"p. oxy". 3312 and joining the household of caesar

"P. Oxy". 3312 and Joining the Household of CaesarAuthor(s): Paul WeaverSource: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 149 (2004), pp. 196-204Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20191907 .

Accessed: 02/10/2013 13:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:48:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=habelt

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20191907?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


196

F. Oxy. 3312 and Joining the Household of Caesar*

A casual reference to an otherwise unknown Herminos in a private letter of second century date on a

papyrus from Oxyrhynchus1 has disturbed the received wisdom about the ways of gaining entry to

appointments in the subequestrian ranks of the imperial administration. It reads (lines 10-13): y?vcoa?Ke)

ov[v] I on 'Epp?vo? aTrfjXGcfv i? fPtop.[r|v] | Kai ?neXevQepo? ?y?veTlo] | Kaioapo? iva ?miaa

Xa?[r]]. 'You should know that Herminos has gone off to Rome and become a freedman of Caesar so he

can get official posts.' On the face of it, Herminos appears to accept that, to get a post (officium) in the

imperial service, he has to belong to the household of the emperor, the familia Caesaris, as a slave or

freedman. As the editor J. R. Rea suggests,2 'the straightforward background to assume is that Herminos

was a servus Caesaris who had saved enough money to buy his freedom'. This would follow the normal

pattern of a slave of the emperor paying from his peculium for manumission a sum equivalent to his

market value at the time. If he had been granted the special privilege of free manumission (gratuita

libertas), some mention of that fact might have been expected.3 A previous post at slave level in the

imperial service, perhaps on an imperial estate in Egypt, as the basis for promotion to a freedman career,

would need to be assumed. Also missing is the imperial slave status indication Caes(aris) ser(vus) or its

equivalent and, indeed, any hint of servile status. In this context, a single personal name is scarcely decisive. Perhaps all this was well known to the recipient of Herminos' news and in any case was not

felt necessary to include in a private letter of this kind. Nevertheless, as G. H. R. Horsley points out,4

the possibility remains open that he was not a slave at all, but was free or even freeborn. If so, the

impression is created that an outsider could gain access to posts in the imperial service by simply

offering to enlist as an imperial freedman, an Augusti libertus, whether he was someone else's freedman

or not. Herminos is optimistic and ambitious. At the age of thirty or thereabouts - the regular age for

ordinary manumission in the imperial familia? - he envisages a freedman career of more than one post

in succession (?mKia), each presumably to be held in a Greek-speaking eastern province rather than in

Rome or Italy. It is difficult to see how he could hope to achieve such a status, unless he was already a

slave of the emperor (or able somehow to become one). Or was he disingenuously seeking to make an

impression on a friend or relative, or just singularly na?ve and misinformed?

Important questions arise. How were subequestrian officials recruited for the administrative (and

domestic) service of the emperor and did this differ over time? How frequently were they recruited from

outside the familia Caesaris! At what level might they expect to enter the emperor's service, that is,

could a career begin after manumission directly at freedman level in a senior or intermediate post rather

than in junior posts at slave level? A review of the possibilities is in order.

From its beginnings under Augustus, this level of the administration was decisively patrimonial in

character. Recruits were slaves, both from those born as slaves inside the familia and, to a lesser extent,

from slaves acquired by the emperor from other owners through inheritance, bequest, gift, and very

rarely, by purchase. Many of those born within the familia declare their origin by the use of the term

verna in their status indication, e.g. Caesaris verna, and some of those acquired from outside reveal

I am grateful to Jane Gardner and to members of the Classics Seminar at the ANU for helpful advice and criticism.

Inscription references are to CIL unless stated otherwise.

1 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 3312, in Vol. XLVI, ed. J. R. Rea (London 1978); cf. G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents illus

trating early Christianity, Vol 3 (1983) 7-9. 2 P. Oxy. 46, p. 100.

3Boulvert,DF98. 4 Cf. Horsley, New Does. 3, p. 8.

5 Weaver 97ff.



Joining the Household of Caesar 197

their source, up to Hadrian's reign at least, by the use of an agnomen (additional cognomen) ending in

-(i)anus derived from their previous master, e.g. Maecenatianus, Antonianus, Pallantianus.6 Posts in the

administrative service were keenly sought after, those in the domestic service of the emperor's residences and properties less so, but by no means every imperial slave could expect to be employed in

either. Generally speaking, once the service had settled down through the Augustan period, recruits

learned their skills and earned their manumission after several years of service, at or about the statutory

age of thirty. Only then, with the status of Augusti libertus, did they gain access to the more senior (and more lucrative) posts. A natural hierarchy of slave and freedman officials developed, that is, some posts were always or predominantly held by freedmen, e.g. procurator, proximus, tabularius, a commentariis,

others by slaves, e.g. arcarius, adiutor.1 Based on data such as average age at manumission, age at

death, and duration of marriage, it is possible to match age, especially age at death, with official post held.8 This shows within the freedman sector a career heavily based on seniority, e.g. from tabularius to

procurator. Detailed career inscriptions of the equestrian kind are comparatively rare in the familia Caesaris at any level. Epitaphs record for the most part only the highest post reached over all years of

service. This makes it difficult to detect initial appointments being made directly at points on the

freedman career, bypassing those at slave level. Exceptions were dictated by necessity or convenience, as in the initial post-triumviral period, especially in the Greek-speaking eastern provinces. In any case,

the only legitimate way open to becoming a freedman of the emperor -

any emperor - was to have been

the slave of an emperor, a Caesaris servus, either by birth or enslavement during one's lifetime and then

to have been formally manumitted by that or a subsequent emperor. Ownership of all Caesaris servi and

the right of patronage over all Augusti libera, including those who had been freed by previous emperors,

passed automatically to each succeeding emperor.9 On every count, a free Herminos was seemingly

presented with serious, if not insuperable difficulties.

There were certainly unsuccessfull attempts to gain improper or unauthorised entry to the familia Caesaris at this level. The best known of these is by the wealthy freedman of the deceased M. Claudius

Marcellus Aeserninus early in the reign of Claudius who attempted arbitrarily to pose as an imperial freedman because of the power and influence (potentia) that would bring.10 In more unsettled times

under Vitellius, there was a brief window of opportunity when some freedmen of those who had their

patronal rights restored on their return from exile were found to have arbitrarily 'crossed over'

(transgressi) to the household of the emperor and become more powerful than their former masters

themselves.11 That is till Vespasian restored the status quo. Again the theme of potentia is underlined -

access to the influence (and perceived wealth and opportunities for corruption) that went with official

posts in the emperor's service.

6 For the detailed list and discussion: Chantraine 293-338; cf. Weaver 212ff.; Boulvert, DF 12ff.

7 The outstanding anomaly is the influential role of dispensatores who were always slaves, and often aged over 30 and

wealthy. For further details: Boulvert, EAI421 ff.; Weaver 200ff.

8 Boulvert, EAI 374ff., 419ff.; Weaver 241ff. 9 For a detailed treatment of the legal implications of such ownership and patronage by the emperor, see Boulvert, DF

lOff. For the significance of the status indication of the small number of Augustorum liberti in the period before the joint

emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, see Chantraine 225ff., Historia 14, 1975, 603ff.; Weaver 60ff.

10 Pliny, NH 12.12: Claudio principe Marcelli Aesernini libertus, sed qui se potentiae causa Caesaris liberas adop

tasset.

11 Tacitus, Hist. 2.92.3: gratum primoribus civitatis etiam plebs adprobavit, quod (Vitellius) rever sis ab exilio iura

libertorum concessisset, quamquam id omni modo servilia ingenia corrumpebant, abditis pecuniis per occultos et ambitiosos

sinus, et quidam in domum Caesaris transgressi atque ipsis dominis potentiores. Cf. Chantraine 8If., where he conjectures that the problematic passage in Suetonius, Nero 32.2: (liberti) qui sine probabili causa eo nomine essent, quo fuissent ullae

familiae quas ipse (Nero) contingeret might refer to freedmen with his imperial or closely associated nomina, i.e. Claudius

(his adoptive father's), Antonius (Claudius' mother's) or Domitius (his natural father's), in addition making (unwarranted) use of the imperial status indication Aug(usti) lib(ertus).



198 P. Weaver

Less obviously illicit, but nevertheless anomalous and very rare, are cases of non-imperial nomina

used in inscriptions in conjunction with the imperial status indication Aug. lib.', e.g. C. Asinius Aug. lib.

Paramythius Festianus (6.12533 = 34057 =

10.2112), C. Plotius Aug. lib. Gemellus (6.24316), and M.

Macrius Trophimus Aug. lib. (8.12922). None are recorded as having held official posts and presumably did not do so. The anomaly consists in the irregular use of the imperial status indication by freedmen of

privad, thus claiming membership of the emperor's household, or at least a close association with it.

This can hardly be inadvertent. They are not slaves who had been formally freed by the emperor but

who adopted, or were allowed to adopt, the nomen of a previous non-imperial owner as some kind of

tribute to the latter.12 A connection with the imperial household through friends or the spouse of an

emperor or even through the families of the freedmen's spouses themselves, is unlikely. Thus, a link

with the proconsular friend of Augustus, C. Asinius Gallus, might be suggested for C. Asinius Para

mythius Festianus, but dating criteria and the agnomen 'Festianus' suggest an unknown C. Asinius

Festus as his previous owner.13 C. Plotius Gemellus can at best have only a remote connection with

Trajan's wife, Pompeia Plotina. The nomen 'Plotia', in any case, is found earlier in the imperial house

hold, with a Plotia Venusta married to a freedman of Claudius or Nero, Ti. Claudius Phoebus. The

nomen of M. Macrius Trophimus (even if misspelt for 'Marcius') can have only a tenuous connection

with Trajan's sister Ulpia Marciana, and so on. None of these suggestions stands up to scrutiny. The

problem is abuse of the imperial status indication rather than an irregular or arbitrary choice of nomen.14

Their cases are quite distinct from those where the status indication Aug. lib. = Aug(ustae) lib(ertus) is

used by freedmen of imperial women who had been honoured with the title Augusta in conjunction with

a 'non-imperial' nomen, e.g. Domitia wife of Domitian, Pompeia Plotina wife of Trajan, Vibia Sabina

wife of Hadrian.15

If the status of slave is necessary to get into the emperor's familia, the circumstances of enslave

ment also need to be considered. The majority, perhaps a large majority, of Caesaris servi were born

into slavery. The proportion certainly increased along with the prestige of imperial slave-freedman posts as the principate unfolded. An indication of this is the increasing use of the term verna in the status

indication of imperial slaves, including those in the administrative service, to the point that by the mid

second century, about the time when Herminos may be presumed to be making his move, the Caesaris

vernae would have predominated as recruits. These could include children of the frequent unions of

imperial slaves with freeborn women (ingenuae).16 The purchasing of slaves by the emperor through the mechanism of the regular slave trade for any

purpose must always have been exceptional. There is little direct evidence to suggest that they were.

Traces of slaves having been bought for the emperor in the slave market are betrayed in inscriptions by the words emp(tus), empticius11 but all except one lack the formal imperial slave indication Caes(aris

ser(vus) or equivalent. The best known, the Phrygian slave Cleander, is duly found in the literary

12 As suggested by Boulvert, DF 73. The name of M. Pomponius Dionysius, mentioned by Cicero (Att. 4.15.1) is not a

parallel. He was a freedman of T. Pomponius Atticus and was given the praenomen M(arcus) in deference to his working

relationship with M. Tullius Cicero; his nomen is not involved. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht 3. 427 n. 3; Chantraine 83 n. 93.

13 Chantraine 79 n. 78.

14 For a full discussion of these and other irregular nomina of Augusti liberti, see esp. Chantraine 79ff; cf. Weaver 36f.

For the possible relevance of the SC Claudianum of AD 52, whereby the son of a freeborn woman cohabiting with another

person's slave might be reduced to the status of slave, but on manumission retained their mother's original nomen, and the

reform of Hadrian, restoring the rule of the ius gentium so that, if the woman (by agreement with the master) remained free

herself, her child was freeborn (Gaius 1.84: ut cum ipsa mutier libera permaneat, liberum pari?t), see Chantraine 87f.;

Weaver 37. In these circumstances, one would expect many more instances to be on record.

15Seebelow,p.201ff. 16 For the status of these children and the relevance of the SC Claudianum of AD 52, see Weaver 177f.; 199.

17 E.g. 6. 4884 = ILS 7917a, 8919 = ILS 1803, 33795.




sources.18 He was the notoriously corrupt a cub?culo of Commodus and is unique for having allegedly sold twenty-five consulships in one year! Even the previous external sources of supply by bequest, gift etc. can no longer be readily traced from early in the reign of Hadrian after imperial slaves and

freedmen, for whatever reasons, ceased using agnomina derived from previous masters, although these

latter sources no doubt continued.19 The imperial familia did not include the slaves of the condemned

(damnati) and others convicted of criminal offences whose confiscated estates and property went to the

fiscus and could be sold or otherwise disposed of. They did not automatically acquire the imperial status

indication Caes. ser. or Aug. lib., if subsequently manumitted.20 Other possible ways of enslavement, such as exposure or sale of children, are not relevant, while voluntary sale into slavery is an improbable

way of entering a restricted and entrenched elite. Only genuine slaves of the emperor need apply. On the other hand, at least in the early phase of the principate, prisoners of war who were freeborn

(ingenui, peregrini) and wealthy and even with high social standing in their native towns, instead of

being ransomed, were sometimes enslaved and formally recruited for particular purposes. The more

prominent gained attention or notoriety also in the literary sources, not on inscriptions or in papyri.

Leaving aside former pirates turned naval commanders during the triumvirate, among the best known in

the war-prisoner category under Augustus are C. Iulius Licinus, a Gaul captured and later freed by Julius Caesar, possibly in his will, or by his heir Octavian. He was appointed by the latter to a powerful

procuratorship in his native Lugdunum, a position which he then proceeded to abuse 21 and, on the

intellectual side, C. Iulius Hyginus from Spain, who some thought was from Alexandria, brought to

Rome as a young slave by Julius Caesar after the capture of that city. He was later freed by Augustus who appointed him librarian of the Palatine Library.22

The contribution of this category of freeborn enslaved in the Greek-speaking provinces is especially

interesting. The need for Greeks, including freedmen, in the imperial service was evident to emperors

right from the time of Augustus.23 Symbolic of what was to come is C. Iulius Zoilus of Aphrodisias, a

Carian city in the province of Asia. He is a very early example of imperial freedman as public bene

factor with political influence rather than a direct administrative role. A freedman of Octavian in the

civil war period of the 30s BC, he was on close personal terms with the triumvir, having secured the

freedom of his native city in 39/38 BC: 'You know how I love my dear Zoilos; I have freed his native

city and recommended it to Antonius.'24 He proudly displays his name, including his freedman status

indication, on the impressive entablature across the centre of the remodelled theatre stage at

Aphrodisias, dated to 30/28 BC. It reads: 'Gaius Iulius Zoilus, freedman of Caesar, son of the Divine

Iulius, after being stephanephoros for the tenth time in succession, (gave) the stage and the proscenium with all the ornaments on it to Aphrodite and the Demos.'25 Even more remarkable, however, is that he

18 His life and death is duly recorded in two literary sources, Cassius Dio (Xiph.) 72.12-13 and Herodian 1. 12.3-13.6.

19 See above, n. 6.

20 For the limits on the inheritance of patronal rights over freedmen, see below, p. 201.

21 Juvenal 1.106-9; 14.305-8; Schol. ad Juv. 1.109 (p.llf. Wessner); Suetonius, Aug. 67: (Augustus) multos libertorum

in honore et usu m?ximo h?buit, ut Licinum et Celadum aliosque.', Cassius Dio 54. 21.2-8; Seneca, Apocol. 6: (Luguduni) ubi Licinus multis annis regnavit; Schol. ad Persium 2.36 (Baehrens, Poet. Lat. Min. 4. 64); Martial 8. 3.5-7; Macrobius, Sat.

2. 4 24. The epigraphic sources are, at best, minimal - two simple funerary dedications, one each from Narbo and Rome

(12.4892, 6.20311), to freedmen of a (C. Iulius) Licinus who is without status indication. On Licinus, see Susan Treggiari, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford 1969) 190f.; RE 13. 501f.

22 Suetonius, Gramm. 20. He was a friend of Ovid (Tristia 3.14) and a prolific author. Cf. Diehl, RE 10.628-36; J.

Christes, Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom (Wiesbaden 1974) 72-82.

23 See G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford 1965) 30ff., esp. 37-40.

24 co? ZcolXov t?v ep?v c|>lXo? emoraoai- ttjv TrcrrpLOa avro?) f|Xeu0?p?Xja Kai 'Avtcovlw auveaTnaa (Reynolds,

AR 10). On the remarkable social and civic significance of Zoilus in Aphrodisias, see Reynolds, pp. 156-64; on the sculp ture: R. R. R. Smith, Aphrodisias 1: The Monument of C. Iulius Zoilus (1993).

25 Tc?lo? 'IouXio? ZwiXo? 6eo0 'IodXlou u[i]o? Kaiaapo? ?neXevQepos crre(|)avr|(|)opf|aac t? 8?Kcrrov ??fj? t? Xoyf|Lov Kai t? TrpoaK?|viov a?v tol? ?v a?rcoi TTpociKoauripacav hrdcav 'A4>po8?Tr] Kai tco] A^pw (Reynolds, AR



200 P. Weaver

makes no mention of his freedman status in an earlier series of dedications at Aphrodisias that record

his holding two priesthoods for life, but not his long (ten-year) tenure of a prestigious local honour, the

stephanephorate.26 His wealth and social standing could not have accumulated overnight. He was most

likely both a casualty and a beneficiary of the civil war, captured and enslaved by Julius Caesar and

later freed by Octavian, perhaps in accordance with Caesar's will. He alerts us to the fact that imperial freedmen can be originally freeborn and important in their own communities.27

A more modest example, from the fully developed principate under the Flavians, makes it clear that

imperial freedmen who serve in one capacity or another in the imperial administration can have freeborn

family roots or marriage connections in the localities in which they are found. Two recently discovered

inscriptions from Appia in Phrygia in the province of Asia, dated to AD 79, involve an imperial

freedman, T. Flavius Helius, employed as eirenophylax (keeper of the peace, policeman?), probably in

relation to imperial estates or quarries in the region. The first records T. Flavius Helius, a freedman of

Vespasian, eirenophylax (police warden?) of the eparchy (district), son of Glycon son of Timaeus, of

(the town of) Agr?stea, who 'in accordance with a vow made this dedication on behalf of the Emperors,

himself, his wife Sextilia Hedone, daughter of Publius (Sextilius), and his son T. Flavius Sextilianus

Helius to Zeus Bennios, god of his native town Agr?stea and of Zbourea and to his ancestral gods'.28 The parallel inscription is a dedication in similar terms by his wife Sextilia Hedone.29 She is

freeborn (with filiation), as is their son T. Flavius Sextilianus Helius. Freeborn status is common, even

for wives of imperial slaves.30 But Helius senior, though previously a slave, albeit of the emperor,

records not only his own filiation (a mark of free birth) as son of Glycon, but also his father's filiation

as son of Timaios, very much in the Greek manner. Retention of filiation by a freedman is very rare in

inscriptions, even in the familia Caesaris. A freedman, as a former slave, cannot have a legal father,

only a patron who manumited him.31 The dedications to 'Zeus Bennios of his native land and his

ancestral gods' make his local origin and that of his wife quite clear, but also show that he himself was

almost certainly freeborn, like his father, wife and son. How he was enslaved remains unclear, as does

his previous career. His post as eirenophylax, if on one of the imperial estates, was not at a level that

36). He has a claim to the earliest known form of the imperial freedman status indication: GeoO 'IouXlou u[l]od Kaiaapog

dm-eXeijGepos. 26

Reynolds, AR 37 (38 BC): cf. ib. 33, 38. 27 For a detailed treatment of imperial freedmen and slaves as public benefactors and their social links with cities in

Italy and the provinces, see Boulvert, DF 216-30.

28 T. Drew-Bear, ANRWII 18.3 1967-77, no. 15 = R. A. Kearsley, Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia (Inschriften

griechischer St?dte aus Kleinasien 59) (Bonn 2001) 118f. no. 144: Kirkpinar, nr. Appia: Phrygia:

?m ?m?Ttov Ovecnaaiavo?) Kaiaapo? t? 9' Kai Tltod Kaioapo? t? C Tlto? ?EXa?ioc c'HXio? OueaTraaiavo?

Kaioapo? aTfeXei30epo? dpr|vo(|>?Xa? Tfj? eTfapxeia? uLo? 8? rXUKOjyo? Teiumou 'AypoaTeavoi) inr?p tojv

Ze?aaTwv Kai irn?p ?auToO Kai imep Ze^TiXia? IIottXlou GuyaTpo? cH8ovf|? rq? eavro?) ywaiKo? Kal inr?p Tltou

OXa?iou Ze^TiXiavo? cHXlou dlo? l8lod Ail BevvLco Tfj? ?auToO TraTpiSo? 'Aypocrreajv Kai Z?oupTjac Kai tol?

TraTptoLC 06OL? e?^apevo? ?v?0r|Key. 29 Drew-Bear 1977-81, no. 16 =

Kearsley 118f. no. 144. It omits two items of nomenclature: the imperial status

indication (Oi>eaTracaa|vo?) Kaiaapos aTTeXei30epo?) of her husband (but not his filiation or occupational details), and also

the second cognomen (c'HXio?) of their son T. Flavius Sextilianus Helius. His first cognomen 'Sextilianus' is clearly derived

from his mother's nomen. As she was freeborn, it can scarcely be an agnomen in -ianus, derived from a previous master (in

any case, already uncommon by the Flavian period). Helius junior was evidently born after the manumission of his similarly

named father.

30 Cf. Weaver 113ff. 31 There is only one other case in the familia Caesaris material to my knowledge that records both filiation and imperial

freed-indication, viz. C. Iulius Aug. 1. Felix Accavonis f(ilius). (A. Beschaouch, CRAI 1979, 395-9 = AE 1979, 656, from

Henchir el-Messaouer, nr. Bou Arada, Africa: C IULIUS AUG L FELIX / ACCAVONIS F PIUS / VIXIT ANNIS LXV H S

E / C IULIUS C L FELIX F PATRI / POSTERISQ EIUS D S P F. Felix, who died aged 65, was the freeborn son of Accavo, a peregrine with a name of Celtic origin. His son, also named Felix, who dedicated the tomb, appears to have been born a

slave and freed by his father. A fragmentary inscription from the same locality probably records a brother of the imperial

freedman: 'Romulus [? Acc]avonis f.' (AE 1980, 912).




would be likely to require his attendance at Rome for appointment or promotion.32 Imperial freedmen

and slaves with local ties and marriage connections played an unobtrusive but significant role in the

Romanised Greek communities of Asia Minor in which their family units reflect a mixture of Roman

and Greek language, custom and law.33

Herminos is reported as going to Rome (whether on request or on his own initiative is not stated)

and having become (?y?vero) an Augusti libertus in order to qualify for appointments directly at

freedman level. In what capacity, if he was not already a Caesaris servusl One further avenue might seem open

- as the slave or freedman of someone related to the emperor by ties of family or close

friendship which might loosely justify a claim to belong to the emperor's household. If Herminos was

already & freedman in this category, however, the emperor could only legally inherit patronal rights (ius

patronatus) over him, whether by will or intestate succession, if he (the emperor) was a suus heres of

the original patron, that is, an heir who had been under the patria potestas of the deceased patron at the

time of his death.34 By the second century this avenue had closed. With the Antonine practice of

choosing a successor by adoption, each succeeding emperor inherited from his predecessor the patronal

rights over freedmen who were already Augusti liberti?5 Within the imperial succession from Tiberius

to Vespasian, Tiberius, as the adopted son of Augustus, inherited such patronal rights according to the

norms of Roman private law; as did Gaius from Tiberius,36 despite ignoring the rights of his co-heir,

Tiberius, son of Drusus.37 With Claudius, however, it was different. Although the brother of Germani

cus and uncle of Gaius, he was not an agnatus of either; he was a Claudius, they were lulii, albeit by

adoption. Gaius died intestate, yet the slaves and patronal rights over the freedmen of Gaius passed to

the new emperor along with the rest of his possessions, not by any change in the private law of

succession, but in spite of it, by the political reality of the time causing it to be twisted or ignored in

favour of the new princeps, simply by virtue of his office. Thereafter the emperor's patrimonium,

including patronal rights over all existing Augusti liberti, irrespective of which emperor had manumitted

them, passed unhindered to each new princeps simply by right of succession, even where, as with

Vespasian (and his three predecesors), there was no family connection whatsoever with his prede cessors. Patronal rights over the freedmen of everyone else not of immediate agnate descent could not

legally be transferred even to emperors. Thus, for example, Nero could not have legally inherited the

patronal rights over the freedmen of his two aunts Domitia and Domitia Lepida, despite repeated

assumptions to the contrary.38 This applied also to the freedmen of the condemned (damnati) whose

property, including slaves, otherwise went to the treasury (fiscus).

By the time of Claudius, however, at least one freedman whose patron was not an emperor is known

serving in high office, the a rationibus M. Antonius Pallas, from the household of the emperor's mother

Antonia Minor.39 This opens up the prospect that women of the imperial court, in particular those

3^ Drew-Bear - Naour, loc. cit., surmise, somewhat awkwardly, that Helius came from a servile family ('une famille

servile existant en fait, sinon iuridiquement, enracin?e dans un terroir dont elle servait les propri?taires de g?n?ration en

g?n?ration'). 33 See Kearsley, op.cit, on the bilingual inscriptions of Asia Minor.

34 Gaius 3.58: civis Romani liberti hereditas ad extr??eos heredes patroni nullo modo pertinet; 3.48; cf. K?ser 104,

258.

35 For inheritance through the female line, see below, p. 202.

36 Gaius was the grandson of Tiberius through his father Germanicus who was adopted into the Julian family by

Augustus in AD 4.

37 Suetonius, Tib. 76; Calig. 14. Similarly, Claudius' will was ignored; he was declared intestate, to the advantage of

his adopted son Nero, and to the disadvantage of his own son Britannicus (Suetonius, Claud. 43-4; Tacitus, Ann. 12.69). 38 See further below, p. 203, on the case of Domitius Phaon.

39 PIR2 A 858. Pallas was manumitted by Antonia between AD 31 (Josephus, AJ 18. 182) and her death in 37. On his wealth: Juvenal 1.108f.; his gardens: Frontinus, Aqu. 19, 20, 69; his estates in Egypt: (see below, n. 40). On his career, see

especially S. I. Oost, AJPh 79,1958,113-39.



202 P. Weaver

granted the official title of Augusta, might fill the role of patronae providing access to the familia Caesaris for their ambitious freedmen, whose status indication, incidentally, could then read Aug. lib. =

Aug(ustae) lib(ertus). As Antonia herself did, Pallas, along with other favoured freedmen such as

Narcissus and Doryphorus, is known to have owned estates in Egypt.40 Our hopeful Herminos may

possibly have been connected with one of these. Tacitus names Pallas as one of the 'potissimi liber

torum' whom Nero, in his more arbitrary later phase, is credited with poisoning in 62 to appropriate his

wealth, with the clear implication that he had patronal rights over him. These would have come through Claudius who inherited them from his mother. There is the legal impediment that women do not have

patria potestas and thus cannot have sui heredes.41 Under the civil law the descendants of a patrona could not succeed to her ius patronatus. The lex Papia of AD 9, however, partially remedied this by

giving a son who had at least one child <about> the same patronal rights as his mother.42 By the late

second century, the praetor had extended bonorum posssessio to all children of a patrona, whether

legitimate or not.43

Pallas' younger brother Felix is another obvious candidate for a non-imperial freedman having a

spectacular career in the Roman administration. He ruled Judaea as procuratorial governor during the

later part of the reign of Claudius and the first half of Nero's.44 His record includes three remarkable

marriages and a two-year interview with Paul of Tarsus at the provincial capital Caesarea.45 The case,

however, is now in doubt. It appears that he was manumitted by Claudius who inherited him from

Antonia while he was still a slave. We are thrown back on the conflicting testimony of Josephus, who

calls him 'Claudius', and Tacitus, who opts for 'Antonius'. Josephus, who lived in Judaea during the

whole period when Felix was there and who gained information directly from Agrippa II, the brother of

Felix's wife Drusilla, is to be preferred.46 Other freedmen (and slaves) of Augustae connected with the imperial service in any way at all are

scarce on the ground. Heimich Chantraine, in a typically thorough survey of over five hundred slaves

and freedmen of wives and other women relatives of the emperor, including Augustae (a very select and

honorific title),47 concluded that the only way for them to realise a career in the imperial administration

was after the death of the imperial women themselves by transfer into of the ownership or patronage of

the emperor, just as Felix and Pallas did on the death of Antonia mother of Claudius. Indeed these two

were not only the most prominent, they were almost the only ones in the history of the early principate,

40 P. Lond. 2, p. 127, no. 195; cf. P. Ryl. 2, p. 255. For details, see M. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE2 (1957) 670ff.

41 Gaius 3.51: numquam ...feminae suum heredem haberepossunt; Digest 38.16.3 (Gaius); nullafemina aut habet suos

heredes aut desinere habere potest. 42 Gaius 3.53: (lex Papia) patronae filio liberis honorato <fe>re patroni iura dedit.

43 Cf. Digest 38.2.18 (Paulus, Edict Bk. 43): patronae quidem liberi etiam volgo quaesiti accipient materni liberti

bonorum possessionem. 44 PIR2 A 828; E. Sch?rer, History of the Jewish People2 (1973) 1.460-6. 45

NT, Acts 24.24ff.

46 The nomen of Felix appears as 'Antonius' in Tacitus, Hist. 5.9, but as 'Claudius' in Josephus, AJ 20.137: [Claudius]

Tr?pTTei 8? Kai KXa?Siov <?>f|XiKa IT?XXavTOs ?8eX(t)oy t?v KaTa rr\v 'IouSa?av TTpocnT|a?pevov TrpaypaTCuv. Cf. the

similar entry in Suda s.v. KXai38io? (no. 1708 Adl.)\ apxovTa ?Tr?aTriaev airro?? KXauSiov 4>f|XiKa. In both texts the

reading KXa?8iov is emended by some editors to KXa?Sioc in order to remove this otherwise unattested nomen gentilicium of

Felix. MS S authority for the change is slight. This appears to be supported by an inscription from Bir el Malik in Syria first

published by M. Avi-Yonah, IEJ 16, 1966, 258ff. = AE 1967, 525 (with emendations by Pflaum) and 1986, 693. For the view that he was inherited as a slave by Claudius from his mother and then freed by Claudius, see the arguments of N.

Kokkinos in Latomus 49, 1990, 128^-1. For the previously established view that he was freed by Antonia Minor, as was his

brother M. Antonius Pallas, see e.g. PIR2 A 828; RE 1.2616f.; E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (1976) 268 n.

37. For nomina showing an interchange of slaves between Antonia Minor and Claudius, cf. 6.14897 where Antonia

Stratonice was a freedwoman of Antonia Minor, but has as 'collibertus' Ti. Claudius Aug. 1. Abascant(us), a freedman of the

emperor Claudius.

47 Chantraine, Fest. Vitt. 389^16.




all from the one household. An otherwise unknown M. Antonius Ianuarius Aug(ustae) lib. is the only other freedman of Antonia found in an official post, a junior clerical one (adiutor tabulari) in Africa.48

Another freedman of Antonia, M. Antonius Paneras, held property of some substance, but no official

post.49 There are, to be sure, a number of formal dedications to Augustae and and other empress wives for

their health, safety etc. by Aug. lib(erti), or even just lib(erti) without the conclusive imperial nomen.

Some of these even have senior rank in the imperial service such as procurator. These dedications are

not necessarily by the freedmen of the dedicatee, but, whatever their motives, are just as likely to be by freedmen of the emperor himself.50

As for slaves of Augustae and of other imperial women getting jobs in the civil service, there is little

or no evidence. The best chance seemed to be among the large familia of Domitia Augusta wife of

Domitian. One of her slaves, Rhodon Domitiae Aug. ser (6.8434 = ILS 1523) bore the arresting title

exactor hered(itatium) legat(orum) peculior(um), 'collector of inheritances, legacies, and slave proper

ty', which some years ago I was tempted to equate with a post in the imperial service. Chantraine,

however, has shown that these slave functions most probably are within the household of Domitia

herself.51

Finally, what chance of entering the official service is there for freedmen of other persons less

closely related to the emperor, such as those of Nero's two aunts, the elder Domitia and the younger Domitia Lepida? The latter's freedmen are claimed to have passed under the patronage of Nero upon her condemnation and execution in 54 shortly before the death of Claudius. The case of L. Domitius

Phaon, a freedman of Lepida, and his possible identity with Phaon, Nero's freedman and close con

fidant, who in particular gave support and refuge in his suburban property to the emperor in his last few

hours,52 is variously argued by C. Bruun53 and A. P. Gregory.54 He was also, on the basis of an

amphora stamp, plausibly Nero's a rationibus in 55 in succession to M. Antonius Pallas: Phaontis I

Aug(usti) l(iberti) a rat(ionibus) (3.14112.2, from Carnuntum in Raetia).55 Nero, as a cognatus of

Lepida, and even as emperor, had no legal basis for gaining the patronage rights to his aunt's freedmen, whether she had been condemned or not. She had a surviving son to inherit them, Faustus Sulla, the

husband of Claudius' daughter Antonia and the consul of 52. He was not exiled till 58, surviving

through the period when Nero was more conscious of the need to observe legal niceties. Cassius Dio

(63.11.3) alleges that eventually Nero took to claiming all the property of those executed (bona

damnatorum), but this did not include the patronage rights over their freedmen.56 As for the freedmen

of his elder aunt Domitia, the claim that Nero was able to acquire patronal rights over her freedman, the

actor Paris, by a legal device (quasi iure civili) in 56 resulted in a verdict that Paris was freeborn

(ingenuitatis iudicium)\51

48 8.7075= LAlg. 2.1.783.

49 6.4224, 10360; 14.582; cf. 6.4037 (a former slave of Paneros, Heliodorus Aug(usti). 1. tabula(rius) Panerotianus; cf.

Chantraine 327, no. 255). 50 For examples, Chantraine, Fest. Witt. 410 nn. 98, 100, 104, 115.

51 Cf. similar slave titles in the service of Octavia daughter of Claudius and Lucilla daughter of M. Aurelius and wife of

L. Verus: Chantraine, Fest. Witt. 398, 414 n. 161; cf. id. n. 162 for the lack of titles such as a rationibus in the household of

women in the imperial court, considered dangerous since Nero (Tacitus, Ann. 15.15; 16.8), 52

Suetonius, Ner. 48.1-3,49.2; Cassius Dio 63.27.3; Josephus, 5/4.493; Aurelius Victor, De Caes. 5.7.

53 Arctos 23,1989,41-53.

54 Athenaeum 83, 1995,401-10: cf. Chantraine, Fest. Witt. 409 n. 76 (3). 55 See, e.g., Momigliano, CAH1 10. 709; Pflaum, Proc. Eq. 208; Boulvert, EAI 91 n. 37; Weaver, 289; Millar, ERW11;

PIR2 P 340. 56 The fiscus did not acquire patronal rights over the freedmen of a patron whose property is confiscated. This is not

attested till the time of Pertinax and the Severans: CJ 6. 4.1.1 (AD 210). 57

Tacitus, An?. 13.27.



204 P. Weaver

Herminos is a name that is otherwise unattested in the household of Caesar. His status, origin and

patronage are unknown. Unless he was already a Caesaris servus before leaving Egypt, the basis of his

claim to have achieved manumission at Rome remains unparalleled. Similarly, his prospects of directly

entering the imperial administration for the first time at freedman level without very special patronage are dubious at best. The casual use of the term ?mKia to refer to multiple employment prospects also

intrudes a note of unfamiliarity with the workings of the familia Caesaris. In that context the Latin term

officium is commonly used to mean 'a group or department of officials'.58 The Greek transliteration of

officium in the sense of 'official post' or even to refer to a department of officials is rare in inscriptions and papyri.59 In its plural and unaspirated form it appears to be unprecedented and possibly late second

century. The confident statement reported in P. Oxy. 3312 may simply represent his wishful thinking to

impress his correspondent.

Bibliography Boulvert, DF = G. Boulvert, Domestique et fonctionnaire sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris 1974) Boulvert, EAI = G. Boulvert, Esclaves et affranchis imp?riaux sous le Haut-Empire romain (Naples 1970) Chantraine = H. Chantraine, Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der r?mischen Kaiser (Wiesbaden 1967)

Chantraine, Fest. Witt. = H. Chantraine, Freigelassene und Sklaven kaiserlicher Frauen, Festschrift Wittinghoff

(Cologne/Vienna 1980) 389-416

K?ser = M. K?ser, Das r?mische Privatrecht I (Munich 1955)

Kearsley = R. A. Kearsley, Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia (Bonn 2001)

Reynolds = J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London 1982)

Weaver = P. R. C. Weaver, Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge

1972)

Australian National University Paul Weaver

58 E.g. 6.8424a, 8473, 8518, 8637.

59 IGR 3.130: e? ck|>iklou; PSI 281.51. The forms cxt>iKi?Xioc, ?c|x|>iKi?Xtos = Lat. officialis are later; cf. LSJ Suppl.

(1968) p. 112.

