Classica 57, 447–467. Giardina, A., and Grelle, F. 1983, “La Tavola di Trinitapoli: una nuova costituzione di Valentiniano I”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 95.1, 249–303. Giardina, A. 1997, L’Italia romana. Storie di un’identità incompiuta, Rome – Bari. Giménez-Candela, T. 1981, “Una contribución al estudio de la ley Irnitana: la manumisión de esclavos municipales”, Iura 12, 37–56. Giorcelli Bersani, S. 2002, “Ceti medi e impiego pubblico nella Cisalpina occidentale: il caso degli apparitores”, in Sartori, A., and Valvo, A. (eds.), Ceti medi in Cisalpina. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Milano 14–16 settembre 2000), Milan, 59–66. Giuffrè, V. (ed.) 1984–85, Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino, Naples.

452

Bibliography

Gómez-Pantoja, J. L. 2007, “In Nemese ne fidem habeatis. Magia y Religión en el anfiteatro”, in del Val González de la Peña, M. (ed.), Estudios en Memoria del Profesor Dr. Carlos Sáez, Alcalá, 59–76. Gonzalez, J., and Crawford, M. H. 1986, “The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law”, The Journal of Roman Studies 76, 147–243. Gordon, W. M., and Robinson, O. F. 1988, The Institutes of Gaius, London. Gordon, M. L. 1931, “The Freedman’s Son in Municipal Life”, The Journal of Roman Studies 21, 65–77. Gorostidi Pi, D. 2008, “Il collegio degli aeditui e gli aediles lustrales di Tusculum. Una nuova lettura di CIL, XIV 2620”, in Caldelli et al. 2008, 853–868. Gradel, I. 2002, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford. Graillot, H. 1912, Le culte de Cybèle mère des dieux a Rome et dans l’Empire romain, Paris. Granino Cecere, M. G. (ed.) 2017, Le curae cittadine nell’Italia romana (Atti del Convegno, Siena 18–19 aprile 2016), Rome. Granino Cecere, M. G. 2018, “Gli Augustales Claudiales: alcune riflessioni su di una sodalitas tra Roma e Bovillae”, in Fontana, F., and Murgia, E. (eds.), Sacrum facere. Atti del IV Seminario di Archeologia del Sacro, Trieste, 185–211. Gregori, G. L. 1989, Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano, II, Regiones Italiae VI–XI, Rome. Gregori, G. L. 1990, Brescia romana. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale, I, I documenti, Rome. Gregori, G. L. 1994, “Gladiatori e spettacoli anfiteatrali nell’epigrafia cisalpine”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 41, 53–67. Gregori, G. L. 1999a, Brescia romana. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale, II, Analisi dei documenti, Rome. Gregori, G. L. 1999b, “Nomina transcripticia e praedia subsignata: debiti, ipoteche e finanze locali a Trebula Suffenatium”, in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente. Actes de la Xe rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 27–29 mai 1996), Rome, 25–39. Gregorutti, C. 1892, “L’antico Timavo e la vie Gemina e Postumia”, Archeografo Triestino 18, 37–79. Grelle, F. et al. 2017, La Puglia nel mondo romano. Storia di una periferia. L’avvio dell’organizzazione municipale, Bari. Grimal, P. 19612, Frontin. Les aqueducs de la ville de Rome, Paris. Gross, K. 1950, “Archiv”, in RAC, 1, 614–631. Guillaumin, J.-Y. 2005, Les arpenteurs romains, 1, Hygin le Gromatique. Frontin, Paris. Haensch, R. 1995, “A commentariis und commentariensis”, in Le Bohec, Y. (ed.), La hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (15–18 septembre 1994), Paris. Haensch, R. 1997, Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz am Rhein. Halkin, L. 1897. Les esclaves publics chez les Romains, Brussels (reprint Rome 1965). Halkin, L. 1935, “Le père d’Horace a-t-il été esclave public?”, Antiquité Classique 4, 125–140. Harris, W. V. 2017, “The Indispensable Commodity. Notes on the Economy of Wood in the Roman Mediterranean”, in Wilson, A., and Bowman, A. (eds.), Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World, Oxford, 211–233. Hartmann, B. 2020, The Scribes of Rome: A Cultural and Social History of the Scribae, Cambridge. Hassall, M. 2003, “The tabularium in Provincial Cities”, in Wilson, P. (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Towns. Studies in honour of John S. Wacher, Oxford, 105–110.

Bibliography

453

Haywood, R. M. 1933, “Some Traces of Serfdom in Cicero’s Day”, American Journal of Philology 54, 145–153. Hemelrijk, E. A. 1999, Matrona docta. Educated women in the Roman Élite from Cornelia to Julia Domna, London – New York. Henzen, W. 1874, Acta Fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt, Berlin. Herrmann-Otto, E. 1994, Ex ancilla natus. Untersuchungen zu den “hausgeborenen” Sklaven und Sklavinnen im Westen des römischen Kaiserreiches, Stuttgart. Herz, P. 1989, “Claudius Abascantus aus Ostia. Die Nomenklatur eines libertus und sein sozialer Aufstieg”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76, 167–174. Hinard, F. 1985, Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine, Rome – Paris. Hinrichs, F. T. 1974, Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen. Untersuchungen zu Landverteilung, Landvermessung, Bodenverwaltung und Bodenrecht im römischen Reich, Wiesbaden. Hirschfeld, O. 1870, “Annona”, Philologus 29, 1–96. Hodge, A. T. 2002, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, London. Hornum, M. B. 1993, Nemesis, the Roman State, and the Games, Leiden – New York – Köln. Horster, M. 2007, “Living on Religion: Professionals and Personnel”, in Rüpke, J. (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, Oxford, 331–341. Houston, G. W. 2002, “The Slave and Freedman Personnel of Public Libraries in Ancient Rome”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 132, 139–176. Houston, G. W. 2014, Inside Roman Libraries. Book Collections and their Management in Antiquity, Chapel Hill. de Hoz, M. P. 1997, “Epigrafía griega en Hispania”, Epigraphica 59, 29–96. Humm, M. 2005, Appius Claudius Caecus. La République accomplice, Rome. Hüttl, W. 1933, Antoninus Pius, II, Prague. Hüttl, W. 1936, Antoninus Pius. Historisch-politische Darstellung, I, Prague. Ionel, O. 2001, “Vilici nell’amministrazione finanziaria dell’Italia centro-meridionale e la Dacia”, Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 185–191. Ismard, P. 2015, La democratie contre les experts. Les esclaves publics en Grèce ancienne, Paris. Ismard, P. 2017, Democracy’s Slaves. A Political History of Ancient Greece, Cambridge MA – London. Jacob, O. 1928, Les esclaves publics à Athènes, Liège. Jacques, F., and Scheid, J. 1990, Rome et l’intégration de l’Empire: 44 av. J.-C. – 260 ap. J.-C., Paris. Johnson, J. 1933, Excavations at Minturnae, II, Inscriptions. Part I: Republican Magistri, Rome  – Philadelphia. Joshel, S. R. 2010, Slavery in the Roman World, Cambridge. Kajanto, I. 1965, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki. Kaser, M. 1971, Das Römische Privatrecht, I, Das altrömische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht, Munich. Keune, J. B. 1933, Funde vom Titelberg (Luxemburg), Trierer Zeitschrift 8, 119–123. de Kleijn, G. 2001, The Water Supply of Ancient Rome. City Area, Water and Population, Amsterdam. Khanoussi, M., and Mastino, A. 2004, “Il culto della gens Septimia a Bulla Regia: Settimio Severo e Caracalla in tre basi inedite degli Agrii, dei Domitii e dei Lollii”, in Angeli Bertinelli, M. G., and Donati A. (eds.), Epigrafia di Confine. Confine dell’epigrafia, Faenza, 371–414. Kokkinos, N. 1992, Antonia Augusta. Portrait of a great Roman lady, London – New York. Kolb, A. 2001, “Transport and Communication in the Roman State. The cursus publicus”, in Adams, C., and Laurence, R. (eds.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, London – New York, 95–105.

454

Bibliography

Kolosovskaja, J. K. 1987, “Die Sklaverei in den Donauprovinzen”, in Staerman, E. M. et al. (eds.), Die Sklaverei in den westlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches im 1.–3. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 147–262. Koops, E. 2013, “Masters and Freedmen: Junian Latins and the Struggle for Citizenship”, in de Kleijn, G., and Benoist, S. (eds.), Integration in Rome and in the Roman World, Leiden and Boston, 105–126. Kovács, P., and Szabó Á. 2009, Tituli Aquicenses I, Tituli operum publicorum et honorarii et sacri, Budapest. Kränzlein, A. 1991, “Statuswechsel nach der lex Irnitana”, in Tradition und Fortentwicklung im Recht. Festschrift von Lübtow, Berlin, 45–51. Krause, J.-U., and Witschel, C. (eds.) 2006, Die Stadt in der Spätantike – Niedergang oder Wandel?, Stuttgart. Kübler, B. 1926, “Lictor”, in RE XIII.1, 508. Labruna, L. 1984–85, “Minima de servis, 1. Il servo vicario, lo schiavo padrone”, in Giuffrè 1984–85, 3553–3563. Labruna, L. 1985, “Servus vicarius. L’arricchimento dello Schiavo”, Index 13, 467–475. Lafaye, G. 1919a, “Tabularium”, in DA, 5, 14–19. Lafaye, G. 1919b, “Tabularius”, in DA, 5, 19. Laffi, U. 1998, “L’ager compascuus”, Revue des Études Anciennes 100, 533–554. Laffi, U. 2001, Studi di storia romana e di diritto, Rome. Laird, M. L. 2015, Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy, Cambridge. Lamberti, F. 1993, ‘Tabulae Irnitanae’. Municipalità e ‘ius romanorum’, Naples. Lamoine, L. et al. (eds.) 2010, La Praxis municipale dans l’Occident romain, Clermont-Ferrand. Lamoine, L. 2009, Le pouvoir local en Gaule romaine, Clermont-Ferrand. Lanciani, R. 1881, Topografia di Roma antica. I commentarii di Frontino intorno le acque e gli acquedotti. Silloge epigrafica aquaria, Rome. Latham, J. A. 2016, Performance, Memory, and Processions in Ancient Rome. The pompa circensis from the Republic to Late Antiquity, New York. Laubry N. 2007, “Le transfert des corps dans l’Empire romain: problèmes d’épigraphie, de religion et de droit romain”, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité 119.1, 149–188. Laviosa, C. 1963, “Rusellae. Relazione preliminare della quarta campagna”, Studi Etruschi 31, 49–108. Lazenby, J. F. 1978, Hannibal’s War. A Military History of the Second Punic War, Warminster. Lazzarini, S. 2014, “I signacula: tra certezza dei ‘diritti soggettivi’ e tutela dell’affidamento”, in Buonopane – Braito 2014, 81–90. Lazzaro, L. 1978–79, “Esclaves et affranchis en Belgique et en Germanie superiore; une approche d’après le matériel épigraphique”, Index 8, 241–279. Lazzaro, L. 1979, “Nouvelles données épigraphiques pour l’approche des formes de dépendance épigraphiques concernant les esclaves, affranchis et autres dépendants, en complément au CIL XIII”, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 5, 191–231. Lazzaro, L. 1981, Fons Aponi. Abano e Montegrotto nell’antichità, Abano Terme. Lazzaro, L. 1993, Esclaves et affranchis en Belgique et Germanies romaines d’après les sources épigraphiques, Paris. Le Glay, M. 1990, “Les amphithéâtres: loci religiosi?”, in Domergue, C. et al. (eds.), Spectacula I. Gladiateurs et amphitheatres. Actes du colloque tenu à Toulouse et à Lattes les 26, 27, 28 et 29 mai 1987, Lattes, 217–229.

Bibliography

455

Le Roux, P. 1991, Le juge et le citoyen dans le municipe d’Irni, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 2, 99–124. Le Roux, P. 2014, Espagnes romaines. L’empire dans ses provinces, Rennes. Lebek, W. D. 1995, “Die municipalen Curien oder Domitian als Republikaner: Lex Lati (Tab. Irn.) Paragraph 50 (?) und 51”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 107, 135–194. Lécrivain, C. 1904, “Magistratus”, in DA 3.2, 1540–1553. Lehmann, E. 1889, De publica Romanorum servitute quaestiones, Leipzig. Lennon, J. J. 2015, “Victimarii in Roman Religion and Society”, Paper of the British School at Rome 83, 65–89. Lenski, N. 2005, Review of Weiss 2004, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2005.07.24, available at http:// bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-07-24.html (last accessed: 16/01/2021). Lenski, N. 2006, “Servi Publici in Late Antiquity”, in Krause – Witschel 2006, 335–357. Lenski, N. 2018, “Ancient Slaveries and Modern Ideologies”, in Lenski, N., and Cameron, C. (eds), What is a Slave Society? The Practice of Slavery in Global Perspective, Cambridge, 106–148. Levick, B. 1990, Claudius, New Haven. Lewis, M. 1955, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians: a Study of the Nobility from 44 BC to 68 AD, Rome. Lewis, J. P. 2016, “Guardians of the Aqueducts? Circitores in the Roman Army, Economy and Administration, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 200, 519–530. Lichocka, B. 1998, “Némésis en Egypte et en Italie. Peut-on parler d’influences réciproques?”, in Bonacasa, N. et al. (eds.), L’Egitto in Italia dall’antichità al medioevo. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano (Roma, CNR – Pompei, 13–19 novembre 1995), Rome, 619–634. de Ligt, L. 2012, Peasants, Citizens and Soldiers. Studies in the Demographic History of Roman Italy. 225 BC – AD 100, Cambridge. Linderski, J. 1986, “The Augural Law”, ANRW II/16.2, 2156–2157. Linderski, J. 2006, “Quindecimviri sacris faciundis”, in Brill’s New Pauly. Liu, J. 2009, Collegia Centonariorum: The Guilds of Textile Dealers in the Roman West, Leiden – Boston. Löhberg, B. 2006, Das “Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti”. Ein kaiserzeitliches Straßenverzeichnis des Römischen Reiches: Überlieferung, Strecken, Kommentare, Karten, I, Textband, Berlin. López Barja de Quiroga, P. 1991, “Latini y Latini Iuniani. De nuevo sobre Irn. 72.” Studia Historica. Historia Antigua 9, 51–60. López Barja de Quiroga, P. 1998, “Junian Latins: Status and Number.” Athenaeum 86, 133–163. Louis, P. 1912, Le travail dans le monde romain, Paris. Luciani, F., and Urbanová, D. 2019, “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, 421–442. Luciani, F. 2010, “Servi et liberti publici dans la Regio X: nouveautés épigraphiques”, in Lamoine et al. 2010, 259–276. Luciani, F. 2015, “Un nuovo tribunus vigilum e quattuorvir iure dicundo dalla Regio X”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 196, 257–260. Luciani, F. 2016, “Berua, Raeticum oppidum dei Beruenses”, Geographia Antiqua 25, 101–129. Luciani, F. 2017, “Cittadini come domini, cittadini come patroni. Rapporti tra servi publici e città prima e dopo la manomissione”, in Dondin-Payre – Tran 2017, 45–64.

456

Bibliography

Luciani, F. 2019a, “Notes on the External Appearance of Roman Public Slaves”, in Binsfeld, A. and Ghetta, M. (eds.), Ubi servi erant? Die Ikonographie von Sklaven und Freigelassenen in der römischen Kunst, Stuttgart, 37–51. Luciani, F. 2019b, “On the Margins of Civic Territories in Roman Italy: Defining, Shifting and Locating Boundaries”, in Luciani, F., and Migliario, E. (eds.), Boundaries of Territories and Peoples in Roman Italy and Beyond, Bari, 63–83. Luciani, F. 2019c, “Public Slaves in Rome and in the Cities of the Latin West: New Additions to the Epigraphic Corpus”, in Noreña, C., and Papazarkadas, N. (eds.), From Document to History: Epigraphic Insights into the Greco-Roman World, Leiden – Boston, 279–305. Luciani, F. 2020, “Public Slaves in Rome: ‘Privileged’ or Not?”, Classical Quarterly 70.1, 368–384. Luciani, F. 2021a, “‘nomina habent ab oppidis […] libertini a municipio manumissi’. L’onomastica di liberti e liberte pubblici tra epigrafia e politica”, in Bellomo, M., and Segenni, S. (eds.), Epigrafia e politica, Milan, 171–216. Luciani, F. 2021b, “Servi publici as plumbarii. Some Remarks on the Manufacture of Public Lead Pipes in Roman Cities”, in Baratta 2021, 167–184. Luciani, F. 2021a, “Being everybody’s slaves? Framing the issue”, in Luciani 2021b, 1–7. Luciani, F. (ed.) 2021b, Being Everybody’s Slaves. A Comparative Study on Public Slavery in the Ancient and Modern World, Oxford (BICS 64.2). Luciani, F. 2022, “Servi publici al servizio dei sodales Augustales Claudiales. Rilettura di alcuni frammenti epigrafici dei fasti di Bovillae”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 221, 00–00. Lundgreen, C. (ed.) 2014, Staatlichkeit in Rom? Diskurse und Praxis (in) der römischen Republik, Stuttgart. Maas, M. 1992, John Lydus and the Roman Past. Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian, London – New York. MacLean, R. 2018, Freed Slaves and Roman Imperial Culture. Social Integration and the Transformation of Values, Cambridge. Macrae, D. E. 2018, “The Freedman’s Story: An Accusation of Witchcraft in the Social World of Early Imperial Roman Italy (CIL 11.4639 = ILS 3001)”, The Journal of Roman Studies 108, 53–73. Magie, D. 1924, Historia Augusta, II, Caracalla. Geta. Opellius Macrinus. Diadumenianus. Elagabalus. Severus Alexander. The Two Maximini. The Three Gordians. Maximus and Balbinus, Cambridge, MA. Magioncalda, A. 1999, “Donazioni private a fini perpetui destinate alle città. Esempi dalla documentazione latina in età imperiale”, in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente. Actes de la Xe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 27–29 mai 1996), Rome, 175–216. Maionica, E. 1889, “Le antiche epigrafi aquileiesi. Osservazioni sull’opera: ‘Corporis inscriptionum latinarum supplementa italica’”, Archeografo triestino 15, 281–296. Maiuro, M. 2012, Res Caesaris. Ricerche sulla proprietà imperiale nel Principato, Bari. Malaspina, E. 2013, “Topia = ‘pergolato’? Dai dialetti romanzi al latino (nota a Vitr. 5, 6, 9; Copa 7; Plin. nat. 12, 22; Spart. Hadr. 10, 4)”, in Baldo, G., and Cazzuffi, E. (eds.), Regionis forma pulcherrima. Percezioni, lessico, categorie del paesaggio nella letteratura latina. Atti del Convegno di studio (Padova, 15–16 marzo 2011), Florence, 243–274. Maltby, R. 1991, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies, Leeds. Manacorda, D. 1999, “Per l’edizione del secondo colombario Codini: il problema epigrafico nel contesto archeologico”, in XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina (Roma, 18– 24 settembre 1997), Rome, 249–261.

Bibliography

457

Manacorda, D. 2000, “I diversi significati dei bolli laterizi. Appunti e riflessioni”, in Boucheron, P. (ed.), La brique antique et médiévale. Production et commercialisation d’un materiau. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre d’histoire urbaine de l’École normale supérieure de Fontenay/Saint Cloud et l’École française de Rome (Saint-Cloud, 16–18 novembre 1995), Rome, 127–159. Mancini, G. 1914, “Roma. Nuove scoperte nella città e nel suburbio”, in Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 375–399. Mancini, G. 1935, “Il culto mitriaco nel territorio abruzzese”, in Atti e memorie. Convegno storico abruzzese molisano (Casalbordino, 1931), Casalbordino, 44–47. Manganaro, G. 1989, “Iscrizioni latine nuove e vecchie della Sicilia”, Epigraphica 51, 161–196. Manuwald, G. 2007, Cicero, Philippics 3–9, Berlin – Boston. Marangio, C. 1988, “Nuove iscrizioni dalla necropoli romana di via Cappuccini in Brindisi”, in Marangio, C. (ed.), La Puglia in età repubblicana. Atti del I convegno di studi sulla Puglia romana (Mesagne, 20–22 marzo 1986), Galatina, 191–231. Marco Simón, F. 2010, “Execrating the Roman Power: Three Defixiones From Emporiae (Ampurias)”, in Gordon, R. L., and Marco Simón, F. (eds.), Magical practice in the Latin West, Leiden – Boston, 399–423. Marengo, S. M., and Paci, G. 1990, “Macellum”, in DE, 5, 112–148. Marengo, S. M. 2014, “Ancora sullo schiavo Rufus da Asculum Picenum”, Picus 34, 93–99. Mastrocinque, A. 1996, “‘Servitus publica’ a Roma e nella società etrusca”, Studi Etruschi 62, 249– 270. Maselli Scotti, F. 2002, “I culti orientali ad Aquileia”, in Buora, M. and Jobst, W. (eds.), Roma sul Danubio. Da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo la via dell’ambra, Roma, 139–143. Martorana, G. 1979, “La Venus di Verre e le Verrine”, Kokalos 25, 73–103. Masi Doria, C. 1993, Civitas, operae, obsequium. Tre studi sulla condizione giuridica dei liberti, Naples. Mastino, A., and Zucca, R. 2014, “L. Cossonius L. f. Stell(atina tribu) Gallus Vecilius Crispinus Mansuanius Marcellinus Numisius Sabinus pro consule provinciae Sardiniae e la constitutio del Forum Traiani”, Gerión 32, 199–223. McInerney, J. 2019, “Interpreting Funerary Inscriptions from the City of Rome”, Journal of Ancient History 7, 156–206. Meiggs, R. 19732, Roman Ostia, Oxford. Ménard, H. 2006, “Un aspect de la custodia templorum: les aeditui”, in Vigourt, A. et al. (eds.), Pouvoir et religion dans le monde romain, en hommage à Jean-Pierre Martin, Paris, 231–243. Mennella, G., and Pettirossi, V. 2017, “Le curatele civiche nella IX e nella XI Regio”, in Granino Cecere 2017, 175–184. Meyers, W. 1964, L’administration de la province romaine de Belgique, Brugge. Millar, F. 1977 (19922), The emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337), London. Moatti, C. 1993, Archives et partage de la terre dans le monde romain, Rome. Moatti, C. 2003, “Les archives romaines: réflexions méthodologiques”, in Biraschi, A. M. et al. (eds.), L’uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica, Perugia, 27–43. Moatti, C. 2018, Res publica. Histoire romaine de la chose publique, Paris. Mócsy, A. 1974, Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire, London (reprint 2014). Modonesi, D. 1995, Museo Maffeiano. Iscrizioni e rilievi sacri latini, Rome. Modugno, I. 2000, “Alcune considerazioni sul culto di Ercole nel territorio di Aquileia tra protostoria ed età romana con particolare riferimento al fenomeno della transumanza”, Aquileia Nostra 71, 57–76.

458

Bibliography

Mols, S. 1999, Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum. Form, Technique and Function, Amsterdam. Momigliano, A. 1975, Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Rome. Mommsen, T. 18873, Römische Staatsrecht, Leipzig. Mommsen, T. 1899, Römisches Strafrecht, Leipzig. Montero, S. 2014, “I sodales Titii: tradizione e innovazione”, in Urso 2014, 191–221. Mora, F. 1990, Prosopografia isiaca, Leiden – New York – København – Köln. Morabito, M. 1981, Les réalités de l’esclavage d’après le Digeste, Paris. Morabito, M. 1993, “Sul ‘servus vicarius’”, Labeo 39, 424–426. Moreau, P. 1998, “I Martiales di Larinum e le difficoltà d’integrazione nella città romana”, in Stelluti, N. (ed.), Pro Cluentio di Marco Tullio Cicerone. Atti del Convegno nazionale (Larino 4–5 dicembre 1992), Larino, 129–140. Mouritsen, H. 1998, “The Album from Canusium and the Town Councils of Roman Italy”, Chiron 28, 229–254. Mouritsen, H. 2006, “Honores libertini: Augustales and Seviri in Italy”, Hephaistos 24, 237–248. Mouritsen, H. 2011, The Freedman in the Roman World, Cambridge. Mrozek, S. 1994, “Le problème de l’annone dans les villes italiennes du Haut Empire romain”, in Le ravitaillement en blé de Rome et des centres urbains des début de la République jusqu’au Haut Empire. Actes du Colloque international (Naples 1991), Naples – Rome, 95–101. Muccigrosso, J. D. 2006, “Religion and Politics: Did the Romans Scruple About the Placement of Their Temples?”, in Schultz, C. E., and Harvey, P. B. Jr (eds.), Religion in Republican Italy, Cambridge, 181–206. Muñiz Coello, J. 1982, Empleados y subalternos de la administracion romana. I. Los scribae, Huelva. Muñiz Coello, J. 1989a, “Empleados y subalternos de la administracion romana, 3. Los lictores”, Studia historica. Historia antigua 7, 133–152. Muñiz Coello, J. 1989b, “Officium dispensatoris”, Gerión 7, 107–119. Münzer, F. 1959, “Cn. Publicius Menander”, in RE 23.2, 1902. Musso, L. 1987, “Rilievo con pompa trionfale di Traiano al Museo di Palestrina”, Bollettino d’Arte 46, 1–41. Musso, L. 2008, “Rilievo con pompa trionfale di Traiano”, in La Rocca, E., and Tortorella, S. (eds.), Trionfi Romani, Milan, 141–143. Navarro Caballero, M. 2017, Perfectissima femina. Femmes de l’élite dans l’Hispanie romaine, Bordeaux. Newlands, C. E. 2004, Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire, Cambridge. Nicoletti, A. 1984–85, “Servi publici e vicarii in C. I. 7, 9, 1”, in Giuffrè 1984–85, 1483–1487. Nielsen, I. 1990, Thermae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths, Aarhus. Nonnis, D. 1995–96, “Un patrono dei dendrofori di Lavinium. Onori e munificenze in un dossier epigrafico di età severiana”, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 68, 235–62. Nonnis, D. 2018, “Lavorare nelle città dell’Italia romana. Il caso di Praeneste tra Repubblica e Impero”, in Marcone, A. (ed.), Lavoro, lavoratori e dinamiche sociali a Roma antica. Persistenze e trasformazioni. Atti delle giornate di studio (Roma Tre, 25–26 maggio 2017) per Elio Lo Cascio, Rome, 79–102. Nörr, D. 2008, “Prozessuales (und mehr) in der lex rivi Hiberiensis”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 125, 108–188. Noy, D. 2000, Foreigners at Rome. Citizens and Strangers, London – Swansea. Ogilvie, R., 1965, A Commentary on Livy, Oxford.

Bibliography

459

Orlandi, S. 2015, “Gaetano Marini trascrittore e classificatore di epigrafi”, in Buonocore (ed.) 2015, 917–933. d’Ors, A., and d’Ors, J. 1988, Lex Irnitana (texto bilingüe), Santiago de Compostela. d’Ors, A. 1986, La ley Flavia municipal, Rome. Ortalli, J. 2005, “La città romana: il paesaggio urbano”, in Sassatelli, G., and Donati, A. (eds.), Storia di Bologna, 1, Bologna nell’antichità, Bologna, 479–514. Oxé, A. 1938, “Frürömische Funde vom Titelberg (Luxemburg)”, Germania 22, 236–240. Paci, G. et al. 2021, “Lamellae perforatae, fistulae aquariae, glandes missiles: novità dalla regio V Italiae (Picenum)”, in Baratta 2021, 111–128. Padilla Peralta, D. 2017, “Slave Religiosity in the Roman Middle Republic”, Classical Antiquity 36.2, 317–369. Pagano, M. 1988, “Una nuova iscrizione dei magistri minturnesi e altre acquisizioni epigrafiche dalla carte di F. S. Gualtieri”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 100, 819–823. Palmer, R. E. A. 1965, “The Censors of 312 B. C. and the State Religion”, Historia 14, 293–324. de Palol, P., and Vilella, J. 1987, Clunia II: La epigrafía de Clunia (EAE 150), Madrid. Panciera, S. 1957, Vita economica di Aquileia in età romana, Aquileia. Panciera, S. 1977, “Saggi d’indagine sull’onomastica romana”, in Pflaum, M. H.-G. and Duval, M. N. (eds.), L’onomastique latine, Paris, 191–203. Panciera, S. 1979, “Il territorio di Aquileia e l’epigrafia”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 15.1, 383–411. Panciera, S. 2006, Epigrafi, Epigrafia, Epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956–2005) con note complementari e indici, Rome. Panella, C. 2006a, “Il Palatino nord-orientale: nuove conoscenze, nuove riflessioni”, Scienze dell’Antichità 13, 265–299. Panella, C. 2006b, “Piazza del Colosseo. Scavo dell’area della Meta Sudans”, in Tomei, M. A. (ed.), Roma. Memorie dal sottosuolo. Ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006, Verona, 85–89. Pantoni, A., and Gianetti, A. 1971, “Iscrizioni latine e greche di Montecassino”, Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei 26, 427–444. Paribeni, R. 1926, “Marino. Frammenti epigrafici nel territorio dell’antica Bovillae”, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 306–308. Parisini, L. 2013, “La gens Purpuraria tra Mutina e la Val Camonica: ipotesi sull’origine e la diffusione di un rarissimo gentilizio romano”, Atti e Memorie. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Antiche Provincie Modenesi 35, 253–269. Pascal, C. B. 1964, The Cults of Cisalpine Gaul, Bruxelles – Berchem. Pasqualini, A. 1969–70, “Note su alcuni aspetti ‘politici’ di un costume di epoca imperiale: le sportulae municipali”, Helikon 9–10, 265–312. Pasqualini, A. 1975, “Lucus”, in DE, 4, 1969–1989. Patterson, O. 1982, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study, Cambridge, MA. Pavis d’Escurac, H. 1974, “Le personnel d’origine servile dans l’administration de l’annone”, in Actes du Colloque 1972 sur l’esclavage. Besançon 2–3 mai 1972, Paris 1974, 299–313. Pavis d’Escurac, H. 1976, La préfecture de l’annone service administratif impérial d’Auguste à Constantin, Rome. Pavolini, C. 2015, “La musica e il culto di Cibele nell’Occidente Romano”, Archeologia Classica, 66, 345–375. Pellegrino, A. 1984, “Il Sannio Carricino dall’età sannitica alla romanizzazione”, Archeologia Classica 36, 155–197.

460

Bibliography

Pelling, C. 2018, “Dionysius on Regime Change”, in Hunter, R., and De Jonge, C. (eds.), Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome: Rhetoric, Criticism and Historiography, Cambridge, 203–220. Pergreffi, O. 1940, “Ricerche epigrafiche sui liberti”, Epigraphica 2, 314–336. Persichetti, N. 1906, “Poggio San Lorenzo. Fistola acquaria plumbea con bollo, rinvenuta nella località Moglie”, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 384. Petraccia Lucernoni, M. F. 1988, I questori municipali dell’Italia antica, Rome. Petraccia Lucernoni, M. F. 2001, Gli stationarii in età imperiale, Rome. Petru, P. 1977, “Die provinzialrömische Archälogie in Slowenien”, in ANRW II/6, 500–541. Petrucci, A. 1996, “Fistulae aquariae di Roma e dell’ager Viennensis”, Labeo 42, 204–205. Pflaum, H.-G. 1965, Review of Meyers 1964, Gnomon, 37.4, 388–396. Pharr, C. 1969, The Theodosian Code and novels and the Sirmondian constitutions. A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography, New York. Pistellato, A. 2015, Stirpem nobilitavit honor. La memoria dei Senzi Saturnini tra retorica e storiografia, Amsterdam. Pistellato, A. 2018, “La cura locorum publicorum iudicandorum e la cura aedium sacrarum et operum locorumque publicorum”, in Faoro, D. (ed.), L’amministrazione dell’Italia romana. Dal I secolo a. C. al terzo secolo d. C., Milan, 68–70. Pittia, S. 2007, “La cohorte du gouverneur Verrès”, in Dubouloz, J., and Pittia, S. (eds.), La Sicile de Cicéron. Lectures des Verrines. Actes du Colloque (Paris 2006), Besançon, 57–87. Platner M., and Ashby T. 1929, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Oxford. Polito, E. 2014, “Il tempio di Roma e Augusto a Ostia, vecchi dati e nuove prospettive. A proposito della recente pubblicazione del monumento”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 126.1, 37–53. Portillo, R., Rodriguez Oliva, P., and Stylow, A. U. 1985, “Porträthermen mit Inschrift im römischen Hispanien”, in Madrider Mitteilungen 26, 185–217. Posner, E. 1972, Archives into the Ancient World, Cambridge. Provost et alii 1992, Carte archéologique de la Gaule, 18, Le Cher, Paris. Pupillo, D. 1991, “La problematica del saltus in età romana. Inquadramento storico generale e possibilità applicative”, in Cremonini, S. (ed.), Romanità della pianura. L’ipotesi archeologica a S. Pietro in Casale come coscienza storica per una nuova gestione del territorio, Giornate di Studio, S. Pietro in Casale – 7/8 aprile 1990, Bologna, 303–320. Purcell, N. 1983, “The Apparitores: A Study in Social Mobility”, Papers of the British School at Rome 51, 125–173. Purcell, N. 2001, “The ordo scribarum: A Study in the Loss of Memory”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 113.2, 633–674. Purnelle, G. 1995, Les usages des graveurs dans la notation d’upsilon et des phonemes aspires: le cas des anthroponymes grecs dans les inscriptions latines de Rome, Geneve. Raepsaet-Charlier M.-T. 1986, “Acceptus, tabularius à Trèves (CIL XIII 4208; AE 1967, 320)”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 64, 223–229. Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. 2002, “Deux dédicaces religieuses d’Arlon (ILB 64 et ILB2 65) et le culte public des Trévires”, L’Antiquité Classique, 71, 103–120. Ramilli, G. 1975, “Un ‘saltuarius’ in una epigrafe dell’agro bresciano”, in Atti del Convegno internazionale per il XIX centenario della dedicazione del “CAPITOLIUM” e per il 150° anniversario della sua scoperta. Ateneo di Brescia 27–30 settembre 1973, Brescia, 77–87. Rawson, E. 1971, “Prodigy Lists and the Use of the Annales Maximi”, Classical Quarterly 31, 158–169.

Bibliography

461

Rawson, E. 1973, “Scipio, Laelius, Furius and the Ancestral Religion”, The Journal of Roman Studies 63, 161–174. Rea, R. et al. 2005, “Latina via”, in LTURS 3, Rome, 133–202. Reduzzi Merola, F. 1990, Servo parere. Studi sulla condizione giuridica degli schiavi vicari e dei sottoposti a schiavi nelle esperienze greca e romana, Naples. Reduzzi Merola, F. 2005, “L’esclave qui agit comme un homme libre. ‘Servus vicarius emit mancipioque accepit puellam’”, in Anastasiadis Vasilis, I., and Doukellis Panagiotis, N. (eds.), Esclavage antique et discriminations socio-culturelles, Actes du XXVIIIe Colloque international du Groupement international de recherche sur l’esclavage antique, Mytilène, 5–7 décembre 2003, Bern, 315–319. Reduzzi Merola, F. 2017, “I ‘servi Venerii’: tra schiavitú e libertà?”, Index 45, 275–280. Rémy, B. et al. 2011, “Un service officiel des eaux (cura aquarum) à Vienne? Le témoignage d’un tuyau de plomb découvert À Saint-Romain-en-Gal (Rhône)”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 179, 241–242. Rémy, B. 2010, Les médecins dans l’Occident romain, Bordeaux. Rhodes, P. J. 2001a, “Public Document in the Greek States. Archives and Inscriptions. Part I”, Greece & Rome 48.1, 33–44. Rhodes, P. J. 2001b, “Public Document in the Greek States. Archives and Inscriptions. Part II”, Greece & Rome 48.2, 136–153. Ricci, C. 2006, Stranieri illustri e comunità immigrate a Roma: vox diversa populorum, Rome. Ricci, C. 2008, “M. S[i]li Orcili mausolaeum”, in LTURS 5, Rome, 81 Ricci, C. 2020, “Servi et liberti publici nelle regiones II, III e IV Italiae: mobilità sociale e benessere economico”, Sylloge Epigraphica Barcinonensis 18, 67–84. Rich, J. 2011, “The fetiales and Roman international relations”, in Richardson, J. H., and Santangelo, F. (eds.), Priests and State in the Roman World, Stuttgart, 185–240. Richard, J. 2014, “Macellum/μάκελλον: ‘Roman’ Food Markets in Asia Minor and the Levant”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 27, 255–274. Richardson, L. 1992, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore. Rickman, G. 1971, Roman Granaries and Store Buildings, Cambridge. Rickman, G. 1980, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, Oxford. Righini, V. et al. 1993, “I bolli laterizi romani della regione Cispadana (Emilia e Romagna)”, Zaccaria, C. (ed.), I laterizi di età romana nell’area nordadriatica, Rome, 23–91. Righini, V. 1998, “I bolli laterizi di età romana nela Cispadana. Le Figlinae. Parte prima”, in Righini, V. (ed.), Le fornaci romane. Produzione di anfore e laterizi con marchi di fabbrica nella Cispadana orientale e nell’Alto Adriatico, Atti delle Giornate Internazionali di Studio (Rimini, 16–17 ottobre 1993), Rimini, 29–52. Righini, V. 2008, “I materiali fittili pesanti nella Cisalpina. Produzione e commercializzazione dei laterizi. I. Lateres publici e II. Figlinae”, in Hainzmann-Wedenig, M. (ed.), Instrumenta Inscripta Latina II. Akten II. Internationalen Kolloquimus, Klagenfurt 5–8 Mai 2005, Klagenfurt, 265–294. Rinaldi, A. 2015, “Preesistenze tardo repubblicane di carattere abitativo sotto la pavimentazione del foro di Nerva (con appendice di G. Maglie)”, Scienze dell’Antichità 21.3, 3–32. Rizzi, M. G. 2013, “Ex iniquitatibus mensurarum et ponderum. Appunti intorno alle frodi metrologiche nell’antichità greca e romana”, Revista Internacional de Derecho Romano 11, 288–331. Robinson, O. 1984–85, “Baths. An Aspect of Roman Local Government Law”, in Giuffrè 1984–85, 1065–1082. Rodgers, R. H. 2004, Frontinus. De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae, Cambridge. Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 1988, “Aqua publica y política municipal romana”, Gerión 6, 223–252.

462

Bibliography

Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 1991–92, “Archivos municipales en las provincias occidentales del imperio romano”, Veleia 8–9, 145–174. Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 1997, “‘Apparitores’ y personal servil en la administración local de la Bética”, Studia historica historia antigua 1, 197–228. Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 2005, “Tabulae Publicae”. Archivos municipales y documentación financiera en las ciudades de la Bética, Madrid. Roscini, E. 2012–13, “Varia Epigraphica da Carsulae (Umbria)”, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 85, 433–454. Rosenstein, N. 2004, Rome at War. Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic, Chapel Hill. Rouland, N. 1977, “A propos des serui publici populi Romani”, Chiron 7, 261–278. Ruggeri, P. 2003, “L’organizzazione paganica nel basso impero in Occidente: contributo per una rilettura della Tavola di Trinitapoli”, in Corda, A. M. (ed.), Cultus Splendore. Studi in onore di Giovanna Sotgiu, Senorbì, 801–834. Rüpke, J., and Glock, A. 2005, Fasti Sacerdotum. Die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale Funktionspersonal römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und jüdisch-christlicher Kulte in der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr. bis 499 n. Chr. 1–3, Stuttgart. Rüpke, J., and Santangelo, F. 2017, “Public Priests and Religious Innovation in Imperial Rome”, in Gordon, R. L. et al. (eds.), Beyond Priesthood: Religious Entrepreneurs and Innovators in the Roman Empire, Berlin – Boston, 15–47. Rüpke, J. 1993, “Livius, Priesternamen und die annales maximi”, Klio 75, 155–179. Rüpke, J. 2012, Religion in Republican Rome. Rationalization and Ritual Change, Philadelphia. Russel, A. 2016, The Politics of Public Space in Republican Rome, Cambridge. Russo, F. 2018, “Sullo ius adipiscendae civitatis Romanae per magistratum nella Lex Irnitana”, Gerión 36/2, 481–405. Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo, P. 1976, “Due iscrizioni inedite di Roma”, Epigraphica 38, 7–50. Sablayrolles, R. 1996, Libertinus miles. Les cohortes de vigiles, Rome. Sachers, E., and Weiss, J. 1932, “Tabularium”, in RE, 4 A.2, 1962–1969. Sachers, E. 1932, “Tabularius”, in RE, 4 A.2, 1969–1984. Saglio, E. 1904, “Limus”, in DA, 3, 1259. Salerno, E. 2018, “Rituals of War. The fetiales and Augustus’ Legitimization of the Civil Conflict”, in van Diemen, D. et al. (eds.), Conflicts in Antiquity: Textual and Material Perspectives, Amsterdam, 143–160. Salomies, O. 2014, Review of Terme 2012, Arctos 48, 500–502. Salomies, O. 2019, Review of SupplIt 30, Arctos 53, 281–284. Salway, B. 2000, “Prefects, Patroni, and Decurions. A New Perspective on the Album of Canusium”, in Cooley, A. (ed.), The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy, London, 115–171. Salzman, M. R., and Roberts, M. 2011, The Letters of Symmachus. Book 1, Atlanta. Santangelo, F. 2007, Sulla, the Elites and the Empire. A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East, Leiden – Boston. Santangelo, F. 2008, “The Fetials and Their ‘ius’”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 63–93. Santangelo, F. 2014, “I feziali tra rituale, diplomazia e tradizioni inventate”, in Urso 2014, 83–103. Santangelo, F. 2016, Marius, London. Santolini Giordani, R. 1989, Antichità Casali. La Collezione di Villa Casali a Roma, Rome. Santoro, S. 2007, “Per una ricostruzione dell’economia degli insediamenti d’altura fra costa adriatica e crinale alpino in età romana (II secolo a. C. – II secolo d. C.)”, in Antichità Altoadriatiche 65, 843–898.

Bibliography

463

Sartori, F. 1960, Verona romana. Storia politica, economica, amministrativa, in Verona e il suo territorio, Verona, 161–259. Šašel, J. 1980, “Pastorizia e transumanza. Contributo alla discussione”, Rivista Storica dell’Antichità 10, 179–185. Šašel, J. 1992, Opera selecta (Situla 30), Ljubljana. Šašel Kos, M. 1979, Inscriptiones Latinae in Graecia repertae. Additamenta ad CIL III, Faenza. Šašel Kos, M. 2002a, “The Boundary Stone between Aquileia and Emona”, Arheološki vestnik 53, 373–382. Šašel Kos, M. 2002b, “Il confine nord-orientale dell’Italia romana: riesame del problema alla luce di un nuovo documento epigrafico”, Aquileia Nostra 73, 245–260. Šašel Kos, M. 2015, “The Problem of the Border Between Italy, Noricum, and Pannonia”, Tyche 29, 153–164. Šašel Kos, M. 2016, “Boundary Between Aquileia and Emona Reconsidered”, Epigraphica 78, 221–233. Scheid, J. 1990a, Le collège des frères Arvales. Étude prosopographique du recrutement, Rome. Scheid, J. 1990b, Romulus et ses frères: le collège des Frères Arvales, modèle du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs, Rome. Scheid, J. 1998, Commentarii fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt. Les copies épigraphiques des protocoles annuels de la confrérie arvale (21 av. – 304 ap. J.-C.), Rome. Scheid, J. 2005, “Augustus and Roman Religion: Continuity, Conservatism, and Innovation”, in Galinsky, K. (ed.), The Cambridge companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge, 175–193. Schulze, W. 1904, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, Berlin – Zürich – Dublin (19662). Schulze-Oben, H. 1989. Freigelassene in den Städten des römischen Hispanien. Juristische, wirtschaftliche und soziale Stellung nach dem Zeugnis der Inschriften. Bonn. Schumacher, L. 1988, Römische Inschriften. Lateinisch/Deutsch, Stuttgart. Schumacher, L. 2001, Sklaverei in der Antike: Alltag und Schicksal der Unfreien, Munich. Schumacher, L. 2007, “Archäologische Zeugnisse zum römischen Sklavenrecht: servi togati und SC Claudianum”, in Mayer i Olivé, M., Baratta, G., and Guzmán Almagro, A. (eds.), Acta XII Congressus internationalis epigraphiae graecae et latinae (Barcelona, 3–8 Septembris 2002), Barcelona 2007, 1331–1336. Schumacher, L. 2010, “On the Status of Private actores, dispensatores and vilici”, in Roth, U. (ed.) 2010, By the Sweat of your Brow. Roman Slavery in its Socio-Economic Setting (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 109), London, 31–47. Schumacher, L. 2011, “Slaves in Roman Society”, in Peachin, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, Oxford, 589–608. Scramuzza, V. 1936, “Were the Venerii in Sicily serfs?”, American Journal of Philology 57, 326–330. Scrinari, V. 1951, Tergeste (Trieste). Regio X – Venetia et Histria, Roma. Scuderi, R. 2009, “I Galli a Roma: da barbari a senatori”, in Conti, S., and Scardigli, B. (eds.), Stranieri a Roma. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Certosa di Pontignano, 22–23 Maggio 2006), Ancona, 85–106. Serrano Delgado, J. M. 1996, “Sceleratissimus seruus publicus: un episodio de la vida municipal afectando a la familia publica”, in Mangas Manjarrés, J., and Alvar Ezquerra, J. (eds.), Homenaje a José Ma Blásquez. III. Historia de Roma, Madrid, 331–344. Sensi, L. 2012–13, “Hispellatia Valentina”, Bollettino storico della città di Foligno 35–36, 291–298. Sherk, R. K. 1970, The Municipal Decrees of the Roman West, Buffalo. Sherwin-White, A. N. 19732, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford.

464

Bibliography

Shpuza, S. 2014, “Colonia Iulia Augusta Dyrrachinorum”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 126.2, 502–503. Silver, M. 2016, Public Slaves in the Roman Army: An Exploratory Study, Ancient Society, 46, 203–240. Silvestrini, M. 2000, “Note sui culti orientali dell’Italia sud-adriatica”, in Delplace and Tassaux (eds.) 2000, 193–197. Silvestrini, M. 2005, “Gli arcarii delle città”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 117, 541–554. Simonis, M. 2017, Cum servis nullum est connubium. Untersuchungen zu den eheähnlichen Verbindungen von Sklaven im westlichen Mittelmeerraum des Roemischen Reiches, Hildesheim. Sisani, S. 2015, L’ager publicus in età graccana (133–111 a. C.). Una rilettura testuale, storica e giuridica della lex agraria epigrafica, Rome. Sisani, S. 2016, “Le istituzioni municipali. Legislazione e prassi tra il I secolo a. C. e l’età flavia”, in Capogrossi Colognesi, L. et al. (eds.), L’Italia dei Flavi. Atti del Convegno (Rome, 4–5 ottobre 2012), Rome, 9–55. Sitek, B. 2021, “Servus publicus and servus privatus in Ancient Rome: Legal Status and Social Status”, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 30, 251–264. Solin, H., and Salomies, O. 1988, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, Hildesheim – Zürich – New York. Solin, H. 1985, “Analecta epigraphica”, Arctos 19, 155–216. Solin, H. 1996, Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch, Stuttgart. Solin, H. 1998, Analecta Epigraphica 1970–1997 (= Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 21), Rome. Solin, H. 20032, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom, 1–3, Berlin – New York. Soricelli, G. 2004, “Saltus”, in Storchi Marino, A. (ed.), Economia, amministrazione e fiscalità nel mondo romano. Ricerche lessicali, Bari, 97–123. Spichenko, N. 2018, “El estatus legal del liberto municipal”, Gerión 36.2, 611–625. Stewart, R. 2012, Plautus and Roman Slavery, Malden. Sticotti, P. 1908, “Scoperte d’antichità a Trieste e nel suo agro”, Archeografo Triestino 4, 279–288. Stylow, A. U. 2001, “Una aproximación a la Carmo romana a través de su epigrafía. Nuevas aportaciones y revisión crítica”, in Caballos, A. (ed.) 2001, Carmona romana. Actas del II Congreso de historia de Carmona (Carmona 29 de septiembre a 2 de octubre de 1999), Carmona, 95–105. Sudi-Guiral, F. 2007, “La familia publica d’Ostie”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 119.2, 421–426. Sudi-Guiral, F. 2008, “Les servi publici actores des cités”, in Berrendonner, C. et al. (eds.), Le quotidien municipal dans l’Occident romain, Clermont-Ferrand, 405–417. Sudi-Guiral, F. 2010a, “A propos du décret des décurions de Cumes”, in Lamoine et al. 2010, 245–255. Sudi-Guiral, F. 2010b, “Les guardiens des sanctuaires dans les cités d’Italie”, in Lamoine et al. 2010, 421–432. Sudi-Guiral, F. 2010c, “Les servi publici mensores de Sipontum et Luceria (CIL, IX, 699, 821)”, Agri centuriati 7, 329–332. Suolahti, J. 1963, The Roman Censors, A Study on Social Structure, Helsinki. Susini, G. 1962, Fonti per la storia greca e romana del Salento, Bologna. Susini, G. 2001, Bononia/Bologna. Scritti di Giancarlo Susini, Bologna. Svoljšak, D., and Žbona-Trkman, B. 1986, “Novi napisi v posočju”, Arheološki vestnik 37, 385–397. Tarpin, M. 2014, “La lex rivi Hiberiensis: une restitution graphique de l’incipit”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 192, 265–272. Tentori Montalto, M. 2020, “L’iscrizione funeraria di Secundus da Firmum Picenum e il collegium di schiavi pubblici”, Picus 40, 9–18.

Bibliography

465

Ternes, C. M. 1969, “Inscriptiones latinae Luciliburgenses nuper in lucem editae”, Latomus 27, 141–155. Thein, A. 2013, “Rewards to Slaves in the Proscriptions of 82 B. C.”, Tyche 28, 164–175. Thomas, G. 1984, “Magna Mater and Attis”, ANRW II/17.3, 1500–1535. Tiussi, C. 2004, “Il sistema di distribuzione di Aquileia: mercati e magazzini”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 59, 257–316. Torelli, M. 1992, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, Ann Arbor. Torelli, M. 1993, “Augustus. divus. sacrarium: aedes”, in LTUR 1, Rome, 143–145. Torelli, M. 2006, “Ara Maxima Herculis: storia di un monumento”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 118.2, 573–620. Tosi, G. 2004, “Il complesso termale e teatrale delle Patavinorum aquae calidae nella tradizione letteraria antica e nelle testimonianze archeologiche”, in Fano Santi, M. (ed.), Studi di archeologia in onore di Gustavo Traversari, Rome, 871–894. Toynbee, A. J. 1965, Hannibal’s Legacy. The Hannibalic War’s Effects on Roman Life, London. Tozzi, P. 1972, Storia padana antica. Il territorio fra Adda e Mincio, Pavia. Traina, G. 2005, “Notes classico-orientales 4–5”, Electrum 10, 89–93. Tran, N. 2006, Les membres des associations romaines. Le rang social des collegiati en Italie et en Gaule, sous le Haute-Empire, Rome. Tran, N. 2009, “Tabernae publicae: boutiques et ateliers dans le patrimoine des cités de l’Occident romain”, Cahiers du Centre Glotz 20, 327–350. Tran, N. 2012, “Associations privées et espace public: les emplois de “publicus” dans l’épigraphie des collèges de l’Occident romain”, in Dondin-Payre, M., and Tran, N. (eds.), Collegia. Le phénomène associatif dans l’Occident romain, Bordeaux, 63–80. Treggiari, S. 1969, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic, Oxford. Treggiari, S. 1991, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, Oxford. Urso, G. (ed.) 2014, Sacerdos. Figure del sacro nella società romana, Pisa. Van Doren, M. 1958, “Les Sacraria. Une catégorie méconnue d’édifices sacrés chez les Romains”, L’Antiquité classique 27, 31–75. Van Haeperen, F. 2002, Le Collège pontifical (3ème s. a. C.–4ème s. p. C.). Contribution à l’étude de la religion publique romaine, Brussels – Rome. Van Haeperen, F. 2018, Review of Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2018.11.07, available at https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.11.07/ (last accessed: 10/12/2020). Vandevoorde, L. 2017, “Roman Citizenship of Italian *Augustales. Evidence, Problems, Competitive Advantages”, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 95, 81–108. Várhelyi, Z. 2010, The Religion of Senators in the Roman Empire. Power and the Beyond, Cambridge – New York. Ventura P., and Giovannini, A. 2012, “Aquileia e il suo anfiteatro: storia di un rapporto nascosto”, Histria Antiqua 21, 173–187. Verboven, K. 2011, “Professional collegia: Guilds or Social Clubs?”, Ancient Society 41, 187–195. Vermaseren, M. J. 1977, Cybele and Attis, the Myth and the Cult, London. Vidrih Perko, V., and Žbona-Trkman, B. 2003, “Aspetti ambientali e risorse naturali nell’indagine archeologica: il caso della valle del Vipacco e i suoi rapporti con l’economia aquileiese”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 53, 23–41. Viscogliosi, A. 1999, “Porticus Octaviae”, in LTUR, IV, Rome, 141–145. Vitali, C. 2005, “… manumissus liber((um))ve iussus erit …: sul capitolo 28 della lex Irnitana”, Index 33, 389–431. Vitucci, G. 1946, “Lares”, in DE, 4, 394–406.

466

Bibliography

Vitucci, G. 1958, “Libertus”, in DE, 4.2, 905–946. Vlassopoulos, K. 2020, Historicizing Ancient Slavery, Edinburgh. Vössing, K. 1996, “Archiv”, in Der Neue Pauly, 1, 1021–1025. Walbank, F. W. 1967, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford. Waldstein, W. 1986, Operae libertorum. Untersuchungen zur Dienstpflicht freigelassener Sklaven, Stuttgart. Wallace Hadrill, A. 2016, “Inscriptions in Private Spaces”, in Benefiel, R., and Keegan P. (eds.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden – Boston, 1–10. Waltzing, J.-P. 1895, Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelle chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’Occident, I, Louvain. Waltzing, J.-P. 1896, Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelle chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’Occident, II, Louvain. Waltzing, J.-P. 1899, Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelle chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’Occident, III, Louvain. Watson, A. (ed.) 1985, The Digest of Justinian, 1–4, Philadelphia. Watson, A. 1987, Roman Slave Law, Baltimore. Weaver, P. R. C. 1964, “Gaius i. 84 and the S. C. Claudianum”, The Classical Review 14, 137–139. Weaver, P. R. C. 1965, “The Father of Claudius Etruscus: Statius, Silvae 3.3”, The Classical Quarterly 15, 145–154. Weaver, P. R. C. 1972, Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves, Cambridge. Weaver, P. R. C. 1986, “The Status of Children in Mixed Marriage”, in Rawson, B. (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome, London – Sydney, 145–169. Weaver, P. R. C. 1997, “Children of Junian Latins”, in Rawson, B., and Weaver P. R. C. (eds.), The Roman family in Italy, Oxford, 55–72. Weaver, P. R. C. 1998, “Imperial Slaves and Freedmen in the Brick Industry”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 122, 238–246. Weinstock, S. 1971, Divus Julius, Oxford. Weiss, A. 2001, “Limocincti in Irni. Zur Ergänzung des Duumvirnparagraphen 18 der Lex Irnitana”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 284–286. Weiss, A. 2004, Sklave der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des römischen Reiches, Stuttgart. Weiss, A. 2021, “Check your privilege: Reconsidering the social position of public slaves in the cities of the Roman empire”, in Luciani 2021b, 8–20. Wiedemann, T. 1986, “The Fetiales: A Reconsideration”, The Classical Quarterly 36.2, 478–490. Wierschowski, L. 2001, Fremde in Gallien-‘Gallier’ in der Fremde. Die epigraphisch bezeugte Mobilität in, von und nach Gallien vom 1. bis 3. Jh. n. Chr., Stuttgart. Wilhelm, E. 1974, Pierres sculptées et inscriptions de l’époque romaine, Luxembourg. Wilson, H. L. 1910, “Latin Inscriptions at the John Hopkins University. IV”, The American Journal of Philology 31, 25–42. Winterling, A. 1999, Aula Caesaris. Studien zur Institutionalisierung des römischen Kaiserhofes in der Zeit von Augustus bis Commodus (31 v. Chr. – 192 n. Chr.), Munich. Winterling, A. 2009, Politics and Society in Imperial Rome, Chichester. Wisseman, M. 1984, “Das Personal des antiken römischen Bades”, Glotta 61, 80–89. Witschel, C. 2001, “Der Kaiser und die Inschriften”, in Winterling, A. (ed.), Zwischen Strukturgeschichte und Biographie. Probleme und Perspektiven einer neuen Römischen Kaisergeschichte: 31 v. Chr. – 192 n. Chr., Munich, 45–112.

Bibliography

467

Witschel, C. 2006, “Der ‘epigraphic habit’ in der Spätantike: Das Beispiel der Provinz Venetia et Histria”, in Krause – Witschel 2006, 359–411. Wittenberg, T. 2014, Kult bei der Arena. Nemesis-Heiligtumer im Kontext romischer Amphitheater, Oxford. Wolf, J. G. 2011, Die Lex Irnitana. Ein römisches Stadtrecht aus Spanien: lateinisch und deutsch, Darmstadt. Zaccaria, C. 1994, “Testimonianze epigrafiche di spettacoli teatrali e di attori nella Cisalpina romana”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 41, 69–98. Zaccaria, C. 2000a, “Permanenza dell’ideale civico romano in epoca tardoantica: nuove evidenze da Aquileia”, Antchità Altoadriatiche 47, 91–113. Zaccaria, C. 2000b, “Testimonianze epigrafiche dei culti greco-romani nell’area adriatica settentrionale in età romana. Bilancio e problemi”, in Delplace and Tassaux 2000, 171–192. Zaccaria, C. 2003, “Amministrazione e vita politica ad Aquileia dalle origini al III sec. d. C.”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 54, 2003, 293–338. Zaccaria, C. 2007a, “Attività e produzioni artigianali ad Aquileia. Bilancio della ricerca”, Antichità Altoadriatiche 75, 393–438. Zaccaria, C. 2007b, “Epigrafia dell’arco alpino orientale: novità, riletture, progetti”, in Migliario, E., and Baroni, A. (eds.), Epigrafia delle Alpi: bilanci e prospettive, Trento, 315–350. Zaccaria, C. 2008, “Quanti e quali augustei nella Regio X? A proposito della documentazione epigrafica e archeologica del ‘culto imperiale’”, in Gasperini, L., and Paci, G. (eds.), Nuove ricerche sul culto imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di studio (Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004), Tivoli, 219–257. Zanovello, P. 1998, “Patavini Fontes: l’area termale euganea nei suoi rapporti con Patavium”, in Bedon, R. (ed.), Suburbia. Les Faubourgs en Gaule romaine et dans les regions voisines, Limoges (Caesarodunum 32), 311–328. Zenarolla, L. 2008, Il culto di Hercules nell’Italia nord-orientale, Gruaro. Zevi F. 1993, “Per l’identificazione della Porta Minucia frumentaria”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 105.2, 661–708. Zevi, F. 2018, “Nuova iscrizione di Publio Claudio Abascanto, liberto delle Tre Gallie”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Antiquité 120.2, 367–374. Zimonyi, A. 2015, “Bemerkungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in Pannonien”, Acta classica universitatis scientiarum Debreceniensis 51, 89–99. Ziolkowski, A. 1986, “Les temples A et C du Largo Argentina: quelques considerations”, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité 98.2, 623–641. Zlinszky, J. 2006, “Gemeineigentum am Beispiel der servi publici”, in Finkenauer, T. (ed.), Sklaverei und Freilassung im römischen Recht, Berlin – Heidelberg, 317–326. Zollschan, L. 2011, “The Longevity of the Fetial College”, in Tellegen-Couperus, O. (ed.), Law and Religion in the Roman Republic, Leiden, 119–144. Zucca, R. 2013, “Il Progetto di ricerca sulle Aquae calidae della Sardinia”, in Bassani, M. et al. (eds.), Aquae salutiferae. Il termalismo tra antico e contemporaneo. Atti del convegno internazionale (Montegrotto Terme, 6–8 settembre 2012), Padua, 145–172.

Index Locorum The present index includes references to pages and/or to entries in the appendices (in bold). Literary Sources References to authors and works throughout the text follow the abbreviations of the Oxford Classical Dictionary. [Aurelius Victor] Origo gentis Romanae 8.5: 45, 4.8

Caesar De bello Civili 1.37.1–3: 189

De viris illustribus 34.1.2: 45, 4.7 67.4–5: 61

De bello Gallico 8.51.3: 140

Appian Bella civilia 1.61: 60 1.100: 52, 215 Hannibalicum 7.27: 48 Apuleius Apologia 89: 154 Metamorphoses 1.24: 138, 177 1.25: 138 Arrian, Epicteti dissertationes 4.1.37: 244

Julius Capitolinus, Gordiani 12: 84, 22 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.31.4: 123 Cassius Dio 6: 45, 65, 3 39.23.2: 27, 52 43.51.9: 93 48.53.4–6: 85 49.14.5: 163 49.43.8: 55–56, 118 52.13.3: 45 53.2.4–6: 77 54.1–4: 78 54.2.4: 54, 70, 77, 13 54.17.1: 55, 78 54.17.2: 93

55.1–2: 33 55.8.7: 54, 70, 77, 16 55.25.2–3: 55, 81, 17 55.26.4–5: 54 56.46.3: 112 57.10.2: 113 58.12.5: 106 60.10.4: 83, 18 66.24.1–2: 57, 119 Cicero Pro Archia 4.8: 154 Ad Atticum 4.3.4: 73 Pro Balbo 11.28: 215, 9.1 Pro Cluentio 43: 41 Divinatio in Caecilium 55: 41

469

Literary Sources

De domo 20.52: 52 28.74: 156 De haruspicum responsis 10.21: 94 De lege agraria 2.13: 156 2.27.71: 195 De legibus 2.45–57: 85 Pro Milone 10.29: 73 Philippicae 8.24: 52, 67, 11.1 13.26: 52, 67, 11.2 De re publica 1.39: 22 Pro Sestio 26.57: 52 42.91: 19 In Verrem 2.3.50: 42 2.3.61: 42 2.3.65: 42 2.3.75: 42 2.3.86: 42 2.3.89: 42 2.3.92: 42 2.3.92–93: 42 2.3.143: 42 2.3.183: 42 2.3.200: 42 Codex Iustiniani 6.8.1: 158 7.9.3: 158 10.69.3: 158 11.40: 167 11.43.10.4: 204

Codex Theodosianus 8.2.5: 158 Columella, De re rustica 1.8.19: 223 Digesta 1.15.1: 53, 70, 77, 5 1.8.6.1: 23 2.4.10.4: 40, 231 3.4.1.1: 40 4.6.10: 210 7.1.15.2: 244 10.4.7.3: 38 11.4.1.6: 210 16.2.19: 244 29.2.25.1: 39 34.5.10.1: 223 37.15: 231 38.3.1 pr.: 228 40.3.1–2: 39 40.3.3: 245 40.5.41.17: 162 40.7.21pr.: 166 41.2.1.22: 23 41.3.9: 20 47.22.3.2: 252 48.18.1.7: 39 49.15.5: 215, 9.2 50.16.15: 20 50.16.16: 20 50.16.195: 179 Diodorus Siculus 14.117.6: 45 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae 1.40.4–5: 45, 47, 69, 4.2 2.23.1–2: 95 2.64.1: 95 4.62.4–5: 44, 91, 93, 1 12.9: 140 Epitome de Caesaribus 13.11: 135

Festus p. 72 (ed. Lindsay): 166 p. 113 (ed. Lindsay): 95 p. 188 (ed. Lindsay): 55, 118 p. 198–200 (ed. Lindsay): 85 p. 240 (ed. Lindsay): 45 p. 270 (ed. Lindsay): 45, 4.5 p. 333 (ed. Lindsay): 156 p. 392–394 (ed. Lindsay): 190 p. 511 (ed. Lindsay) : 48 F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist), 1923– II, 87, F 5: 53 Florus 1.5: 189 1.12: 189 1.23: 48 2.30: 189 Frontinus, De aquaeductu urbis Romae 1.6: 121 1.9.6: 204 1.21: 122 2.98: 54, 120, 14.1 2.99: 79, 120 2.100: 54–55, 78, 243, 15 2.116: 54–55, 59, 121, 14.2 2.117: 121 2.118: 54, 121, 243, 14.3 Gaius, Institutiones 1.13–15: 257 1.25–26: 257 1.27: 27, 257 1.80: 31, 248 1.84: 28 1.122: 166 2.2–4: 43

470 2.11: 21 3.72: 228 Gellius, Noctes Atticae 12.3.2 and 4: 131–132 12.3.3: 130 12.3.4: 131 13.13.4: 52, 68, 69, 10 Hyginus, De limitibus constituendis p. 132.20–133.1 (ed. Thulin): 132 p. 167.16–19 (ed. Lindsay): 132 Institutiones Iustiniani 3.7.9: 228 Isidorus, Etymologiae 15.14.2: 132 19.22.26: 133 19.33.1: 131 19.33.4: 131 Itinerarium Antonini Augusti p. 265 (ed. Parthey and Pinder): 192 Juvenal 3.166–167: 244 10.36–42: 68, 21 Lactantius, Divininstitutions 2.7.15: 45, 4.6 Livy 1.7.14: 45, 69, 256 1.30: 48 4.8: 75 4.61.7–10: 214 5.13: 140 5.23.5–6: 45 9.2.7–10: 189 9.3.6: 189 9.7.5: 189 9.11.3: 189

Index Locorum

9.14.10: 189 9.29.9–11: 45, 69, 256, 4.1 9.34.17–19: 45, 69, 256, 4.3 9.36–38: 189 10.24.5: 189 22.57.11: 48, 214 22.57.12: 48 22.61.1–2: 48, 214 23.32.1: 48, 214 23.35.5–6: 48, 214 24.14.3–9: 48, 214 24.14–16: 48, 214 24.16.6–19: 48, 214 25.20.4: 48, 49 25.22.2–4: 49 26.17.11: 189 26.47: 49 26.47.1–2: 27, 50 27.38.8–10: 49 28.5.8: 189 28.7.3: 189 28.10.11: 49 28.46.13: 49 29.5.9: 49 29.13.4: 49 36.15.5–7: 189 36.16.1: 189 36.42.4: 189 38.51.12: 71 43.16.13: 51, 75, 8 45.22.7: 189 Per. 77: 60 Per. 140: 55, 118 Lucan 5.377: 195 Lydus, De magistratibus 1.44: 70, 2 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.11.30–31: 48 1.15.9–13: 85 3.6.13: 45, 4.10 Orosius 5.19.7: 61

Ovid Ars amatoria 1.69–70: 55, 118 Tristia 3.1.69: 119 Iulius Paulus, Sententiae 2.19.6: 248 Petronius, Satyricon 97–98: 210–211 Plautus Captivi 334: 27, 50 813–824: 177 Rudens 373–374: 177 Pliny the Elder, Historia Naturalis 3.66: 70, 77 6.80: 189 10.132: 189 12.94: 112 Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 7.18: 169, 692 7.27.13: 243 10.19: 208–209 10.31.2–3: 182 10.31.4: 158 10.31–32: 243 10.65.3: 158 Plutarch Camillus 7.1–2: 45 Cato Maior 6.2: 50, 67, 68, 6 Cato Minor 39.3: 52

471

Literary Sources

Galba 8.5: 67, 19 Marius 39.1–2: 60 Marcellus 30: 55, 118 Tiberius Gracchus 12.5: 73 Polybius 6.21.1–2: 49 6.33.1: 49 10.17.9: 27, 49 Res GestDivi Augusti 5.2: 78 Seneca De beneficiis 3.21: 244 Epistulae 80.7: 244 Servius, Aeneis 8.179: 45, 4.9 9.547: 48 12.120: 133 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrianus 6.3: 135 Siculus Flaccus, De condicionibus agrorum p. 158.20–21 (ed. Lindsay): 190 Statius, Silvae 3.3: 256

Suetonius Augustus 5: 112 29: 56 30.1: 70, 77 37: 55, 57, 76–78, 81 Domitianus 1: 114, 242, 643.2 11.1: 167 20: 57, 119 De grammaticis et rhetoribus 21: 56 Nero 17: 72 Tiberius 9: 65 20: 65 47: 113 Symmachus, Epistulae 1.68: 59, 88

Ulpianus, Fragmenta 19.1: 19 20.16: 244 Valerius Maximus 1.1.17: 45, 69, 256, 4.4 2.10.6: 29, 60, 207, 650.2 4.3.11: 51, 66, 7 7.3.9: 47, 53, 68, 12 7.6.1: 48 Varro De lingua latina 5.36: 190 5.85: 96, 106 5.114: 132 5.156: 118 6.54: 46 8.82–83: 72, 214, 221 De re rustica 1.2.14: 172 1.2: 70 1.10: 190 3.16: 189

Tacitus Annales 1.54: 96 3.64.3–6: 106 6.45: 113 12.39.2: 189 13.4.2: 22 13.54.1: 189

Velleius Paterculus 2.19: 29, 60, 207, 650.1 2.81.2: 163, 164 2.92: 77

Germania 30.1: 189

Zonaras 7.11: 91

Historiae 1.43: 114, 242, 20 2.95: 96–97, 106 3.74: 114, 242, 643.1

Vitruvius, De architectura 3.2.5: 55, 118 8.11: 202

472

Index Locorum

Inscriptions For a list of the abbreviations used throughout the text and in the present index see p. 438–440. AE 1894, 114: 557 1894, 171: 561 1895, 156: 645 1900, 3: 163.28, 165.1 1900, 135: 140 1901, 135: 212 1902, 188: 346 1903, 186: 637 1907, 213: 81 1908, 107: 477 1910, 70: 53 1910, 114: 82, 40 1911, 205: 195 1912, 222: 91, 23.1 1914, 221: 209 1915, 102: 35.1, 163.29, 165.2 1919, 25: 736 1920, 95: 56 1922, 111: 438 1922, 126: 194 1927, 158: 191 1931, 10: 431 1933, 113: 568 1933, 154: 431 1934, 95: 535 1939, 148: 111 1941, 14: 723 1941, 92: 529 1946, 136: 200, 499 1947, 19: 477 1948, 26: 282 1948, 27: 281 1952, 73: 556 1952, 133: 690 1953, 124: 611 1956, 152: 192.2 1957, 105: 139, 171 1959, 302: 538 1960, 319a: 541

1961, 49: 520 1964, 134: 310 1964, 138: 311 1964, 254: 418 1966, 186: 83 1967, 138: 580 1968, 152: 388 1971, 181: 746 1971, 199: 634 1971, 531: 597 1972, 254: 531 1972, 714: 593 1972, 733: 596.2 1972, 737: 596.1 1973, 147: 287.1 1974, 346: 511 1975, 145: 92 1975, 396: 431 1975, 449: 476 1975, 883: 140 1976, 14: 146 1976, 214a: 674 1976, 259: 471 1977, 168: 656 1977, 285: 492 1978, 41: 144 1978, 194: 309 1978, 217: 313 1978, 835: 140 1980, 93: 125 1980, 673: 602 1982, 278: 414 1983, 323: 355 1983, 975: 140 1984, 250: 157, 661 1984, 304: 357 1984, 502: 529 1984, 811: 719.1 1984, 812: 719.2 1984, 813: 719.4 1984, 948: 591

1985, 226: 113 1985, 252: 67 1985, 314: 332 1986, 25: 140 1986, 333 (lex. Irn. 72): 127, 526 1986, 333 (lex. Irn. 78): 125, 527 1986, 333 (lex. Irn. 86): 130 1986, 333 (lex Irn.): 23, 129, 524–528 1987, 207: 657 1987, 243: 645 1987, 444: 464 1987, 455: 476 1988, 229: 206 1988, 330: 287.2 1989, 135: 78 1990, 21: 21 1990, 396: 477 1992, 272: 287.1 1992, 502: 663 1993, 107: 21 1993, 725: 440 1994, 337: 649.1–2 1994, 562: 358 1994, 940: 737 1994, 1573: 719.2 1994, 1574: 719.1 1995, 395: 205 1995, 848: 533 1996, 298: 220 1996, 859: 580 1997, 128: 113 1997, 326: 319 1997, 573: 491 1998, 282: 197 1998, 747: 572 1999, 1289: 538 2000, 245: 449 2000, 259: 454

Inscriptions

2000, 511: 390 2000, 534: 399 2000, 1611: 513 2001, 853: 200, 202, 205 2001, 854: 201, 203–204 2001, 1049: 443 2001, 1195: 520 2002, 532a–c: 193 2002, 669: 140 2002, 679: 140 2003, 194: 75 2003, 359: 157, 661 2003, 858: 576 2003, 1367: 144 2003, 1582a: 584 2003, 1902: 177 2004, 539: 411 2004, 616: 476 2005, 802: 530 2005, 1685: 140 2006, 221: 151 2006, 676: 157, 727 2007, 754: 529 2010, 528: 457 2010, 530: 458 2010, 531: 451 2010, 542: 478 2010, 544: 480 2010, 570: 500 2010, 592: 691 2010, 709: 728 2011, 281: 294 2011, 728: 559 2012, 466: 398 2012, 777: 640 2013, 369: 306 2014, 864: 551 2014, 1177a: 719.1 2014, 1177b: 719.2 2014, 1177c: 719.3–4 2015, 453: 693 2016, 671: 570 2017, 254: 314 Avetta 1985 134–135 no. 123: 146

CIL I2, 585: 21 I2, 589: 21 I2, 593: 330 I2, 1142: 121 I2, 1336: 92 I2, 1337: 93 I2, 2690: 207 II, 266: 140 II, 353: 582 II, 435: 581 II, 504: 571 II, 1472: 518 II, 1480: 517 II, 2009: 532 II, 2011: 710 II, 2229: 522 II, 2230: 730 II, 2410: 737 II, 2423: 83 II, 2992: 631 II, 3181: 639 II, 4989: 573 II, 5164: 575 II, 5260: 718 II, 5559: 737 II, 6027: 635 II2/5, 841: 532 II2/5, 847: 710 II2/5, 1022: 534 II2/5, 1163: 518 II2/5, 1176: 517 II2/7, 2a: 533 II2/7, 233: 709 II2/7, 234: 150 II2/7, 300: 730 II2/7, 301: 729 II2/7, 315: 522 II2/7, 334: 746 II2/7, 415a: 747 II2/14, 378: 635 II2/14, 1135: 144 II2/14, 1199: 144, 736 III, 633: 586–589 III, 1553: 37 III, 2902: 712 III, 3851: 620

473 III, 3921: 621 III, 4150: 623–625 III, 4152: 622 III, 4170: 144 III, 4692a–b: 205, 725.1 III, 4693a–c: 205, 725.2 III, 4870: 614 III, 4872: 612 III, 5227: 600 III, 5228: 601 III, 5235: 598 III, 5282: 608 III, 5347: 609 III, 5349: 610 III, 7906: 539 III, 9767: 140 III, 10308: 724 III, 10408: 723 III, 13858: 540 III, 15205: 613 IV, 3340, cxxxviii: 168, 284 IV, 3340, cxxxix: 168, 283.1 IV, 3340, cxl: 168 IV 3340, cxli: 168, 283.2 IV, 3340, cxlii: 168, 283.3 IV, 3340, cxliii: 168, 283.4 IV, 3340, cxliv: 168, 283.5 IV, 3340, cxlv: 168, 283.6 IV, 3340, cxlvi: 168, 283.7 IV, 3340, cxlvii: 168, 283.8 IV, 3340, cxlviii: 168, 283.9 IV, 3340, cxlix: 168 IV, 3340, cl: 168, 283.10 IV, 3340, cli: 168, 283.11 IV, 3340, clii: 168 IV, 3340, cliii: 168, 283.12 IV, 5244: 140 V, 141*: 464 V, 429*,202: 464 V, 7: 484 V, 83: 486 V, 396b: 699 V, 488: 703 V, 519: 701 V, 628: 491 V, 715: 189, 192–193, 688 V, 737: 448

474 V, 1084: 453 V, 1127: 449 V, 2007: 479 V, 2109: 488 V, 2343: 465 V, 2440: 206 V, 2634: 463 V, 2795: 696 V, 2803: 482 V, 2886: 483 V, 3139: 506 V, 3401: 505 V, 3438: 705 V, 3470: 497 V, 3550: 501 V, 3832: 31, 495 V, 4186: 467 V, 4194: 466 V, 4287: 475 V, 4422: 745 V, 4503: 473 V, 4507: 468 V, 4685: 471 V, 4686: 469 V, 4739: 474 V, 4911: 689 V, 5318: 508 V, 5668: 507 V, 5858: 509 V, 5881: 708 V, 6630: 510 V, 6673: 512 V, 8110,133: 456 V, 8110,282: 206, 695 V, 8110,283a–b: 207, 698 V, 8117,1a–b: 489 V, 8117,2b, e–d: 447 V, 8117,6a–b: 456 V, 8190: 481 V, 8850: 496 VI, 52: 140 VI, 68: 61 VI, 313: 46 VI, 479: 278 VI, 671: 39 VI, 1034: 119 VI, 1266: 81

Index Locorum

VI, 1267a–b: 81 VI, 1460: 78 VI, 1480: 78 VI, 1826: 741 VI, 1959: 742 VI, 1990: 109, 150 VI, 1995: 62 VI, 1996: 119 VI, 1998: 34 VI, 1999: 110, 154 VI, 2053: 163.1 VI, 2059: 163.2 VI, 2060: 163.3 VI, 2065: 97, 163.5 VI, 2066: 163.6 VI, 2067: 163.7, 163.25 VI, 2068: 163.8 VI, 2071: 163.4 VI, 2074: 52, 163.9 VI, 2075: 163.10 VI, 2076: 163.11 VI, 2078: 70, 163.12 VI, 2080: 163.13 VI, 2081: 163.14 VI, 2083: 163.15 VI, 2085: 163.16 VI, 2086: 42, 120.1, 163.17, 163.23 VI, 2087: 163.18 VI, 2096: 163.19 VI, 2099: 163.20 VI, 2100: 163.21 VI, 2101: 163.22 VI, 2103: 163.23 VI, 2104: 120.2, 163.24 VI, 2105: 120.4, 163.26 VI, 2106b–c: 141 VI, 2107a: 163.27 VI, 2109: 163.28, 165.1 VI, 2114: 35.4, 163.30 VI, 2120: 86, 166 VI, 2197: 198 VI, 2307: 31, 292 VI, 2308: 75 VI, 2309: 151 VI, 2310: 29 VI, 2311: 89

VI, 2312: 96 VI, 2313: 115 VI, 2314: 92 VI, 2315: 64 VI, 2316: 73.1 VI, 2317: 73.2 VI, 2318: 32 VI, 2319b: 143 VI, 2320: 76 VI, 2321: 106 VI, 2322: 116 VI, 2323: 26 VI, 2324: 104 VI, 2325: 28 VI, 2326: 63 VI, 2327: 68 VI, 2328: 124 VI, 2329: 112 VI, 2330a: 132.1 VI, 2330b: 132.2 VI, 2331: 71 VI, 2332: 85 VI, 2333: 43 VI, 2334: 135 VI, 2335: 138 VI, 2336: 59 VI, 2337: 105 VI, 2338: 92 VI, 2339: 93 VI, 2340: 71, 45 VI, 2341: 72, 116, 161 VI, 2342: 38 VI, 2343: 122, 49 VI, 2344: 129 VI, 2345: 245, 84 VI, 2346: 102 VI, 2347: 79.1 VI, 2348: 114 VI, 2349: 130 VI, 2350: 24 VI, 2351: 25 VI, 2352: 27 VI, 2353: 215 VI, 2354: 39 VI, 2355: 46 VI, 2356: 48 VI, 2357: 51

Inscriptions

VI, 2358: 50 VI, 2359: 60 VI, 2360: 66 VI, 2361: 69 VI, 2362: 74 VI, 2363: 88 VI, 2364: 100 VI, 2365: 108.1 VI, 2366: 108.2 VI, 2367: 109 VI, 2368: 110 VI, 2369: 121 VI, 2370: 122 VI, 2371: 125 VI, 2372: 126 VI, 2373: 131 VI, 2374: 136 VI, 3685: 30 VI, 3882: 72 VI, 3883: 128 VI, 3883a: 65 VI, 3976: 117 VI, 4013: 742 VI, 4222: 114 VI, 4305: 140 VI, 4431: 79.1 VI, 4432: 79.2 VI, 4433: 86.1 VI, 4434: 86.2 VI, 4435: 95 VI, 4461: 101 VI, 4462: 29 VI, 4463: 43 VI, 4464: 50 VI, 4465: 74 VI, 4466: 126 VI, 4690: 110 VI, 4691: 131 VI, 4847: 115 VI, 5192: 130 VI, 5558: 105 VI, 8338: 121 VI, 8489: 116, 77 VI, 8493: 129 VI, 8496: 122 VI, 9403: 115 VI, 9475: 641

VI, 9634: 739 VI, 9953: 740 VI, 10020: 115 VI, 10078: 189 VI, 10237: 140 VI, 10332: 140 VI, 10408: 146 VI, 11784: 118 VI, 15593: 140 VI, 21383: 140 VI, 22385: 151 VI, 29687: 734 VI, 29698: 227 VI, 29958–29959: 140 VI, 30903: 30 VI, 31231: 119 VI, 31573: 81 VI, 31574: 81 VI, 31807: 176 VI, 32360: 163.1 VI, 32363: 163.2 VI, 32364: 163.3 VI, 32367: 97, 163.5 VI, 32369: 163.6 VI, 32371: 52, 163.9 VI, 32372: 163.10 VI, 32374: 70, 163.12 VI, 32375: 163.13 VI, 32377: 163.15 VI, 32379: 163.16 VI, 32380: 42, 120.1, 163.17, 163.23 VI, 32386: 163.20 VI, 32388: 120.2, 163.24 VI, 32389: 163.7, 163.25 VI, 32390a: 163.27 VI, 32507: 72 VI, 32506: 75 VI, 32513: 128 VI, 32314: 65, 743 VI, 32444: 642 VI, 33084: 91, 23.2 VI, 33227: 90 VI, 33729: 122 VI, 33732: 122, 49 VI, 33940: 189 VI, 36868: 140

475 VI, 37037: 81 VI, 37164: 163.28, 165.1 VI, 37174: 98 VI, 37175: 82, 40 VI, 37176: 53 VI, 37177: 91, 23.1 VI, 37178: 140 VI, 37180: 134.3 VI, 37598: 134.3 VI, 38398: 140 VI, 39433: 35.3, 165.2 VI, 39443: 163.29 VI, 40417: 113 VI, 40883: 81 VIII, 28: 731 VIII, 2403: 239 VIII, 3545: 37 VIII, 5279: 615 VIII, 5711: 617 VIII, 7077: 721 VIII, 9425: 720 VIII, 17464: 615 VIII, 19521: 618 VIII, 21073: 590 IX, 226*: 301 IX, 32: 317 IX, 59: 312 IX, 326: 320 IX, 338: 239 IX, 396: 318 IX, 472: 328 IX, 699: 326 IX, 819: 322 IX, 821: 323 IX, 1230: 300 IX, 1485: 321 IX, 1538: 302 IX, 1545: 303 IX, 1618: 38 IX, 1664: 307 IX, 2244: 376 IX, 2472: 370 IX, 2483: 376 IX, 2533: 372 IX, 2606: 379 IX, 2676: 339 IX, 2854: 178

476 IX, 2889: 361 IX, 2890: 363.1 IX, 2900: 362 IX, 3046: 668.1 IX, 3219: 349 IX, 3627: 382 IX, 3845: 347 IX, 3995: 344 IX, 4109: 337.1 IX, 4110: 337.2 IX, 4111: 338 IX, 4112: 337.3 IX, 4223: 664 IX, 4224: 665 IX, 4231: 345 IX, 4699a–e: 365 IX, 4700: 667 IX, 4971: 140 IX, 5020: 387 IX, 5177: 384 IX, 5859: 666 IX, 6083,11: 299 IX, 6083,46: 304 IX, 6083,51: 305 IX, 6083,142: 668.2 IX, 6083,164: 205, 364 IX, 6281: 301 IX, 6653: 371 IX, 6654: 367 IX, 6655: 369 IX, 6656: 375 IX, 6886: 360 IX, 7271: 348 IX, 7344: 355 X, 1089*,32: 27 X, 163: 333 X, 410: 334 X, 486: 331 X, 1090: 214 X, 1453: 178, 193 X, 1495: 211 X, 2052: 286 X, 3710: 190 X, 3938: 180 X, 3940: 182 X, 3941: 187 X, 3942: 183

Index Locorum

X, 3967: 647 X, 4334: 186 X, 4687: 178 X, 4865: 298 X, 4904: 293 X, 4984: 295 X, 5012: 297 X, 5865: 192.1 X, 6044: 208 X, 6332: 289 X, 7682: 628 X, 7844: 627 X, 7903: 630 X, 8339d: 662 XI, 635*: 384 XI, 180: 206 XI, 724: 201 XI, 725: 677 XI, 727: 201 XI, 729: 201 XI, 731: 673 XI, 732: 676 XI, 733: 678 XI, 734: 679 XI, 735: 680 XI, 736a–e: 681 XI, 979: 439 XI, 1066: 433 XI, 1067: 435 XI, 1068: 436 XI, 1205: 440 XI, 1231: 437 XI, 1444: 672 XI, 1751: 424 XI, 2656: 419 XI, 2710a: 429 XI, 2714: 427 XI, 2715: 426 XI, 3155a 1–2: 415 XI, 3155b: 416 XI, 3419: 425 XI, 3780: 423 XI, 3968: 358 XI, 4382: 394 XI, 4391: 395 XI, 4421: 391 XI, 4426: 393

XI, 4639: 412 XI, 4844: 671 XI, 5114: 404 XI, 5284: 403 XI, 5375: 397 XI, 5411: 396 XI, 5737: 408–410 XI, 5968: 406 XI, 6073: 413 XI, 6316: 405 XI, 6393: 744 XI, 6531: 407 XI, 6675,4: 205, 683 XI, 6840: 430 XII, 523: 544 XII, 853: 37 XII, 1222: 714 XII, 1283: 555 XII, 1385: 37 XII, 1595: 547 XII, 1598: 548 XII, 1755: 553 XII, 1925: 558 XII, 2250: 715 XII, 2522: 560 XII, 3310: 552 XII, 4450: 550 XII, 4451: 549 XII, 4983: 551 XII, 5683,347: 545 XII, 5701,43: 559 XIII, 603: 515 XIII, 1780: 713 XIII, 1914: 542 XIII, 4335: 751 XIII, 5693: 564 XIII, 5694: 565 XIII, 5695: 566 XIII, 5696: 567 XIII, 5711: 562 XIII, 5883: 563 XIII, 7553: 717 XIII, 8334: 561 XIII, 11359: 750 XIV, 32: 278 XIV, 73: 653 XIV, 168: 37

477

Inscriptions

XIV, 169: 37 XIV, 197: 215 XIV, 255: 280 XIV, 326: 735.1 XIV, 327: 735.2 XIV, 328: 733 XIV, 375: 140 XIV, 409: 279 XIV, 440: 250 XIV, 1636: 140 XIV, 1980: 654.1 XIV, 2002: 651.1 XIV, 2003: 652 XIV, 2004: 655 XIV, 2129: 649.1 XIV, 2156: 172 XIV, 2400: 62 XIV, 2401: 109, 150 XIV, 2402: 110, 154 XIV, 2403: 34 XIV, 2404: 119 XIV, 2414: 173 XIV, 2470: 31, 175 XIV, 2620: 146 XIV, 2637: 660 XIV, 2770: 196 XIV, 3513: 380 XIV, 3649: 123 XIV, 3708: 658.1 XIV, 4002: 92 XIV, 5309,19: 654.2 XIV, 5309,40: 651.2 XV, 7736β–γc: 652 XV, 7743: 654.1 XV, 7766: 651.1 XV, 7767: 655 XV, 7812: 649.1 XV, 7909a: 658.2 XV, 7909b: 658.1 XV, 8249: 670 CILA II, 541: 530 II, 688: 518 II, 701: 517 II, 1062: 531 III, 596: 519

2005, 448: 185 2010, 269: 728

CLE 123: 639 165: 347 228: 46 399: 189 462: 301 838: 51 861: 482

IDR III, 1, 269: 37 III, 2, 14: 538 III, 2, 218: 539 III, 5/2, 528: 37

de Palol – Vilella 1987 32 no. 21: 633

IDRE 264: 623–625

Della Corte 1922a 487 no. 2: 213

IG

Della Corte 1922b 183 no. 5: 213 EphEm IV, 834: 176 VIII, 159: 728 VIII, 182: 637 VIII, 209: 389 VIII, 217: 383 IX, 628: 649.2 EpOst 1342: 140 1408: 133 Finke 1927 200 no. 328: 192, 711 FIRA III, 131a: 284 III 131b: 283.2 III 131c: 283.4 III 131d: 283.6 III 131e: 283.11 HAE 813: 736 Hep 1995, 385: 519 1996, 1026: 737

VII, 1777: 235 XIV, 1561: 93 XIV, 2312: 31, 495

IGVR III, 1342: 115 ILA (Bordeaux) 43: 515 ILAlg I, 445: 615 II, 802: 618 II, 803: 156, 721 II, 6529: 617 II, 7728: 616 ILGN 241: 546 273: 557 375: 543 ILLPRON 531: 612 570: 614 831: 613 1182: 609 1377: 610 1592: 602 1593: 600 1687: 601 1692: 598 1730: 608

478 ILLRP 731: 207 827: 92 828: 93 890: 121 ILN III, 36: 544 V.1, 104: 556 V.1, 130: 557 V.1, 266: 558 V.2, 387: 715 V.3, 739: 560 VII.1, 32: 546 VII.1, 33: 547 VII.1, 34: 548 VIII, 37: 553 ILS 38: 21 887: 78 907: 78 1732: 140 1876: 739 1897: 741 1956: 743 1964: 38 1965: 108.1 1966: 43 1967: 138 1968: 105 1969: 93 1970: 130 1971: 79.1 1972: 114 1973: 71, 45 1974: 129 1975: 245, 84 2071: 334 3001: 412 3039: 397 3255: 172 3402: 46 3513: 61 3549: 713 3625: 696 4050: 712

Index Locorum

4110: 701 4156: 718 4164: 642 4185: 302 4189: 621 4190: 337.1 4215: 408–410 4335: 140 4381: 337.3 4869: 448 4879: 540 4888: 475 4893: 484 4980: 31, 292 4981: 75 4982: 64 4983: 96 4984: 32 4985: 72 4986: 26 4987: 91, 23.2 4988: 104 4989: 28 4990: 63 4990a: 68 4991: 85 4992: 112 4993: 132.1 4993a: 132.2 5008: 198 5029: 97, 163.5 5030: 42, 163.17 5033: 163.2 5036: 163.8 5038: 163.16 5039: 120.2, 163.24 5040: 163.25 5041: 42, 163.17 5043: 163.2 5044: 163.25 5045: 97, 163.5 5046: 163.10 5047: 163.20 5049: 163.2 5300: 189 5450: 384 5466: 586–589

5547: 140 5591: 178 5609: 668.1 5616: 178, 193 5624: 560 5939: 81 5940: 81 5941: 81 6121: 239 6146: 279 6152: 278 6153: 280 6215: 660 6217: 196 6317: 180 6318: 182 6319: 183 6476: 326 6480: 323 6507: 38 6511: 376 6519: 370 6520: 372 6535: 347 6547: 345 6560: 140 6565: 383 6580: 423 6600: 672 6672: 433, 440 6673: 437 6677: 486 6683: 187, 193, 491, 688 6696: 505 6974: 549 7039: 515 7070: 561 7119: 622 7138: 539 7257: 745 7257a: 37 7671: 301 7713: 115 7870: 140 7886: 742 7889: 140 7926: 140

479

Inscriptions

8063c: 140 8204: 51 8380: 86, 166 8702a: 415 8702b: 416 8751: 212 9029: 82, 40 9049: 98 9050: 53 9420: 137, 477 9522: 35.2, 163.29, 165.2

X, 5, 67: 475 X, 5, 75: 690 X, 5, 216: 745 X, 5, 296: 473 X, 5, 302: 468 X, 5, 497: 469 X, 5, 551: 474 X, 5, 874: 466 X, 5, 900: 467 X, 5, 1124: 691 X, 5, 1134: 689

ILSard I, 194: 626

IRT 294: 177

ILTG 343: 541

Lanciani 1881 271 no. 438: 366

InscrAq 129: 448 243: 454 322: 182, 184, 445 475: 453 550: 449 552: 455 555: 461 556: 459 566: 452 567: 687 699: 462 3260: 444

Maionica 1889 294: 450

InscrIt I, 1, 19: 288 III, 1, 20: 334 IV, 1, 626: 658.1 VII, 1, 27: 672 X, 1, 2: 484 X, 1, 103: 487 X, 1, 104: 486 X, 2, 222: 481 X, 2, 229: 699 X, 3, 8: 703 X, 4, 11: 148, 701 X, 4, 79: 491 X, 4, 79a: 490 X, 4, 340: 189, 193, 688

Mancini 1914 381 no. 33: 91.1 383 no. 46: 134.1 383 no. 47: 134.2 390 no. 47: 91.2 Mancini 1935 337.4 Manganaro 1989 164 no. 17: 726 Marangio 1988 200 no. 5: 316 209 no. 18: 315 210–211 no. 19: 308 Pagliara 1969–71 121–26: 329 Pais, SupplIt 28: 481 166: 445 198: 455 211: 462 1082,1: 686

1082,2: 460 1107: 189, 193, 688 1139: 462 Pantoni – Giannetti 1971 436 no. 15: 189 Paribeni 1926 307–308 no. 8: 57 307–308 no. 9: 155 307–308 no. 10: 157 307–308 no. 11: 41 307–308 no. 12: 110, 123 Persichetti 1906 384: 659 Portillo – Rodríguez Oliva – Stylow 1985 202–203 no. 25: 583 Provost et al. 1992 127 no. 429: 514 RIB I, 21: 731 II, 1, 2409,35: 163, 732 RIT 275: 144 335: 144, 736 RIU 5, 1101: 724 22: 623–625 87: 622 Šašel Kos 1979 81 no. 187: 585 SEG 38 (1988), 1444: 235 38 (1988), 1445: 235 Sensi 2012–13 291–296: 402

480 SupplIt 1, 1981, 35 no. 5865: 192.3 1, 1981, 149–150 no. 29: 414 3, 1987, 166–167 no. 31: 348 3, 1987, 200–201 no. 86: 355 5, 1989, 253–254 no. 3: 137, 477 6, 1990, 155–156 no. 15: 492 9, 1992, 190 no. 210: 663 9, 1992, 190 no. 212: 346 18, 2000, 274–275 no. 25: 390 25, 2010, 47–50 no. 16: 200, 202, 205 25, 2010, 50–55 no. 17: 201, 203–204

Index Locorum

25, 2010, 297–298 no. 109 bis: 187, 691 26, 2012, 151–152 no. 31a– b: 198, 685 26, 2012, 152–153 no. 32: 198, 684 Susini 1962 131 no. 76: 324 Susini 2001 133: 675 Tentori Montalto 2020 386 TPN 43: 175 44: 175 86: 175

TPSulp 45: 175 51: 175 52: 175 56: 287.1 Ubi Erat Lupa 26348: 619 Zevi 2018 735.3

General Index The present index does not include references to words that appear in the appendices, with the exception of geographical names. A a basilica: 30, 145 a bybliotheca/bibliotheca: 118, 260 a commentariis: 92–94, 104–105, 260 a sacris: 107, 111, 142 a sacrario: 112–113 a sedibus Aug(ustae vel -usti vel -ustalibus): 72–73, 116–117 a subsellis tribunorum: 58, 71–73, 111, 215–216, 218 accensus, -i: 61, 79 accensi velati: 36 Acta Fratrum Arvalium see Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium actor, -es: 39–40, 160, 166–170, 172–173, 231, 245–246, 251, 253, 260–261, 263 actor alimentorum: 165, 169 actor summarum: 167, 170 Aeclanum: 160, 162–163, 339 aedes Vestae/temple of Vesta: 112, 114, 242 aedilis, -es/aedile(s): 52–55, 61, 64–65, 67, 69–70, 77–78, 120, 127–129, 135, 137–139, 168, 173, 176–178, 194, 201–202, 257 aedituus, -i/caretaker(s) of temples: 63–64, 70, 73, 112–117, 144–148, 151, 168, 226, 242, 255, 260 Aequiculum: 160–161, 234, 254, 347 Aesernia: 152, 348 Africa proconsularis: 140, 154, 383 Agathyrsi: 29 agnomen, -ina: 27–30, 52, 55, 72, 79, 101–102, 108–109, 115, 145, 206, 215, 249–250, 258 agnomen Iulianus: 28, 55, 95, 108, 115, 118, 120

Alba Fucens: 349 Alba Helviorum: 30, 390 Albinius, Lucius: 70 alimenta: 165, 194–195 Altinum: 170, 369 Ameria: 24, 161, 222, 252, 358 Amiternum: 196, 198, 349, 416 amphitheatre: 139, 182–185 Andemantunnum: 394 Annius Milo, Titus: 73 annua (cibaria): 79, 182, 243, 250 Antinum: 161, 350 Antoninus Pius: 39, 88, 106 apparitor, -es/apparitor(s): 16, 35–36, 42, 61, 64, 68, 78–79, 84, 127–130, 137–138, 153, 155, 168, 210, 212, 235 Apulum: 37 Aqua Anio Vetus: 121–122 Aquae S(- - -): 389 Aquae Sextiae: 152, 390 Aquae Ypsitanae: 181, 406 aquarius, -i: 121–122, 204, 260 Aquileia: 144–145, 167, 170, 173–175, 182–185, 187, 192–193, 196–199, 256, 370, 421 Aquileiensis/-es (nomen): 170, 173, 175, 184, 193, 255 Aquincum: 156, 430 Aquitania: 383, 433 ara marmorea: 115 Ara Maxima, cult of Hercules at: 46–47, 69, 256 Ara Pacis: 115 Arausio: 149–150, 427

482

General Index

Arcadius: 158 arcarius/-i: 24–25, 59, 88, 128, 142, 148, 160–164, 170–173, 179, 210, 226, 234, 237, 245–246, 251, 253–254, 260–261, 263 arcarius thermarum: 161, 164, 169 archigallus/-i: 149, 151 architectus, -i: 79 Arelate: 37, 390 Aricia: 139–141, 161, 252, 255, 314 Arria Fadilla: 86, 88 Arval Brethren: 58–59, 64, 74, 91, 93–94, 97–106, 109–110, 217, 251, 259, 262 Asculum: 152, 165, 167, 246, 252, 357 Asisium: 24, 30, 152, 179, 229, 233, 360 Astigi: 155, 384 Ateste: 373 Atria: 252, 373 Attis: 111, 148 augur, -es/augur(s): 58, 89–91, 93, 106, 110, 140, 232 Augusta Emerita: 31, 140, 149–150, 395, 428 Augusta Treverorum: 232, 388 Augustalis/-es: 37, 146–147, 151–152, 155, 168, 229–230, 238–239, 251, 254–255, 263 Augustus: 15, 28, 44, 53–57, 59, 69, 72–73, 76–83, 85, 93, 96–97, 106, 112–121, 123, 142, 146, 152, 180, 203, 239, 248, 259–260, 265 Aulerci: 389 Auximum: 165, 169, 417 Avaricum: 383 B Baetica: 16, 23–24, 30, 34, 37, 61, 63, 127–128, 144, 149–150, 153, 155, 185–186, 212, 220, 222, 227, 234, 252, 255, 384, 425, 432, 436 Balbura: 235 Balsa: 165, 396 basilica Opimia: 28, 51, 117–118 baths: 124, 164, 179–182, 185, 195, 203, 207, 211, 233 Belgica: 188, 191–192, 232, 388, 426, 433, 437 Benatae: 384 Beneventum: 38, 48, 148, 155, 157, 161–163, 173–174, 232, 340 Berua: 235, 423 Bononia: 171, 198–203, 205–206, 367, 419 bonorum possessio: 127, 219–220, 228

Bovillae: 106–107, 109–110, 161, 279–281, 284, 288–290, 292, 295–296, 300–303, 313–314 Bracara Augusta: 34, 83, 181, 434 Britannia: 144, 154, 163, 432 Brixia: 37, 147–148, 161, 170–172, 187, 191–192, 232–233, 374, 422, 436 Brundisium: 134, 142–143, 161, 164, 171–172, 174, 178, 186, 204, 222, 232, 252, 341 Burdigala: 142, 383 C Caecilius, Quintus: 41 Caesaraugusta: 156–157, 196, 201–202, 407, 431 Caesarea (Mauretania Caesariensis): 147, 399, 429 Calama: 403 calator, -es: 64, 98, 100 Cales: 167, 245, 315 Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, Lucius: 114, 242 Caninius Rufus: 169 Cannae: 47, 49 Cantabri: 431 Canusium: 156–158, 239, 343, 415 Capena: 352 Capitol: 71, 114, 242 Capua: 30, 128, 142, 145, 155, 161, 163–164, 200, 202–203, 222, 252, 316, 411 Caracalla: 104, 119, 128 Caralis: 406 Carmo: 185, 384 Carsulae: 154, 172, 187, 191, 193, 360 Carthage: 50 Casinum: 162, 317 castellarius, -i: 121–122 Catius Sabinus, Publius: 46 Celeia: 25, 401 censor, -es/censor(s): 46, 51, 57, 61, 64–65, 74–76, 117, 154, 242 centonarius, -i: 37, 137, 152 cibaria: 79, 243–244, 250, 263 circitores: 121, 123 Cirta: 156, 404, 429 civitas Igaeditanorum: 397 civitas Lingonum: 394 civitas Vangionum: 148, 161, 395 Claudiales (sexviri): 152

General Index

Claudius: 22, 28–29, 33–34, 55, 58, 71–72, 83, 106, 111–114, 121, 151, 215–216, 247–248, 259–260 Claudius Caecus, Appius: 46, 47, 69, 256, 257 Claudius Etruscus: 256 Claudius Marcellus, Marcus (cos. 222, 215, 214, 210, 208 BCE): 48, 214 Claudius Marcellus, Marcus (son of Octavia the Younger): 118–119 Claudius Pulcher, Gaius: 51, 75–76, 117 Clodianus, -i: 28, 52, 107–108 Clodius Pulcher, Publius: 28, 52, 73, 108 Cluentius Habitus Minor, Aulus: 40 Clunia: 407 collegium, -a: 35–40, 84–85, 128, 136–137, 146, 152, 155, 222, 231, 236, 246, 252–253, 255, 258 collegium medicorum: 38 Collippo: 397 Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium: 128, 394 colonia, -ae/colony, -ies: 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 60–62, 124, 127, 140, 144–145, 150–152, 155, 159, 161, 163, 168, 171, 174–176, 186, 192–193, 198, 209, 214, 221, 229, 232, 238–239, 242, 246, 255, 258, 260 commentarienses: 93–94, 101, 104–105 Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium: 58–59, 97–98, 104–105 commoda: 121, 243, 250 Commodus: 150 Comum: 167, 169, 171, 381, 422 Concordia Brixillum: 152, 367 consul, -es/consul(s): 36, 51–53, 58, 64–69, 72, 126, 129, 214–216 contubernalis: 143, 248 contubernium, -a: 114, 242–243, 248 Corduba: 30, 34, 37, 149–150, 186, 222, 252, 255, 385, 425, 436 Corfinium: 350 Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, Gnaeus: 94 Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, Publius: 22 Cornelius Scipio Africanus, Publius: 49–50, 71 Cornelius Sulla, Lucius: 51, 89, 92, 215, 216, 219 Cremona: 375 Crete: 163–164 Cruciniacum: 428

483

Cuicul: 404 Cularo: 169, 427 Cumae: 138–139, 141, 317 Cupressenius Gallus: 109 cura aquarum: 80, 116, 122–123, 203–204 curatores aedium sacrarum et operum locorumque publicorum: 82 curatores aerarii: 160, 173 curatores annonae: 174, 194 curator, -es aquarum: 54, 59, 77–80, 82, 115–116, 120–121, 250, 259, 262 curatores operum publicorum: 59, 77, 81–82, 194, 259 curatores vel praefecti frumenti dandi: 77–79, 259 Cures Sabini: 140, 167, 352 curio maximus: 95 curiones: 59, 95 cymbalistria/-ae: 148, 151 Cyrene: 177 D Dacia: 29, 37, 222, 252, 388 Dacian Wars: 30 Dalmatia: 65, 140, 147, 389, 426 Dea Augusta Vocontiorum: 143, 391 ordo decurionum/decuriones/decurions: 31, 61, 63, 124–127, 136–137, 151–153, 157–159, 170, 173, 178–179, 212, 219–220, 228, 232–240, 242, 245–247, 251, 253–254, 258, 263, 265 Dia: 58, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105 Diocletian: 97, 158–159, 248 Dion: 155, 398 dispensatores: 160, 165–167, 170, 172–173, 226, 246, 251–253, 260–261, 263 Divodurum: 37–38, 172, 188, 191–192, 426, 437 Domitian: 57, 76, 114, 119, 167, 242 donum: 127, 220, 228 Drusus the Elder: 33 Drusus the Younger: 106 duovir, -i/duumvir(s): 61, 63, 125–128, 130, 135–136, 154–156, 160, 168, 173, 178, 219–220 Dyrrhachium: 197, 201–203, 428 E Eburobrittium: 396 Egnatius Rufus, Marcus: 70, 77

484

General Index

Elagabalus: 101, 104–105 emptiones: 30 ex basilica Opimia: 28, 51, 117–118 F Fabrateria: 167–168, 173 fabri: 37, 137, 152, 155, 255 Falerii: 196–197, 364 familia Caesaris: 56, 104, 121, 248 familia limata: 128, 252 familia publica: 15, 30–31, 34, 53–54, 70, 77–78, 111, 137, 146, 171, 180, 222, 251–253, 255 familia publica aquaria: 54–55, 120–123, 243, 250, 262 familia thermensis (thermarum urbanarum): 164, 179–181, 233 Feltria: 136–137, 376 Ferentinum: 205–206, 318 Ferentium: 156, 255 fetiales: 59, 95–96 figlinae: 204–206 firefighting: 53, 54, 70, 77–78, 259 Firmum Picenum: 357 flamen, -nes/flamen, flamines: 34–35, 84–85, 97, 99–100, 143–144 Flavia Solva: 167, 402 Flavius Sabinus, Titus: 114, 242 Forum Traiani: 181, 406 Furius Camillus, Marcus: 45, 65–66 G Galba: 58, 67 Gallia Lugdunensis: 389, 427, 433 Gallia Narbonensis: 30, 37, 142–143, 149–150, 152, 155, 170, 187, 197, 232, 390, 427 Gavius Squilla Gallicanus, Marcus: 109 Genius: 234–235 Genius candidatorum: 171 Genius dominorum: 179, 232–233 Genius forensis: 232 Genius loci: 173–174, 232, 236 Genius ordinis decurionum: 61, 232, 236 Genius populi: 232–233, 236 Germania inferior: 394 Germania superior: 148, 394, 428 Germanicus: 106 Gordian I: 58, 84

Gordian II: 58, 84 Gordian III: 105 H Hadria: 152, 358 Hadrian: 28, 29, 71, 101, 106, 135, 157, 259 haruspex: 61 Heraclea: 24, 61, 154, 242, 346 Herculaneum: 30, 178, 319 Hercules/Hercules: 24, 46–47, 53, 69, 110, 144–145, 184, 256 hereditas: 127, 219–220, 228 Hippo Regius: 403 Hispania citerior: 144, 181, 407, 431 Hispellum: 167, 361 Histonium: 178, 352 Honorius: 158 horologium: 187 horrearius, -i: 173–176, 226, 232 horreum, -a: 158, 173–175, 232 hymnologus, -i: 111–112, 149, 216–217 Hypata: 137, 177 I Iader: 147, 426 Imperial freedman, -en: 112, 114, 217, 256 Imperial freedwoman, -en: 247–248, 250 Imperial slave(s): 15, 26, 54–55, 82, 104, 114, 122–123, 167, 175, 231, 256 Incerulae: 358 Interamna Lirenas: 155, 319 Interamna Praetuttiorum: 358 Intercisa: 212, 430 Ionia: 235 Irni (municipium Flavium Irnitanum): 16, 23, 30, 63, 125–128, 130, 135, 153–156, 160, 173, 176, 178, 213, 219–220, 226–230, 244, 385–386 Italica: 185, 387 Iulia Concordia: 196, 376 Iulia Dertona: 198, 201–203, 421 Iulia Emona: 152, 155, 192, 255, 405 Iulius (nomen): 55, 120, 198 Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Custos Conservator: 238–239 ius gentium: 28–29, 31, 248–249 ius Latii: 227

General Index

Iuturna/Juturna: 80, 115–116 Iuvanum: 205–206, 353 J Julius Caesar, Gaius: 89, 93, 140 Junian Latin(s): 226–228, 230 Juno: 93, 146 Jupiter: 68, 84, 93, 94, 104, 139, 140, 141, 146, 238–239 Jupiter Paganicus: 179, 233 L Labici: 161, 320 Laevinus, Marcus: 69 Lambaesis: 37 Lanuvium: 197, 412 Larinum: 41, 43, 343 Lauriacum: 128, 403 Lavinium: 142, 161–162, 320 lectica: 138–139, 141 lecticarius, -i: 140, 141 lectisternium: 140 Lepidus: 68 Leptis Magna: 177 lex Aelia Sentia: 27, 29, 257 lex Antonia de Termessibus: 21 lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis: 24, 61, 127, 154–156, 156 lex Irnitana: 23, 26, 30, 125–127, 130, 135, 139, 154–155, 160, 173, 176, 178, 181, 202, 218–220, 225–228, 230–231, 237, 240, 243 lex Lauriacensis: 128 lex rivi Hiberiensis: 157 liberta, -ae publica, -ae: 32, 127, 148–149, 222, 226, 228, 230 liberti Caesaris: 191, 207 librarius, -i: 61, 79, 155–156 librarii quaestorii: 36 Licinius, Gaius: 70 licium: 130, 131 lictores/lictors: 52, 55, 61, 67–68, 79, 81, 83, 129–131, 136 Ligures Baebiani: 344 limocincti: 127–130, 135–136, 235, 237, 246–247, 251 limus: 62, 66, 127–128, 130–136, 138–139, 160, 212, 243–244, 251, 262–263

485

Liternum: 152, 155, 161–162, 251, 320 Livia Augusta: 112, 114–115, 138 Livius Salinator, Marcus: 49 Locri Epizephyrii: 149–150, 416 Luceria: 194, 344 Lucius Verus: 234 Lugdunum: 33–34, 209, 221, 390, 427 Lusitania: 140, 149, 395, 428 Lycia et Pamphylia: 235 M Macedonia: 155, 197, 398, 428 macellum: 171, 176–178 Maecenas, Gaius: 56 Maecenas Melissus, Gaius: 56 Magna Mater: 111, 147–151, 217 Mago: 49 mansio Fluvio Frigido: 192–193 manumission: 15–17, 34–35, 37–38, 42–43, 48–49, 52, 58, 126–128, 144–145, 149, 151, 158–159, 180, 186–187, 191–192, 197–199, 201–202, 205, 207, 209, 213–220, 222, 225–231, 233, 235–237, 240, 242, 246–247, 253–255, 258, 261–265 Marcus Aurelius: 38–39, 234, 246 Marius, Gaius: 29, 60–61, 207, 257 Mark Antony: 52–53, 57, 67–68, 140, 257 marmorarius signuarius: 34–35, 186, 226, 260 Mars: 41, 84, 146 Martiales: 40–43 Mauretania Caesariensis: 147, 399, 429 Maximian: 158, 159 Mediolanum: 149, 161, 170, 382, 425 Mediomatrici: 37, 172, 188, 191–192, 426, 437 mensores: 194, 195, 260 Metropolis: 235 Mevania: 361 Miliana: 399 Minerva: 93, 146 Minturnae: 29, 60–62, 207, 257, 321, 412 municipes: 23–24, 26, 30, 34, 38–39, 128, 139, 149, 154, 179, 219–221, 227, 229–230, 233, 243 municipium, -a: 16, 23–26, 30, 32, 60–61, 63, 124–125, 127–128, 139–140, 154–155, 159, 176, 179, 196, 213–214, 219–221, 227–229, 235, 242, 258, 260 Munigua: 387

486

General Index

munus: 127, 219–220, 228 Mutina: 37 N Narbo: 391 nautae Mosallici: 37, 152 Neapolis: 161, 322 negotium: 125, 126 Nemausus: 392 Nemesis: 183, 184, 185, 235 Nero: 22, 58, 72, 111, 215, 216 Nerva: 23, 165, 242 Nescania: 212, 234, 387, 426 Neviodunum: 167, 405 Nomentum: 92, 223, 323 Noricum: 128, 154, 175, 401 Nova Carthago: 27, 32, 49 Nuceria Alfaterna: 323 Numidia: 37, 154, 239, 403, 429 O obsequium: 228, 231–233, 235–236 Octavia the Younger: 56–57, 118–120 Octavian: 56, 68, 96, 118, 163–164 Octavius, Marcus (trib. pl. 133 BCE): 73 officialis, -es: 100, 135–138, 177 officina/-ae: 36, 196, 201, 205–206 operae: 127, 202, 218, 220, 225–226, 228, 253– 254, 261 opifices: 121 Opimius, Lucius: 51, 118 Opitergium: 376 Oppianicus: 41, 43 ordo decurionum/decurio, -nes/decurion(s): 31, 61, 63, 124–127, 136–137, 151–153, 157–159, 170, 173, 178–179, 212, 219–220, 228, 232– 240, 242, 245–247, 251, 253–254, 258, 263, 265 Ossigi Latonium: 387 Ostia: 33, 37, 115, 140, 143, 146, 155, 161, 171, 198, 202–203, 221–222, 251–252, 255–256, 285, 293, 323, 338, 413, 433 Ostiensis/-es (nomen): 203, 222, 255 Otho: 114, 242

P Paestum: 161, 346 pagus: 157–158, 232–234 pagus Interpromium: 234, 417 pagus Iulius: 232 pagus Venerius: 191–192 Pannonia: 65, 175, 192 Pannonia inferior: 404, 430 Pannonia superior: 144, 152, 155, 205, 255, 405, 430 Parentium: 377 Parma: 165, 367 Patavium: 164, 170, 178–181, 206–207, 222, 233, 252, 377, 423 Pax Iulia: 398 peculium: 23, 168, 228, 241, 244–245, 247, 263–265 pedisequus praefecti aerarii militaris: 55, 80 peregrini dediticii: 27, 257 Petelia: 24, 346 Philippi: 398 picarii: 36 Pinarii (gens Pinaria): 46–47, 69, 256 Pisae: 418 Pisaurum: 36, 361, 436 Pitinum Mergens: 362 Placentia: 171, 176, 368 Pliny the Younger: 158, 169, 182, 208–209, 243, 262 plumbarius, -i: 146, 195, 197–204, 225–226, 237, 251, 253–255, 260–261, 263 Poblicius/Publicius (nomen): 32, 34, 37–38, 146–150, 180, 184, 187, 192–193, 198–199, 201, 207, 216–217, 221, 229, 232–233, 235, 256 Pola: 165, 167, 173, 377, 424 pompa circensis: 68, 69 pompa triumphalis: 69 Pompeii: 65, 140, 145, 151, 154, 167–169, 175, 255, 331 pondera: 178 ponderarium: 234 pontifex maximus: 84–85 pontifices/pontiffs: 36, 58–59, 64, 84–86, 88–89, 93–94, 104–106 popae: 133–134

General Index

populus Romanus: 19–22, 24–27, 50, 52, 63, 82–83, 120–121, 214, 243–244, 249, 251, 257–259, 265 Porcianus/-i: 28, 52 Porcius Cato, Marcus (Cato the Elder): 50, 51, 66, 67, 68 Porcius Cato Uticensis, Marcus (Cato the Younger): 27, 28, 52, 67 Porticus of Octavia: 28, 55–57, 118–120 Potentia: 346 Potitii (gens Potitia): 46–47, 69, 256 praeco, -nes: 61, 71, 79, 210, 212 praefecti aerarii militaris: 55, 58, 77, 80–81, 83, 259 praefecti reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani: 82–83 praetor, -es/praetor(s): 46, 50, 52–53, 55, 64–65, 67–69, 78, 80–81, 83, 129 praetor urbanus: 46–47, 53, 69, 110 prison guards/guarding: 207–210, 226 prisoners of war: 26–27, 29–30, 32, 48–50, 61, 216, 218, 258 provinciae: 22, 33–35, 143–144, 163, 186, 208, 258–259 Ptolemy of Cyprus: 27–28, 52 publicani: 42 Puteoli: 68, 128, 155, 161, 175, 336 Q quaestores/quaestors: 36, 58, 64–65, 69, 74–75, 101, 103, 110, 135, 139, 160, 173, 200–203, 251, 262 quattuorvir, -i: 128–130, 135, 137, 155, 160, 167, 173, 177, 181, 229, 235, 255 quindecimviri sacris faciundis: 44, 58, 91–94, 105–106 R Reate: 196–198, 213, 353, 417 Regium Lepidi: 30, 369 Roman citizenship: 43, 51, 83, 154, 218–219, 227–230, 257 Romulus: 96 Rudiae: 344 Rusellae: 196, 203, 364 Rutilius Rufus, Publius: 51, 75

487

S Sabratha: 154 sacerdos, -tes: 53, 148–151 sacrarium divi Augusti: 112–114, 117, 247 Saepinius (nomen): 229 Saepinum: 152, 165, 196–197, 202–203, 229– 230, 255–256, 354 Saguntum: 408 Salernum: 136, 337 saltuarius, -i: 143, 172, 187–189, 191–194, 226, 253, 260–261 saltus: 188–193 Santacris: 165, 408 Sardinia: 50, 67, 181, 272, 406 Sassina: 362 Saturnia: 193, 365 Saturnius (nomen), 193 Savaria: 144, 171, 205, 405, 430 scribae: 36, 61, 71, 79, 84, 130, 155–156 scribae librarii: 36 Segermes: 154 Segobriga: 222, 252, 408 sella curulis: 72, 116 Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius (cos. 215, 213 BCE): 47–49, 51, 214, 216 Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius (cos. 177 BCE): 75–76, 117 Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius (trib. pl. 133 BCE): 73 Sempronius (Sophus), Publius: 256–257 Senatus Consultum Claudianum: 28–29, 31, 71, 250, 259 Sentinum: 252, 255, 362 Sentius Saturninus Vetulo, Gaius: 46, 53, 68 septemviri epulonum: 59, 93–94, 96, 104, 106 Septimius Severus: 119, 171 serva, -ae publica, -ae: 19, 30–32, 35, 126, 147– 148, 222–223, 259, 263 servi Caesaris: 15, 191, 207, 265 servi captivi: 26–27, 32 servi poenae: 182 Servius Romanus: 215 Severus Alexander: 150, 167, 173 sexvir/-i: 37, 151–152, 238–239 sexvir Claudialis: 150–151 sexvir Flavialis: 238–239 Sibylline Books: 44, 53, 91–93, 140

488

General Index

Sicilia: 41, 431 Sigus: 404 silicarii: 121 Silius Decianus, Lucius: 108 Sipontum: 161, 164–165, 194–195, 344 Sirmium: 404 Sitifis: 399–400 slave(s) of the emperor: 22, 39 societas/-tes: 35–37, 258 societas aerariorum: 37 societas monetalis: 36 societas officinae miniariae: 36 societas Sisaponensis: 37 sodales Antoniniani: 106–108, 260 sodales Augustales: 64, 96–97, 106–109, 142, 260 sodales Augustales Claudiales: 101–103, 106– 109, 260 sodales Flaviales: 90–91, 106, 108, 110, 260 sodales Hadrianales: 106, 108, 260 sodales of the Imperial cult: 59, 91, 109–110, 217, 260 sodales Titiales: 106 sodales Titii: 59, 96–97, 106 Spoletium: 197, 418 statio aquarum: 80, 115–116 stationarius/-i: 212 subsellium, -a (tribunorum): 71–73 Sulmo: 119, 234, 417 Sulmonius (nomen): 234 Symmachus: 59, 88 T tabula Heracleensis: 24, 61, 242 tabularius/-i: 37, 152, 155–159, 163, 226, 232, 237, 239, 246–247, 251, 253, 255, 260, 261, 263 tabularium, -a: 51, 74, 75, 117, 154–157, 232 Tarentum: 345 Tarquinius Priscus: 89 Tarquinius Superbus: 44, 91–92 Tarracina: 136, 222, 252, 337 Tarraco: 35, 143–144, 434 Tarraconensis: 34–35, 83, 143, 157, 196, 201, 222, 252, 407, 431, 434 Tarvisium: 378 Tatius, Titus: 96 tectores: 121

tegularii: 204–205, 226 Telesia: 161, 356, 418 temple slaves/ἱερόδουλοι: 42–43, 198 templum divi Augusti: 112–114 Terentius Varro, Gaius: 49 Tergeste: 147–150, 165, 187, 193, 196, 378, 422, 424 Terventum: 162, 356 Tharrus: 406 thermae: 164, 179 Thysdrus: 383 Tiberius: 33, 45, 65–66, 96, 106, 112–113, 115, 118, 135, 138, 175, 260 Tiberius Cup: 45, 65–66, 135 tibicen: 61–62 Tibur: 123, 198, 414 Tiddis: 154 Tifernum Mataurense: 61, 171, 232, 363 Tipasa: 167, 400 Titus: 106, 239 topiarius: 186, 260 Trajan: 30, 103, 132, 135, 158, 165, 182, 208–209, 229, 262 Trebula Mutuesca: 198, 415 Trebula Suffenas: 356 Tres Galliae/Three Gauls: 33–34, 433 tribune(s) of the plebs: 52–53, 58, 64–65, 70–73, 75, 216, 256–257 tribunal: 128–130, 235 trichila: 139–140 triclinium/-a: 139–140, 235 Tridentum: 152, 379 Tuder: 16, 237–240, 262, 363 Tusculum: 146, 151, 161, 338, 415 Tyndaris: 156, 431 U Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: 222, 252, 388 Urso: 24, 61, 127–128, 153–156, 388 Urvinum Mataurense: 165, 363 V Valentia: 392 Valeria (Tarraconensis): 408 Valgius Rufus, Gaius: 130–131 Varduli: 431 Varius Cotyla, Lucius: 52, 67, 257

General Index

Vasio: 37, 155, 232, 392 vectigal/-ia: 21, 42, 168–169 Veii: 45, 65, 162, 173, 366 Veleia: 152, 369 Veleia (Tarraconensis): 409 Venafranius: 193 Venafrum: 167, 193, 222, 252, 338 Venerii: 40–43 Venus: 41–42, 145, 171 Venusia: 345 Vercellae: 171, 382 Veretum: 345 verna, -ae: 35, 71, 122, 186, 194–195, 258–259, 264 Verona: 25, 31, 128–130, 149, 151, 155, 171, 192, 200, 202–203, 235, 379, 425 Verres, Gaius: 41–42 Verulamium: 154 Vespasian: 106, 239 vestiarium: 244 vestitum: 243 Vettulenus Civica Barbarus, Marcus: 109 viator, -es: 61, 71, 131, 211–212 vicaria: 246 vicarius, -i: 236, 245–247, 264 Vicetia: 152, 381 vicomagistri: 54, 70, 77

489

victimarius, -i: 133–134, 142–143 Vienna: 155, 186, 197, 202–203, 393, 427 vigiles: 54, 70, 78 vilicus, -i: 24, 120–122, 160, 167, 170–173, 199–200, 202–203, 232, 245, 251, 253–254, 260–261, 263 vilicus a bybliotheca: 118 vilicus a plumbo: 200 vilicus, -i aerarii: 160, 170–171, 173, 260, 263 vilicus aquae Marciae: 122 vilicus arcarius/arkarius: 161, 170–171, 173 vilicus macelli: 171, 176 vilicus, -i plumbariorum: 24–25, 171, 200 vilicus saeptoru(m) oper(arum vel -um) pub(licarum vel -licorum) agr(ariarum vel -orum): 82 vilicus, -i summarum: 160, 170–171, 173, 226, 260, 263 vindicta: 228, 230 Vipsanius Agrippa, Marcus: 54, 56, 120–121 Virunum: 154, 403 Vitellius: 114, 242 Volaterrae: 366 Volcei: 161, 347 volones: 48–50, 63, 214, 216 Volsinii: 152, 155–156, 167, 255, 366

p o t s da m e r a lt e rt u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e b e i t r äg e

Herausgegeben von Elisabeth Begemann, Daniela Bonanno, Filippo Carlà-Uhink und Anna-Katharina Rieger.

Franz Steiner Verlag

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ISSN 1437–6032

Christoph Batsch / Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser / Ruth Stepper (Hg.) Zwischen Krise und Alltag / Conflit et normalité Antike Religionen im Mittelmeerraum / Religions anciennes dans l’espace méditerranéen 1999. 287 S. mit 18 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07513-8 Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser Kulträume im römischen Alltag Das Isisbuch des Apuleius und der Ort von Religion im kaiserzeitlichen Rom 2000. 668 S., 20 Taf., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-07766-8 Christiane Kunst / Ulrike Riemer (Hg.) Grenzen der Macht Zur Rolle der römischen Kaiserfrauen 2000. X, 174 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07819-1 Jörg Rüpke (Hg.) Von Göttern und Menschen erzählen Formkonstanzen und Funktionswandel vormoderner Epik 2001. 200 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07851-1 Silke Knippschild „Drum bietet zum Bunde die Hände“ Rechtssymbolische Akte in zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen im orientalischen und griechisch-römischen Altertum 2002. 223 S. mit 23 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-08079-8 Christoph Auffarth / Jörg Rüpke (Hg.) ∆Epitomhv th`~ oijkoumevnh~ Studien zur römischen Religion in Antike und Neuzeit. Für Hubert Cancik und Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier 2002. 284 S. mit 11 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08210-5 Ulrike Riemer / Peter Riemer (Hg.) Xenophobie – Philoxenie Vom Umgang mit Fremden in der Antike 2005. XI, 276 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-08195-5

8.

Patricia Just Imperator et Episcopus Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) 2003. 251 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08247-1 9. Ruth Stepper Augustus et sacerdos Untersuchungen zum römischen Kaiser als Priester 2003. 275 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08445-1 10. Alessandro Barchiesi / Jörg Rüpke / Susan Stephens (Hg.) Rituals in Ink A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome held at Stanford University in February 2002 2004. VIII, 182 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08526-7 11. Dirk Steuernagel Kult und Alltag in römischen Hafenstädten Soziale Prozesse in archäologischer Perspektive 2004. 312 S. mit 6 Abb., 26 Plänen und 12 Taf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08364-5 12. Jörg Rüpke Fasti sacerdotum Die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale Funktionspersonal römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und jüdischchristlicher Kulte in der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr. bis 499 n. Chr. Teil 1: Jahres- und Kollegienlisten Teil 2: Biographien Teil 3: Beiträge zur Quellenkunde und Organisationsgeschichte / Bibliographie / Register 2005. 3 Bde. mit insg. 1860 S. und CD-ROM, geb. ISBN 978-3-515-07456-8 13. erscheint nicht

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Dorothee Elm von der Osten / Jörg Rüpke / Katharina Waldner (Hg.) Texte als Medium und Reflexion von Religion im römischen Reich 2006. 260 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08641-7 Clifford Ando / Jörg Rüpke (Hg.) Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome 2006. 176 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08854-1 Corinne Bonnet / Jörg Rüpke / Paolo Scarpi (Hg.) Religions orientales – culti misterici Neue Perspektiven – nouvelles perspectives – prospettive nuove 2006. 269 S. mit 26 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08871-8 Andreas Bendlin / Jörg Rüpke (Hg.) Römische Religion im historischen Wandel Diskursentwicklung von Plautus bis Ovid 2009. 199 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08828-2 Virgilio Masciadri Eine Insel im Meer der Geschichten Untersuchungen zu Mythen aus Lemnos 2007. 412 S. mit 6 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08818-3 Francesca Prescendi Décrire et comprendre le sacrifice Les réflexions des Romains sur leur propre religion à partir de la littérature antiquaire 2007. 284 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08888-6 Dorothee Elm von der Osten Liebe als Wahnsinn Die Konzeption der Göttin Venus in den Argonautica des Valerius Flaccus 2007. 204 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08958-6 Frederick E. Brenk With Unperfumed Voice Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, Religion and Philosophy, and in the New Testament Background 2007. 543 S. mit 39 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08929-6 David Engels Das römische Vorzeichenwesen (753–27 v. Chr.) Quellen, Terminologie, Kommentar, historische Entwicklung 2007. 877 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09027-8

23. Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler Konversion zur Philosophie in der Spätantike Kaiser Julian und Synesios von Kyrene 2008. 309 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09092-6 24. Günther Schörner / Darja Šterbenc Erker (Hg.) Medien religiöser Kommunikation im Imperium Romanum 2008. 148 S. mit 15 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09188-6 25. Helmut Krasser / Dennis Pausch / Ivana Petrovic (Hg.) Triplici invectus triumpho Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit 2008. 327 S. mit 25 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09249-4 26. Attilio Mastrocinque Des Mystères de Mithra aux Mystères de Jésus 2008. 128 S. und 7 Taf. mit 15 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09250-0 27. Jörg Rüpke / John Scheid (Hg.) Bestattungsrituale und Totenkult in der römischen Kaiserzeit / Rites funéraires et culte des morts aux temps impériales 2010. 298 S. mit 64 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09190-9 28. Christoph Auffarth (Hg.) Religion auf dem Lande Entstehung und Veränderung von Sakrallandschaften unter römischer Herrschaft 2009. 271 S. mit 65 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09347-7 29. Pedro Barceló (Hg.) Religiöser Fundamentalismus in der römischen Kaiserzeit 2010. 250 S. mit 26 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09444-3 30. Christa Frateantonio / Helmut Krasser (Hg.) Religion und Bildung Medien und Funktionen religiösen Wissens in der Kaiserzeit 2010. 239 S. mit 8 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09690-4 31. Philippe Bornet Rites et pratiques de l’hospitalité Mondes juifs et indiens anciens 2010. 301 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09689-8

32. Giorgio Ferri Tutela urbis Il significato e la concezione della divinità tutelare cittadina nella religione romana 2010. 266 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09785-7 33. James H. Richardson / Federico Santangelo (Hg.) Priests and State in the Roman World 2011. 643 S. mit 24 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09817-5 34. Peter Eich Gottesbild und Wahrnehmung Studien zu Ambivalenzen früher griechischer Götterdarstellungen (ca. 800 v.Chr. – ca. 400 v.Chr.) 2011. 532 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09855-7 35. Mihály Loránd Dészpa Peripherie-Denken Transformation und Adaption des Gottes Silvanus in den Donauprovinzen (1.–4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.) 2012. X, 312 S. und 13 Taf. mit 35 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09945-5 36. Attilio Mastrocinque / Concetta Giuffrè Scibona (Hg.) Demeter, Isis, Vesta, and Cybele Studies in Greek and Roman Religion in Honour of Giulia Sfameni Gasparro 2012. 248 S. mit 48 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10075-5 37. Elisabeth Begemann Schicksal als Argument Ciceros Rede vom „fatum“ in der späten Republik 2012. 397 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10109-7 38. Christiane Nasse Erdichtete Rituale Die Eingeweideschau in der lateinischen Epik und Tragödie 2012. 408 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10133-2 39. Michaela Stark Göttliche Kinder Ikonographische Untersuchung zu den Darstellungskonzeptionen von Gott und Kind bzw. Gott und Mensch in der griechischen Kunst 2012. 360 S. und 32 Taf. mit 55 Abb. ISBN 978-3-515-10139-4

40. Charalampos Tsochos Die Religion in der römischen Provinz Makedonien 2012. 278 S. und 44 Taf. mit 58 Abb., 5 Ktn. und 3 Plänen, kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09448-1 41. Ioanna Patera Offrir en Grèce ancienne Gestes et contextes 2012. 292 S. mit 22 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10188-2 42. Vera Sauer Religiöses in der politischen Argumentation der späten römischen Republik Ciceros Erste Catilinarische Rede – eine Fallstudie 2012. 299 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10302-2 43. Darja Šterbenc-Erker Die religiösen Rollen römischer Frauen in „griechischen“ Ritualen 2013. 310 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10450-0 44. Peter Eich / Eike Faber (Hg.) Religiöser Alltag in der Spätantike 2013. 293 S. mit 24 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10442-5 45. Nicola Cusumano / Valentino Gasparini / Attilio Mastrocinque / Jörg Rüpke (Hg.) Memory and Religious Experience in the Greco-Roman World 2013. 223 S. mit 24 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10425-8 46. Veit Rosenberger (Hg.) Divination in the Ancient World Religious Options and the Individual 2013. 177 S. mit 11 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10629-0 47. Francesco Massa Tra la vigna e la croce Dioniso nei discorsi letterari e figurativi cristiani (II–IV secolo) 2014. 325 S. mit 23 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10631-3 48. Marco Ladewig Rom – Die antike Seerepublik Untersuchungen zur Thalassokratie der res publica populi romani von den Anfängen bis zur Begründung des Principat 2014. 373 S. mit 17 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10730-3

49. Attilio Mastrocinque Bona Dea and the Cults of Roman Women 2014. 209 S. mit 16 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10752-5 50. Julietta Steinhauer-Hogg Religious Associations in the Post-Classical Polis 2014. 189 S. mit 18 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10646-7 51. Eike Faber Von Ulfila bis Rekkared Die Goten und ihr Christentum 2014. 300 S. mit 5 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10926-0 52. Juan Manuel Cortés Copete / Elena Mun ˜ iz Grijalvo / Fernando Lozano Gómez (Hg.) Ruling the Greek World Approaches to the Roman Empire in the East 2015. 192 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11135-5 53. Mirella Romero Recio (Hg.) La caída del Imperio Romano Cuestiones historiográficas 2016. 220 S. mit 9 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10963-5 54. Clifford Ando (Hg.) Citizenship and Empire in Europe 200–1900 The Antonine Constitution after 1800 years 2016. 261 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11187-4 55. Valentino Gasparini (Hg.) Vestigia Miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80° anniversario 2016. 786 S. mit 136 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-10747-1 56. James J. Clauss / Martine Cuypers / Ahuvia Kahane (Hg.) The Gods of Greek Hexameter Poetry From the Archaic Age to Late Antiquity and Beyond 2016. XIV, 458 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11523-0 57. Katharina Waldner / Richard Gordon / Wolfgang Spickermann (Hg.) Burial Rituals, Ideas of Afterlife, and the Individual in the Hellenistic World and the Roman Empire 2016. 264 S. mit 25 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11546-9

58. Jessica Schrader Gespräche mit Göttern Die poetologische Funktion kommunikativer Kultbilder bei Horaz, Tibull und Properz 2017. 314 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11700-5 59. Timo Klär Die Vasconen und das Römische Reich Der Romanisierungsprozess im Norden der Iberischen Halbinsel 2017. 290 S. mit 7 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11739-5 60. Hans-Ulrich Wiemer (Hg.) Kulträume Studien zum Verhältnis von Kult und Raum in alten Kulturen 2017. 307 S. mit 68 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11769-2 61. Christopher Degelmann Squalor Symbolisches Trauern in der Politischen Kommunikation der Römischen Republik und Frühen Kaiserzeit 2018. 364 S. mit 6 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11784-5 62. Lara Dubosson-Sbriglione Le culte de la Mère des dieux dans l’Empire romain 2018. 551 S. mit 52 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-11990-0 63. Daniel Albrecht / Katharina Waldner (Hg.) „Zu Tisch bei den Heiligen …“ Askese, Nahrung und Individualisierung im spätantiken Mönchstum 2019. 122 S. mit 1 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12087-6 64. Katharina Degen Der Gemeinsinn der Märtyrer Die Darstellung gemeinwohlorientierten Handelns in den frühchristlichen Martyriumsberichten 2018. 347 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12153-8 65. Roberto Alciati (Hg.) Norm and Exercise Christian asceticism between late antiquity and early middle ages 2018. 202 S. mit 3 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12154-5

66. Isolde Kurzmann-Penz Zur literarischen Fiktion von Kindheit Überlegungen zu den apokryphen Kindheitsevangelien Jesu im Rahmen der antiken Biographie 2018. 232 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12152-1 67. Tanja Susanne Scheer (Hg.) Natur – Mythos – Religion im antiken Griechenland / Nature – Myth – Religion in Ancient Greece 2019. 297 S. mit 13 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12208-5 68. Javier Andreu Pintado / Aitor Blanco-Pérez (Hg.) Signs of weakness and crisis in the Western cities of the Roman Empire (c. II–III AD) 2019. 232 S. mit 42 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12406-5 69. Marianne Wifstrand Schiebe Das anthropomorphe Gottesbild Berechtigung und Ursprung aus der Sicht antiker Denker 2020. 282 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12419-5 70. Adam Ziółkowski From Roma quadrata to la grande Roma dei Tarquini A Study of the Literary Tradition on Rome’s Territorial Growth under the Kings 2020. 352 S. mit 17 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12451-5 71. Eike Faber / Timo Klär (Hg.) Zwischen Hunger und Überfluss Antike Diskurse über die Ernährung 2020. 358 S. mit 15 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12628-1 72. Claudia Beltrao da Rosa / Federico Santangelo (Hg.) Cicero and Roman Religion Eight Studies 2020. 154 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12643-4

73. Vladimir D. Mihajlovic / Marko A. Jankovic (Hg.) Pervading Empire Relationality and Diversity in the Roman Provinces 2020. 332 S. mit 42 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12716-5 74. Attilio Mastrocinque / Joseph E. Sanzo / Marianna Scapini (Hg.) Ancient Magic Then and Now 2020. 451 S. mit 53 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-12796-7 75. Chris Mowat Engendering the Future Divination and the Construction of Gender in the Late Roman Republic 2021. 201 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12934-3 76. Cordula Bachmann / Johanna Leithoff / Katharina Waldner (Hg.) Liminalisierung Konfigurationen des Übergangs in antiken Kulturen 2021. 174 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-12933-6 77. Oliver Bräckel Flucht auswärtiger Eliten ins Römische Reich Asyl und Exil 2021. 347 S. mit 8 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-13080-6 78. Francesca Mazzilli / Dies van der Linde (Hg.) Dialectics of Religion in the Roman World 2021. 297 S. mit 14 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-13066-0

Slavery played a crucial economic and social role in Roman history. Unfree individuals were employed to perform a wide range of duties in both the domestic environment and the public sphere. Along with the large population of private slaves who were owned by individual masters, and the smaller but influential group of Imperial slaves who were property of the emperors, there was another category of slaves: the so-called ‘public slaves’ (servi publici). They were unfree individuals, owned by a community rather than a single master. Based on primary evidence, Franco Luciani aims to provide a comprehensive study of

public slavery in the Roman world. By focusing on the use of public slaves in both Rome and in other cities of the Western Empire, as well as on the development of public slavery from the Middle Republic to Late Antiquity, Luciani attempts to define public slavery and to explore its historical significance across time. He also analyses the role played by public slaves in the life of the community they belonged to. Specific attention is then drawn to manumission of public slaves and the legal status of freed public slaves. Finally, Luciani addresses the issue of the position of public slaves in Roman society.

ISBN 978-3-515-13140-7

www.steiner-verlag.de

9 783515 131407

Franz Steiner Verlag