CHAPTER 8
The Families of Roman Slaves
and Freedmen
Henrik Mouritsen
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
1 Introduction: Questions and Sources
Within a study of the “Ancient Family” the families of slaves and former slaves stand
out as a special category which differs in its nature from other types of families but
also raises wider historical issues that take us well beyond a mere “history of private
life.” What distinguished the families of slaves from those of most other Romans was
the simple fact that – by and large – they did not exist in the eyes of the law. As the
jurists plainly stated: “the laws do not apply to servile relationships” (“ … ad leges
serviles cognationes non pertinent,” D 38.10.10.5, Paul; cf. D 38.8.1.2, Ulpian).
Slaves, in other words, did not have any right to enter into marriage, but could merely
form contubernia, companionships. The logical, if extreme, consequence of their legal
invisibility was that slaves were not formally related to their parents, siblings, spouses,
and children.1 These relationships were therefore not covered by normal legal safeguards preventing the break-up of family units or the forced separation of spouses or
parents from their children. For that reason the slave family was precarious to a degree
unknown to other Roman families, since they relied for their very existence on a
number of external factors, above all the goodwill of the owner. Presumably this also
affected the nature of the slaves’ relationships within the family.
These features in themselves warrant a separate treatment of this category, but the
families of slaves are interesting on several other levels. The extent to which these –
legally unrecognized – unions existed is bound up with broader social, demographic,
and economic issues central to our understanding of the Roman Empire. They include
the question of the sources of slaves, the slave population’s ability to reproduce itself
and the possible decline in the number of slaves as a result of its failure to do so. The
A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds, edited by Beryl Rawson
Publishing Ltd
©2011 Blackwell
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
130
Henrik Mouritsen
impact of manumission on the slave population must also be evaluated in the context
of slave families, their frequency, and structure.
This aspect gains a particular significance in the context of the available source
material. Thus, most of our documentary evidence for slave families comes in fact
from those who had escaped servitude rather than the slaves themselves. Freed slaves
produced tens of thousands of funerary monuments which often recorded their familial relations. This body of primary sources offers a first-hand insight into the family
lives of (former) slaves and the particular meaning which the family unit seems to have
held to this section of the population. However, despite their abundance and unmediated character, inscriptions pose their own problems of interpretation, which make
them a less straightforward source of information than is often assumed.
In addition, literary texts occasionally mention the families of slaves, but in general
Roman authors showed little interest in the topic. Cicero, for example, never mentions
the families of either slaves or freedmen, leaving us in the dark as to whether Tiro, one
of the best-known Roman freedmen, was married or not. In satires and novels the
issue occasionally surfaces, most frequently in Petronius’ Satyricon, where the existence
of contubernia and slave offspring seems to be taken for granted (for example, 70.2.10,
96.7). In Roman comedy, slave relations also feature with some regularity (for example, Plautus, Casina 191–216; Miles Gloriosus 1008; Terence, Adelphi 973), but the
fullest discussions are found in the works of the agrarian writers, who advised Roman
gentleman farmers on the management of their estates. Predictably, much of the
modern debate has evolved around these particular texts.
The vast body of legal sources, including the Digest, normally provides the bulk of
our evidence on Roman families, but on this topic they are uncharacteristically reticent
for the simple reason that servile relationships as a rule fall outside the scope of the law.
The information that may be gleaned from these sources is therefore mostly incidental
to other juridical concerns, for example wills and legacies and manumission.
As will be apparent from this brief survey of the sources, any attempt at piecing
together a full picture of the familial structures and family lives of Roman slaves (and
ex-slaves) faces fundamental obstacles. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is primarily
to highlight some of the central issues which currently occupy social historians. In this
context we may note a certain split in the modern debate(s) between, on the one hand,
globalizing attempts at understanding slavery in general – and indeed the scale of slavery and its place in the Roman society and economy – and, on the other hand, more
detailed studies of specific areas, bodies of evidence or individual households, often
with a focus on the personal experience of slavery. While also recognizing the somewhat artificial nature of this divide, we will in the following look firstly at the broader
issues raised by slave families before turning to the lives and experiences of Roman
slaves and freedmen.
2
How Many Roman Slaves Lived in Families?
Unlike other Roman families, those of the unfree population did not occur naturally;
they had to be facilitated – as well as permitted – by the slave owners, whose ability
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
131
– and willingness – to create the conditions for slaves to form family units therefore
presents a logical starting point for our survey. There can be no doubt that some
Roman slaves had families; the question is how many of them did. Some scholars have
been highly skeptical, chief among them William Harris, who stated that: “It hardly
seems necessary here to parade the evidence that only a very small proportion of
Roman slaves lived in families of their own …” ((1999) 68), while other historians,
most persistently Walter Scheidel, have argued that slave families were far more widespread and possibly included the large majority of slaves. The question is closely bound
up with the contentious issue of the sources of Roman slaves and their ability – or
failure – to reproduce themselves, and thus ultimately with the long-term sustainability of Roman slavery in general.
The discussion has typically been conducted along two separate axes, one defined
by chronology and the other by physical location and context. Thus, Republican
slavery has commonly been distinguished from imperial and urban slavery from rural.
The periodization of Roman slavery and the posited caesura in the early Empire are
based on the presumed change in the sources of slaves, since the large-scale enslavement of indigenous populations which characterized the age of expansion supposedly
came to an end with the Augustan consolidation of the empire. As a result, the
abundant supplies of cheap, foreign slaves dried up, automatically shifting the focus
onto internal sources of manpower. Owners gained a new interest in slave “breeding,”
which came to provide a far more substantial source of unfree labor than had previously
been the case.
This model corresponds very neatly with the testimonies of the three agronomists as well as those of the jurists. Thus, while we find no explicit concern for
slave procreation in Cato’s De agricultura or Varro’s De re rustica, Columella
mentions that he encourages procreation by offering freedom to slave women who
have given birth to and raised four filii (De re rustica 8.19).2 Much of the posited
increase in slave reproduction has thus been located in the countryside where the
incidence of slave families supposedly rose markedly as owners became more interested in promoting child rearing. This was in sharp contrast to earlier periods when
the virtual absence of female slaves in the countryside had prevented the formation
of families. Thus, Keith Hopkins ((1978) 106) described rural slaves as “male and
celibate.”
Still, some scholars have doubted whether the slave population – despite these
efforts at “breeding” – was ever able to reproduce itself under the Empire. As alternative sources Harris suggested child exposure, self-sale by free adults and – last but not
least – continuous imports of slaves from outside the borders of the empire. The key
argument against high levels of reproduction was the uneven gender balance, which
Harris believed would have reduced the fertility of the slave population as a whole.
According to Harris, the deficit of females – which he believed went back to the time
when the large slave holdings were first established – was not gradually balanced out
over time because later imports were equally skewed in favor of males, whose labor
was in greater demand.
Against this view Scheidel ((1997b), (2005)) argued on the basis of demographic
models that it would have been impossible to sustain a large slave population without
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
132
Henrik Mouritsen
a very substantial level of reproduction, suggesting up to 75–80 percent. External
sources – from outside the empire and from the free population – would have been
unable to sustain the slave population in the longer term. Thus, the territories
bordering the empire were too underpopulated to be able to sustain such continuous loss of manpower. Scheidel also pointed out that in order for child exposure to
provide a substantial addition to the slave population, its frequency, as well as the
survival rate of those exposed, had to be unrealistically high. And while “self-sale”
undoubtedly occurred, it is unlikely to have represented a significant source
of slaves.
Other scholars, such as Elio Lo Cascio (2002), have suggested that none of these
sources were adequate to maintain the slave population, and that the overall number
of slaves in Italy – deprived of major foreign conquests and enslavements – therefore
declined during the Empire.3 In principle this argument does not affect the question
of slave families, merely their impact on the slave population. It does, however, draw
attention to a critical but probably insoluble question, which is the overall scale of
the slave population. The larger their share of the total population the greater the
importance of reproduction must have been. In other words, if the number of slaves
was relatively small it would have been easier to cover a shortfall through child exposure and foreign imports. In this context Scheidel has recently shown that traditional
high estimates of the slave population – typically one-third of the Italian population
– are little more than conjectures, in turn suggesting a somewhat lower figure based
on an assessment of the manpower requirements in the rural economy ((1999),
(2005), (2008)).
Comparative evidence has also been adduced in support of the unsustainability of
unfree populations. Thus, Harris pointed to the West Indies as a typical import-based
slave system not dissimilar to Rome’s, which relied on continuous supplies of mostly
male slaves. Scheidel, on the other hand, surveyed the modern evidence for the growth
and decline of slave populations and concluded that the substantial increase found in
USA between 1810 and 1860 was not exceptional ((1997b) 168–69). The comparative material adduced turns out to be inconclusive, since historical parallels can be
found to support either view, and in each case there are specific factors explaining
different slave populations’ success or failure to reproduce themselves. The question
is where Rome fits on this scale.
Given the complexity of all these arguments and the number of imponderables
involved, no estimate of the proportion of slaves living in families is likely to find
universal agreement. Nevertheless a strong case can be made that – at least under the
Empire – reproduction must have played a very important part in maintaining the
slave economy, although undoubtedly supplemented by a mix of external sources.
The possibility also exists that it may not have been sufficient to maintain the slave
population of the Republic, in turn leading to an overall decline in absolute numbers
of slaves. However, this particular theory can only be judged as part of a comprehensive study of the demographic history of Italy, which falls outside the scope of this
chapter. Instead, we will consider in greater detail the various factors which facilitated
or impeded the formation of slave families.
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
3
133
Men and Women in the Slave Household
The strongest argument against widespread slave families has been the lack of economic
incentives for owners to provide the basic conditions for them to emerge, above all
sufficient numbers of female slaves. Thus, the abundance of cheap slave imports would
have rendered the rearing of unproductive slave children and the purchase of female
slaves purely for “breeding” economically irrational. The widely posited female deficit
has been linked to the composition of the imports and the labor needs of the economy
where more functions were performed by males than by females. Hard evidence for
the gender imbalance in the slave holdings has been drawn primarily from the writings
of the agronomists, already mentioned, and from epigraphic sources. Among the
latter the largecolumbaria linked to early imperial aristocratic households are particularly important since they offer a glimpse of the internal structure of specific, if
exceptionally large, households. The two largest private columbaria are those of the
Statilii Tauri and Volusii Saturnini, containing references to 568 and 294 individual
slaves and freedmen, respectively (cf. Hasegawa (2005); Mouritsen (forthcoming b)).
In the two samples women are indeed in a minority, making up only around a third of
those commemorated. This, however, may be due to epigraphic factors and the
commemorative cultures which developed within these households. Thus, in the
larger columbarium, that of the Statilii, there seems to be a marked underrepresentation of younger female slaves, suggesting that the imbalance at least partly may be
explained by less frequent commemoration of girls.
It has also been noted that more male than female urban slaves are commemorated
with job titles, which has been taken as proof that most functions were performed by
men, reducing the need for female slaves (Treggiari (1979b) 190). But the inclusion
of job title in epitaphs often depended on a number of cultural factors as well as purely
epigraphic conventions. Slaves generally carry job titles more often than freedmen
and the addition of this distinguishing feature may have been a response to the “bare”
visual appearance of an epitaph inscribed with just a single slave name. Many female
slaves, on the other hand, were commemorated by relatives, whose names appear
alongside that of the deceased, thereby obviating the need for additional descriptors.
It is also possible that their productive roles were less specialized than those of male
slaves. In any case, we cannot conclude from this evidence that female slaves served
mostly reproductive purposes.
The general distinction between reproductive females and productive males must
also be queried since the former obviously could be productive as well. Scheidel
(1996c) argued for the important role of women in farming, and in her study of the
rural household economy Ulrike Roth (2007) recently questioned the assumption
that female slaves contributed little to the economy apart from providing future slave
replacements. She has pointed out that the presence of female slaves can be traced
already in the writings of Cato, who listed looms as part of farm equipment, thus
reminding us of the varied economic roles of female slaves (De agricultura 10.5,
14.2). She suggested textile production may have been one of their main responsibilities,
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
134
Henrik Mouritsen
the advantage being that many aspects of this process were compatible with childcare.
Female slaves could in other words be economically rational parts of a commercially
run estate. Interestingly, Varro devoted considerable attention to the “breeding” of
pastores, shepherds, whose reproduction posed a number of practical problems (De re
rustica 2.10.6), and his concern with this issue suggests that the slaves who resided
permanently on the estate normally had families. According to Bradley ((1994) 41),
Cato took the presence of women and children on farms for granted.
Most likely, female slaves would have been economically viable even in the days
when supplies were cheap and plentiful, and the distinction between Republic and
Empire may therefore be overstated. Moreover, the mass enslavements of the great
expansion would probably have included men, women, and children, thereby laying
the foundation for a relatively balanced slave population from the outset (Volkmann
(1990)). The slave population of the Republic would therefore have grown from two
sources: external imports and natural reproduction by existing slave holdings, neither
excluding the other. Despite the abundant foreign supplies, natural reproduction
would have made good economic sense, not least because slave children could be
made to work from an early age (Bradley (1991); Laes (2008)).
Scholars have pointed out that families are not necessary for reproduction, only
females. Thus, Scheidel recently raised the possibility that a greater share of slave children may have been the master’s own children, so-called filii naturales ((2009b)
38–40). While the sexual abuse of female slaves by their masters is well documented
(Herrmann-Otto (1997) 256; Scheidel (2009b) 38–40), the existence of large
numbers of filii naturales remains hypothetical. The Augustan manumission laws
explicitly offered dispensation for masters wishing to free their own children (Gaius,
Institutes 1.19; cf. D 40.2.11, 20.3, Ulpian), but in the epigraphic record they are
quite rare (Herrmann-Otto (1997) 42–46, 88–90).4 And although sexual abuse of
slaves may have been common, it does not necessarily follow that a large proportion
of slave offspring was the masters’ own. Not every female slave would have been
equally affected and their most frequent sexual contacts would presumably still have
been with their contubernales.
Moreover, when assessing the “breeding strategies” of slave owners, we should not
lose sight of the fact that alongside the strictly economic rationales dictating the size
and composition of households there may have been other, equally important considerations owners had to take into account. Some of these might have facilitated the
formation of slave families even when the economic arguments were less compelling.
Thus, it is not inconceivable that the notion of stable slave households – renewed by
home-born slaves – might have appealed to owners. The famous example of Cicero’s
friend Atticus, whose entire household allegedly was made up of vernae trained and
educated by their master, may not have been wholly anomalous (Cornelius Nepos,
Atticus 13). Other sources imply that vernae were preferred by many masters, who
regarded them as more “homely” and “comfortable,” having been brought up in the
household and known since childhood. The Romans were well aware of the psychological damage caused by the violence and degradation often experienced by slaves,
and for those who wished to be surrounded by relatively well-adjusted servants the
safest option was to “rear” them at home – rather than purchase them on the open
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
135
market. Undoubtedly, vernae felt a greater attachment to the household than slaves
who had been uprooted and in many cases shipped across the empire. The formation
of families provided another means of binding them closer to the familia, a point not
lost on writers such as Columella who noted that married bailiffs, vilici, were “more
steady and more attached to the place” (“firmiores ac coniunctiores fundo,” De re
rustica 1.17.5). Presumably the risk of absconding would have been much reduced if
relatives were left behind.
The slave family also offered greater opportunities for controlling and exploiting
the household. A staff composed of family units would prima facie have been more
loyal and compliant, not least since punishment could be meted out not just to the
offending slaves themselves but also to their close relatives. Those with families to
protect were in other words more vulnerable and exposed than those without.
Likewise, the prospect of forming a partnership or the actual provision of a spouse
could be used as an incentive to slaves, improving their work performance and keeping them obedient.
Given these benefits it seems unlikely that owners would deliberately prevent slaves
in a mixed household from forming unions, although they may not always have taken
direct measures to ensure an even gender balance, itself affected by a number of structural factors. Thus, the range and nature of the domestic functions to be filled obviously played a part, and in large urban households there would have been a greater
need for educated slaves with specialist skills supplied from the market, the majority
of whom were presumably male. The resulting deficit meant that some male slaves
probably did not have the opportunity to form families. Among the Statilii we may
find traces of such a pattern since those at the bottom of the hierarchy, above all the
lecticarii, litter bearers, were commemorated not by relatives but by friends and fellow
bearers. Likewise, more men than women formed unions outside the familia, perhaps
because of a shortage of women within the household.
In smaller households it might also have been difficult to “pair off” all slaves into
family units, leaving some – presumably male – without a spouse. In that situation the
possibility of cross-familial unions, that is between slaves belonging to separate households, should be considered (Rawson (1966) 79; Bradley (1984) 52). Little evidence
survives for such unions. The legal sources show no interest in the topic since the
situation was clear-cut – the children always belonged to the mother’s owner.
Epigraphically they are difficult to trace, since slave names often do not give the master’s identity, while after manumission such a couple would resemble freed people
who had married after they had gained their freedom. However, they should not be
discounted for that reason. Thus, the early Christian writer Tertullian (Ad uxorem
2.8.1) comments that some very strict masters forbid their slaves from marrying
outside the household, “foras nubere,” implying that normally it was allowed. In
Petronius’ Satyricon (61.9) we are told about a slave trying to form a relationship with
a serva living next door, but without either master’s permission. Slaves could also
form unions with free people, and the Senatus Consultum Claudianum, which gave
masters ownership of the offspring produced by slaves forming partnerships with free
women, stressed the importance of the master’s consent, suggesting that when that
was forthcoming extra-familial unions were not controversial as such.
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
136
Henrik Mouritsen
It is possible to make a strong case that many slaves – perhaps even the majority –
would have lived in families, although undoubtedly with considerable variation
depending on factors such as their education and origins, and the size and location of
household. The question remains whether the slave population was therefore able to
sustain itself at any point. A priori it is difficult to see why unfree populations should
not be able to reproduce themselves provided sufficient numbers of female slaves.
However, it has been suggested that slave families would have been unstable and
hence unlikely to produce many offspring (Harris (1999) 65). The physical environment of the family is significant and here the contrast with the highly “reproductive”
American South is striking. In Rome there is no evidence for specific housing allocated
to slave families comparable to the huts which existed on the estates of the American
South. They might of course have been built of wood and left no trace, but most
likely slaves had no designated housing. Columella 1.6.3, for example, implies that
rural slaves lived within the villa complex itself. The common identification of small
cells in urban domus and at villae rusticae as slave accommodation remains hypothetical (George (1997b); pace Thompson (2003) 83–89), and in any case there are no
compelling reasons to assume they would be allocated to individual family units. Some
slaves were more privileged and ran small businesses, perhaps together with their
spouse and in effect enjoyed a “normal” family life within a secure setting. It would
therefore seem that the physical environment in general was not particularly conducive to a stable family life for Roman slaves. But not only does that reflect a modern
perception of privacy but the question is also whether the lack of private space limited
their fertility or – more likely – simply acted as an extra spur to strive for freedom, a
fairly realistic ambition for most slaves.
The rate of manumission had a direct impact on the sustainability of the slave
population. If, as it seems, considerable numbers of slaves were given their freedom,
it would evidently affect a household’s ability to reproduce itself. The critical question
is therefore the age at which they were freed. It has been suggested that the majority
of slaves were freed at a very early age – many still in their teens or earlier – but the
epigraphic evidence that formed the basis for the theory may not be able to support
this radical proposition (Weaver (1990)). Thus, while many ex-slaves are commemorated with a remarkably low age at death, we have to remember that epitaphs and the
information they contain do not represent a demographic database. The information
included in epitaphs – and indeed the decision to commission a funerary inscription –
was determined by a number of cultural factors. Thus, we find a marked preference in
Rome for commemorating those who had died young and parental dedications to
children were therefore much more common than filial commemorations of parents.
Similarly, information about age at death was included in only a quarter of all epitaphs,
again with a strong preference for juveniles, presumably reflecting the particular pain
caused by the loss of a child.
Therefore, epigraphic profiles of freedmen notwithstanding, most slaves were probably freed in adulthood. Still, many appear to have been relatively young, as suggested
by the Augustan legislation, which sought to regulate access to the Roman citizenship
and reserve it for more mature freedmen, also introducing the lesser statuses of
Latinus Iunianus and libertus dediticius. The reform prescribed a minimum age of 30
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
137
for the slaves, which would imply that many normally would be freed earlier. Likewise,
the evidence from the large columbaria of the early Empire indicates that manumission of slaves in their 20s was not uncommon. Servae appear to have been freed as
frequently as males. Some scholars have even suggested they were more likely to be
freed than males, but that theory seems to ignore the cultural aspects of commemoration as well as the higher mortality rate among young women. Nevertheless, there is
sufficient evidence to conclude that female slaves, including those of childbearing age,
also received their freedom, irrespective of the loss of future slave births that entailed
for the owner (Mouritsen (forthcoming b)). The figures compiled by Rawson ((1966)
81) suggested that around 33 percent of freedmen’s children might have been
freeborn, but given the likely overrepresentation ofingenui the actual ratio may have
been lower. In aristocratic familiae such as those of the Statilii and Volusii such losses
were easily sustained and here we also have to bear in mind that the household – its
size, quality, and specialization – was part of ostentatious consumption and not necessarily aimed at self-sustainability. Continuous purchases of specialized slaves would
have been expected to fill often unpredictable vacancies. Therefore, a net deficit of
vernae caused by “over generous” manumission would probably not have been
considered an issue, at least at this elevated social level.
The high frequency of manumission would suggest that as a rule it was not expected
to lead to any break in employment or severance of personal ties. Indeed it could be
seen as a form of “promotion” within the household and as such economically rational
from the viewpoint of the master who did not suffer any loss of labor. Freedmen’s
continued links to the household were partly legal, bound as they were to pay respect,
obsequium, and partly economic since their best hope of prosperity rested on patronal
support. But many also had strong personal bonds, reinforced by the fact that relatives frequently remained in servitude. Leaving the household behind would therefore have been unthinkable for most freed slaves. In addition, the familia represented
a social world where many slaves had been born and grown up, formed families and
friendships. As such it could also be a source of identity and belonging, as illustrated
by the freedman’s inclusion into the patron’s family whose name he automatically
assumed. Some masters might actively try to foster a sense of community (Pliny,
Letters 8.16.2; Seneca, Letters 47.14). Likewise, there are tantalizing hints that some
freedmen insisted that their children married within the familia, in familiam nubere
(Flory (1978); Bürge (1988)).
4
The Slave Family
We have very little evidence for the family life of Roman slaves. Most information will
therefore have to be inferred from general arguments and reconstructions of the
structure of the Roman household. The basic question is how they differed from
those of the free population, and here the focus will be on the ways in which they
came into existence and potentially later were dissolved. The simple fact that they
were unfree would imply a limited choice of partners or none at all. In smaller familiae
slaves may have been paired off by the owner, while in larger households the possibility
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
138
Henrik Mouritsen
of choosing a spouse may have been greater. On the other hand, in the Satyricon a
“divorce” between a slave and a freedwoman is mentioned in passing (53.9), but since
one party was free this may not imply that slaves generally had much influence on the
formation and discontinuation of their relationships. As noted above, the central concern of the Senatus Consultum Claudianum was also the need for the owner’s permission to form unions outside the familia.
In this respect they may not have differed much from the free population, since
most Romans probably also had a restricted choice when entering into – at least their
first – marriage, presumably arranged for them by their family. Some privileged slaves –
with substantial separate funds – might have been able to buy a slave partner for
themselves out of their peculium. These spouses would have been chosen personally.5
The slaves of the domus Augusta appear to have enjoyed a free choice – of course
subject to their master’s permission – and often found “wives” outside the familia,
probably because of the uneven gender balance within the imperial household where
males were preferred for administrative tasks.
What set the slave family apart was less the constraints on their choice of partner as
much as the fact that – once formed – their relationships enjoyed no legal protection.
Since slaves had no legal personality, they could not enter into formal marriage and
held no authority over their own children who formally were not even theirs but their
master’s. The reality was of course very different from the legal fiction, and their family bonds appear to have been as strong as those of any other Romans. Thus, in their
inscribed monuments they used the conventional terms of relations – pater, mater,
uxor, vir, coniunx and filius/-a – to describe members of their families.
Although the legal fiction did not change the character of their relationships, the
lack of legal recognition nevertheless had very real implications for the slave family,
making it far more vulnerable to external threats. The risk of physical violence and
abuse was ever present for the slave population, and the presence of relatives in the
household would have multiplied this danger as well as the attendant anxieties. Slaves
were also exposed to sexual abuse, irrespective of their familial status, which must
have put even greater strain on their family lives. However, the most fundamental risk
was that of enforced family break-up (cf. Bradley (1984) 51–64). Slave families could
at any time be broken up by the master, spouses separated from each other and parents
from their children. This might happen in a number of ways. Slaves might be sold off,
either as punishment or to raise capital and profit from the natural growth of the slave
holding. Short of sale, a slave could also be relegated to other parts of the estate, again
either for punitive or practical reasons to meet changing labor requirements.
We have no way of determining how frequently this happened, but while the punitive sale of slaves may not have been the norm, profiting from slave reproduction
exceeding the owner’s needs may not have been uncommon. As Bradley (1984)
demonstrated, mainly on the basis of Egyptian evidence, the sale of slaves generally
seems to have taken place on an individual basis, and this impression is also borne out
by examples from other parts of the empire.
Even in the richest households slaves might be passed on, as illustrated by epitaph
6.7290 from the columbarium of the Volusii. It records Primigenius L. Volusi Saturni
who was married to Charis, another slave of the Volusii. Her brother was T. Iulius
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
139
Antigonus, who commemorated his nutrix Spurinnia Nice Torquatiana, whose
agnomen indicates that she had once been owned by the Volusii. The implication is
that both Antigonus and Nice had at some point been alienated from the familia of
the Volusii and passed on to two different households, while Antigonus’ sister Charis
remained.
The off-loading of slaves surplus to requirement would logically have affected
children more than adults, and we may also envisage scenarios like that described by
Plutarch, who tells us that Cato purchased slave children, had them trained and sold
them off with a profit. The implication is a market in slave children some of whom
would have been slave-born and sold off at an early age, as also indicated by the
epigraphic examples collected by Rawson ((1966) 78–81) of young freed children
who carry nomina different from those of their freed parents. These families, in other
words, were broken up while the child was still very young.
Slave families probably found themselves most at risk when the master died, an
event which might result in the break-up of the entire household. Unless the deceased
was able to pass on the estate to a single direct heir, it would normally be divided up
between several heirs, who could each claim a share of the familia. Inheritances were
therefore recognized as a significant source of slaves, for example in Pseudo Quintilian,
Declamationes Minores 311.7, where we find slaves divided into three categories:
those who were born into that condition; those who had been left in a will; and finally
those who were bought, “aut natus aut relictus hereditate aut emptus.” A similar
distinction appears in the Satyricon (47), where a slave is asked whether he is home
born or purchased, to which he answers that he was left in a legacy. How frequently
this led to the break-up of slave families is not clear. In smaller households keeping
them together was probably not practically feasible, and doing so may not have been
a priority even in larger familiae. As Bradley ((1984) 64–70) suggested, the slave
familia would probably be divided up with little concern for the family units
(cf. Herrmann-Otto (1997) 262–65). Varro, De re rustica 1.17.5, notes that slaves
from Epirus were sought after because of their family relationships, suggesting they
were sold in familial units, but also that this was not the norm.
Admittedly, some jurists regarded the splitting up of slave families as cruel and
inhumane, and measures were eventually taken to protect them.6 However, the general
ban on splitting up family units belongs to a later period (Codex Theodosianus 2.25.1;
CJ 3.38.11). In classical times the law probably protected them only in situations of
legal uncertainty, that is, when the content of the estate had not been properly defined,
and masters could at any time decide to disregard family ties (cf. D 33.5.21, 33.7.20.4,
Scaevola).7 The conclusion is that the slave family was suspended in a state of existential insecurity. The only means of securing the family unit was manumission, which
granted the slave complete, irrevocable freedom, and any child born afterwards was
generally freeborn. However, the Romans operated with several forms of manumission, which can be broadly classified as formal and informal, and until Augustus the
latter only led to an imago libertatis, a likeness of freedom rather than the real thing.
The praetor protected their right to live as free but they still died as slaves, which
presumably also meant that their children were slaves instead of freeborn. To clarify
the position of informally freed slaves Augustus introduced the new status of Latin
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
140
Henrik Mouritsen
freedmen, also known as Latini Iuniani, who were free but non-citizens. The reform
granted their children free, even freeborn, status but since their parents’ estate reverted
to the patron they were economically disadvantaged and left dependent on the
patron’s support. However, soon afterwards the lex Aelia Sentia (4 CE) allowed
Latini Iuniani freed under the age of 30 to gain full citizenship through procreation
via the procedure of anniculi probatio, which involved presenting a one-year-old child
born in legal marriage to the local magistrate. This right was later (by the Senatus
Consultum Pegasianum in 75 CE) extended to those freed after the age of 30.
Manumission may have provided the only way out of slavery but it was entirely up to
the owner to decide whether – and when – to free a slave. There is little evidence to
suggest it was applied in any systematic fashion according to criteria such as age, gender,
and experience, and as a result families would often count among its members slaves,
freed and freeborn. Roman epitaphs provide plenty of evidence for family units of mixed
legal status. Using a large sample of inscriptions from the city of Rome, Rawson ((1966)
78–81) identified a wide range of different combinations, also suggesting their relative
frequency. Families where both parents were slaves and the child freed (73 children);
families where one parent was slave the other free (751 free children); broken families,
where parents and children were freed in different households (122 children); families where the parents were both free at the birth of the freeborn child (591 children).
The large columbaria of the Roman elite present a more concentrated “snapshot”
of family structures within individual households. The material from the two largest
known private households, those of the Statilii Tauri and the Volusii Saturnini, differs
somewhat in composition, partly because of their relative state of preservation. The
former is the larger and more complete, while the latter represents only a selection of
the original material, apparently favoring larger and more richly decorated epitaphs.
The surviving inscriptions from the Volusian columbarium were therefore of higher
quality, containing longer and more detailed descriptions of the deceased, including
family relations. Thus, while the Statilian evidence gives a fuller picture of the overall
composition of the household, including the lower ranks, the Volusian offers the
more detailed information.
Despite these structural differences the two corpora present broadly identical
pictures. The proportion of freed to slaves may vary, the two households containing
32 percent and 46 percent freedmen respectively. But in both columbaria we find that
around a third of all unions were “mixed,” also bearing in mind of course that the
freed couples at some point may have been “mixed.” A similar share of children
appears to have had different status from their parents, but again, where all parties
were freed, their status might also at some point have differed.
The mixed families would have entrenched the patron’s control over his freedmen,
whose obedience was assured by the existence of family members still under his dominica potestas. They could also act as an additional incentive for the freedmen to work
hard and apply themselves in an attempt to secure the liberty of their relatives and
unite the family in freedom. Most directly this could be effected by offering money to
the owner in return for the freedom of relatives. This process may not necessarily have
involved fathers and husbands rescuing children and wives; in principle it could also
be the other way round.
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
141
Paul Veyne described the damaging consequences such transactions might have on
freedmen’s family relations. Thus, he stated that:
The family life of former slaves must have been a veritable hell, filled with conflict, ambivalence, and resentment. A father might never forgive his son for his crushing generosity;
a son might never forgive his father for behaving like an ingrate. ((1997) 82)
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
However, contrary to this image of a widespread malaise there is little evidence that
payment for freedom was as common as many scholars have assumed (for example,
Hopkins (1978) ). Moreover, Veyne took it for granted that they bought their relatives
rather than their freedom.8 But it was perfectly possible to hand over money to the
owner in order to effect the manumission of their relatives rather than buying the
slave himself or herself. In that situation it was still the former master who would
become patron, not the relative. This situation is indicated by a number of sources,
for example Satyricon 57.6, where the freedman Hermeros says he purchased his partner’s freedom, and various passages in the legal texts.9 The freed relative would still
owe a moral debt to his or her benefactor, but formally the law did not define their
relationship in terms of obsequium. Most often this would probably have conformed
to “natural” hierarchies of age and gender.
5 The Families of Roman Freedmen
Most of our documentary evidence for the families of Roman slaves was produced by
those who were no longer slaves. Thus, most of the information comes from funerary
epigraphy, which under the Empire became the almost-exclusive preserve of freedmen
and their immediate families. In Ostia, for example, virtually all those who commissioned tombs and monuments in the imperial period were former slaves and their
spouses or children (Mouritsen (2004)). It is often assumed that this passion for
commemoration reflected the freedmen’s “arriviste” mentality and particularconcerns
about social status (Petersen (2006) being an exception). The freedmen’s funerary
epigraphy has thus been reduced to a simple question of self-display. But while many
libertine monuments sent a strong message of personal success and achievement, not
all their epitaphs were public, showy, or even self-celebratory. Indeed the majority did
not commemorate the successful freedmen themselves but were dedicated to their
children or spouse.
When considering the epigraphic evidence, we have to distinguish between two
different types of funerary inscription. On the one hand, “titulary” inscriptions placed
on the front of monuments which indicated the owner’s identity, the dedicatee and
who were entitled to burial there. On the other hand, “proper” funerary inscriptions
that were directly linked to the remains of the deceased, recording their name and
perhaps further details about their life. Although the two types occasionally overlap,
they differed in their basic rationale. The display associated with freedmen’s epigraphy
was largely restricted to the “titulary” inscriptions, which often included references to
titles, honors and benefactions. However, even here the message of arrival may have
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
142
Henrik Mouritsen
gone beyond a mere assertion of status and prosperity; the erection of monuments can
also be seen as a celebration of the free and secure family and the foundation of a new
lineage.
The commemoration of relatives by freedmen has also been interpreted as an
expression of social ambitions, since these also could be invested in their children,
especially freeborn sons. There are of course striking examples of freedmen spending
lavishly on their sons’ public careers. Most famously, the Temple of Isis was rebuilt
after the earthquake in 62 CE by the six-year-old N. Popidius Celsinus at Pompeii,
who in return was admitted to the town council (CIL 10.846). However, as a general
explanation of the freedmen’s concern with family this model may be too simple. The
fundamental point is that the family is likely to have held a very distinct meaning to
the freed population. While freeborn Romans could take the basic legal safeguards of
their families for granted, that would have been an entirely new and exhilarating
sensation for the ex-slave. The experience of slavery – and the essential uncertainty
that entailed for the family – would naturally have given those who managed to secure
their freedom a different perspective on this institution.
The particular significance of the family to former slaves to a great extent explains
their domination of funerary epigraphy in the Roman world. It gave rise to a particular cultural practice, rooted in their unique background and experiences and
apparently maintained through the formation of a shared cultural practice. Their
inscriptions celebrated freedom in the broadest sense but the focus was on familial
relations, suggesting that the newly gained security of the familial unit was considered a primary benefit of manumission. The inscriptions were typically small and
unobtrusive, attached to niches containing the urn or inscribed directly on the urn
itself. The setting was often secluded from public view, located inside burial enclosures or monuments. The context lent the practice a private, even personal aspect,
which suggests it became part of the mourning rituals that developed among the
freed community.
Viewed in this light it is less surprising to find that the most eye-catching illustrations of the Roman family – the funerary “window” reliefs of the late Republic and
early Empire which show spouses next to each other or a lineup of several family
members often of different generations (cf. Huskinson, this volume, Figure 31.6) –
belong almost exclusively to the freedmen. These monuments are visual reminders of
the particular meaning of the family unit for this social category and should not, as
often has been done, be reduced to a question of status and self-display. The emphasis
of modern scholars on the togae and bullae worn by the freedmen and their sons
seems overstated, not least because the absence of these elements would have been
more remarkable than their presence.
As well as indicating conformity to conventional Roman norms and ideals, the
freedmen’s decision to display their entire family units may reflect a wish to give visual
expression to the newly founded lineage. This particular concern can also be traced in
their naming patterns, since they typically adopted the standard Roman practice of
naming children after their parents, grandparents or other relatives. This often involved
giving them Greek cognomina, which generally hinted at a servile background. For
example, in CIL 6.21599 the freeborn daughter of D. Lucilius Glyco and Lucilia
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
The Families of Roman Slaves and Freedmen
143
Helpis, Lucilia D.f. Melitine, was named after her father’s sister, Lucilia Sp.f. Melitine
(cf. Rawson (1966) 77). It would seem, therefore, that the desire to demonstrate
family continuity in these cases took precedence over their presumed anxiety to
“cleanse” the next generation of servile associations.
One of the most intriguing features of freedmen’s families relates to their marriage
patterns. While many, possibly most, freedmen had already formed unions before
being freed, some found new spouses after manumission, either due to divorce,
bereavement or because they had been freed young. These couples can be identified
by the different nomina carried by the spouses (although there is a possibility they
may originally have been cross-familial contubernales or separated from each other),
and a closer analysis of this evidence indicates that former slaves almost exclusively
married people of similar background. This phenomenon has been interpreted – like
other aspects of the freedman’s life – in light of their inferior status. Thus, freeborn
Romans are assumed to have been unwilling to “marry down,” thereby forcing freedmen to seek partners within their own class. While such concerns of course may have
applied in some cases, it seems unlikely that the wealth of many freedmen would not
have compensated for their inferior status; Claudius Etruscus’ father, a powerful imperial freedman, famously married the sister of a consul (Statius, Silvae 3.3.114–15). In
everyday life free and freed mingled at all levels and the prejudices against freedmen
may have been less widespread than the moral discourse of the Empire would suggest.
Moreover, the fact that even the prestigious and wealthy imperial freedmen normally
married freedwomen would suggest that other factors might be at play.10 The conjugal patterns observed among the freedmen may therefore reflect a preference for
marrying within their own community and forming unions with people who shared
the same background and had experienced the same life-changing transition from
slave to free as they themselves had.
FURTHER READING
The best modern studies of the lives of Roman slaves are those of Keith Bradley ((1984),
(1994)). Treggiari (1969) is a rich source of information on freedmen and manumission
during the Roman Republic, a topic also treated in great detail by Fabre (1981). For discussion of the legal aspects of manumission, see the articles by Sirks ((1981), (1983)) and
Gardner (1993). The most important contributions to the debate on the sources of slaves are
Bradley (1987a); Scheidel (1997b), (2005), (2008); and Harris (1980), (1999). Rural slavery and the role of women have been studied by Scheidel (1996c) and more fully by Roth
((2005), (2007)). The reproduction of slaves and the role of vernae were the subject of a
major study by Herrmann-Otto (1997). The seminal work on the epigraphic evidence for
the families of slaves and freedmen is that of Rawson (1966), while the epigraphic habit of
freedmen has recently been discussed by Mouritsen (2005). The composition of the aristocratic columbaria was the subject of a monograph by Hasegawa (2005), superseding Treggiari
(1975a), but a new study of the familiae of the Volusii and Statilii by Mouritsen is forthcoming (forthcoming b). The structure of the Roman familia was well analyzed by Flory (1978)
and Bürge (1988).
144
Henrik Mouritsen
© Rawson, Beryl, Oct 26, 2010, Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds
Wiley, Hoboken, ISBN: 9781444390742
NOTES
1 In practice the law acknowledged the existence of slave relationships, for example in the
context of incest prohibitions (for example, D 23.2.8, Pomponius; D 23.2.14.3, Paul).
2 Harris ( (1999) 66) thought this system was Columella’s own idiosyncrasy, but it seems to
be echoed in D 40.7.3.16, Julian; cf. D 1.5.15, Tryphoninus. On the other hand, the muchdebated passage of the D, 5.3.27 praef., Ulpian, would indicate that slave women were not
usually bought for the purpose of “breeding,” cf. Treggiari (1979b) 188; Harris (1999)
66.
3 Lo Cascio’s argument reflects his general model of the Italian population, envisaging a
decline in the unfree population which matches the rise in the number of free citizens and
keeps the total relatively stable, cf., for example, Schumacher (2001) 42.
4 In CIL 6 only 14 people are described as filii naturales and only one as filia naturalis
idemque liberta (CIL 6.21458).
5 Since peculia were recognised as de facto property and generally left with the slave when
sold, alienated or manumitted, the result may have been a more secure family unit. On the
peculium as a means of supporting slave families and on families as part of peculia, see Roth
(2005).
6 Solazzi (1949) argued that Ulpian’s comment (D 33.7.12.7 and 31–33, Ulpian) on the
cruelty involved in splitting families is an interpolation, but Treggiari ( (1979b) 196–99)
was unconvinced.
7 Thus, in D 33.7.12, Ulpian, the issue was whether the instrumentum of the farm included
the slaves together with their families or these could be sold off separately.
8 Bradley ( (1984) 78) assumed a freedman who paid for his wife’s freedom became her
patron, seeing this as the background for most patron-liberta marriages. However,
husbands might also have become the owner/patron of their wives and children as a result
of a bequest from the master, cf., for example, D 30.71.3, Ulpian; D 32.37.7, Scaevola; D
32.41.2, Scaevola. Likewise, Petronius, Satyricon 70.10; FIRA 3.48.40–45.
9 D 12.1.19 praef., Julian; cf. D 12.4.1 praef., Ulpian; D 12.4.3.1–5, Ulpian; D 12.5.4.2–4,
Ulpian; D 40.1.19, Papinian; CJ 4.6.9.
10 Contra Weaver (1972), but his theory that imperial freedmen predominantly married
ingenuae is purely conjectural; indeed the cognomina of their wives suggest most of them
were freedwomen.