Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:13:59.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vicarius and Vicarianus in the Familia Caesaris*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

P. R. C. Weaver
P. R. C. Weaver
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the study of social structure in the Roman world of the first and second centuries A.D. nothing is more important or more complex than the slave and freed-slave classes. Their numbers are indeterminately large and predominant in many urban and some rural areas. Most have a reasonable expectation of early manumission and enjoy a high rate of social advancement. But it is important to distinguish between the different social levels of the slave classes in general in order to isolate, if possible, those elements of exceptionally high mobility which are an example and incentive to the rest. Among the most important of these in the early Imperial period are the slaves and freedmen of the Emperor, the Familia Caesaris, itself comprising groups of differing legal and occupational status. By comparing different groups of Imperial slaves both with each other and with those of equivalent legal status outside the Familia Caesaris it is possible to illustrate the extent of social differentiation within the slave classes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 1-2 , November 1964 , pp. 117 - 128
Copyright
Copyright ©P. R. C. Weaver 1964. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the status nomenclature of the Imperial freedmen and slaves and on dating criteria see CQ (n.s.) XIII (1963), 272–8, and XIV (1964), 134–9.

2 The subject of servus vicarius, although of considerable interest, has seldom been discussed, and then usually from the purely legal point of view. See Buckland, W. W., The Roman Law of Slavery (1908), 239–49Google Scholar; Ch. Lécrivain, D-S V, 823–5. The social position of servi vicarii has been seriously discussed only once, in 1896, by H. Erman in a monograph which is still basic for all aspects of the subject, Servus Vicarius, l'esclave de l'esclave romain, to be found in Recueil publié par la Faculté de Droit de l'Université de Lausanne. The most recent treatment is by K. Schneider, P-W VIIIA (1958), 2046–53. See also remarks by Düll, R., ZSS LXVII (1950), 173 ff.Google Scholar and Berger, A., Iura VIII (1957), 122 ff.Google Scholar

3 For references to vicarii outside the Familia Caesaris see P-W VIIIA, 2047.

4 Erman, o.c. (n. 2), 399 ff.

5 Agens vices perhaps occurs once in the abbreviation a(gens) v(ices) v(ilici), AE 1945, 123.

6 Suetonius, Galba, 12. Cf. Seneca, de Benef. III, 28; CIL VI, 33469. The evidence for the use of peculiaris in the sense of ordinarius in the Familia Caesaris (as P-W VIIIA, 2046) and for the use of servus peculiaris referring to Imperial slaves in contrast with servi publici (as P-W XIX, 13) is very meagre—VI, 14428. Suetonius, Iul. 76, is not relevant, and VI, 8869 conflicts with XIV, 3639.

7 Cicero, Verr. I, 91, 93Google Scholar; III, 86; pro Rosc. Com. 27. Cf. Horace, , Sat. II, 7, 79Google Scholar, ‘sive vicarius est qui servo paret … seu conservus’; Martial, 11, 18, 7, ‘esse sat est servum, iam nolo vicarius esse’; Dig. IX, 4, 19, etc.

8 VI, 5197. Examples of personal assistants with administrative titles are not numerous; cf. Hirschfeld, O., Verwaltungsbeamten (1905), 463, n. 2.Google Scholar

9 II, 1198 (Felix is without status-indication). A possible third case is VI, 8832. For a vic(arii) vicarius cf. Bull. Com. (1925), p. 218. Vicarii are also referred to in a general way in VI, 8495, ‘Sabbio Caes. n. s. vilic. Aquae Claudiae… sibi et Fabiae Verecundae coniugi… et libertis libertabusque eius et vikaris suis posterisque eorum’ (cf. ‘Sporus Caes. n. s. vilic. Aquae Claudiae’). Here the contrast is pointed between ‘libertis libertabusque eius’ of the wife who is of free status, and ‘vikaris suis’ of Sabbio who is of slave status and cannot have freedmen of his own. ‘Vikaris suis’ is an addition to the regular formula ‘lib. libertabusque…’ without necessarily referring to particular vicarii of Sabbio. III, 4828 is to ‘Eutychus Aug. n. disp. P. R. N.’, put up by his wife, Claudia Domna, ‘et Faustina et Romulus fili et vikari eius’. Erman, o.c. (n. 2), 446, wished to take the expression ‘fili et vikari’ together as the full (but not otherwise found) formula describing the status of children born to a slave and his vicaria, despite the fact that Claudia Domna is probably an ingenua; as the inscription is certainly of second-century date (cf. the status-indication Aug. n. and the spelling vikari) it is not possible for her to be a manumitted slave of Claudius or Nero. While it is unusual for the names of the vicarii not to be mentioned, this is no different from several inscriptions to Imperial freedmen put up simply by ‘liberti’.

10 Dispensator: VI, 64, 8478, 8719, 8845, 8863, 8950, 31012; XIV, 202, 1876, 4485; III, 3269, 7802, 7938, 12379 = 14207; AE 1914, 114 = Dacia 1, 249–50; AE 1959, 307; Bull. Com. (1925), p. 218; VIII, 17335; XII, 117; XIII, 1504, 1818, 3461, 5194; BGU, 102.1; P. Oxy. 735.7. Arcarius.: III, 556 (cf. 7268 = V, 8818); V, 1801 = AE 1956, 265; AE 1895, 10 = ILS 3580 (cf. AE 1937, P. 15); AE 1937, 29. Exactor: III, 11549; VIII, 2228; XIII, 5092 = 178. Vilicus: III, 10821 = 3937; VIII, 8488, 12314. Contrascriptor: VI, 8950. Tab(ellarius?): VIII, 12631. Qui praefuit pedisequis: VI, 33788. This list does not include the ordinarii with more than one vicarius: dispensator: VI, 5197, 8832; 11, 1198; 111, 4828; vilicus: VI, 8495(twice). ‘Vik(arius)’ is restored in AE 1895, 10 = ILS 3580; XIII, 3461, 5194. To the list should perhaps also be added the instances of dispensatoris arcarius: III, 1955, 4797–8, 12135 (cf. VI, 8719; X, 1732). In VIII, 12631 (Carthage) ‘tab(ellarius)’ is preferable to ‘tab(ularius)’, as tabellarii were always of slave status but tabularii almost always freedmen. Moreover the post need not be a financial one as the vicarius was only 4 years old and cannot be an occupational replacement.

11 VI, 138, 4409, 9061, 13850 (Xanthianus), 14428, 15492, 16787, 18296, 26065; Bull. Com. (1941), p. 173, no 81a; XIV, 50; AE 1939, 145–6; 11, 6091; III, 256, 4808; V, 7239; VIII, 12727, 24710; IX, 321. Vicarii of the Augustae and some doubtful cases have been excluded, as follows: VI, 4332, 7467, 9991, 35700; XI, 5418; AE 1945, 123; AE 1958, 278.

12 III, 3269, ‘Marcus Sperati disp. Vi(k).’ (Caracalla and Iulia Domna); VIII, 2228, ‘vik. Augg. n. vernae exac(toris)’; XIII, 1818, ‘vikarius quondam Augustor. ex dispensatoribus’; AE 1914, 114 = Dacia I, 249–50, ‘vik. Augg(g). nn(n). disp.’ It is to be observed that the form ‘vikarius’ appears in three, perhaps all four cases, perhaps influenced by the Greek οὐικάριος ; cf. BGU 102.1. This form does not occur in the Julio-Claudian period nor indeed certainly in the first century. The form ‘servus vicarius’ does not appear.

13 FIRA II, 628.

14 Cf. Suetonius, Galba, 12, ‘ordinarius dispensator’; Dig. XLVII, 10, 15, 44.

15 VIII, 12631, aged 4, (see above n. 10, end), and possibly another, AE 1939, 145, aged 14.

16 VI, 5822, 8516, 8578, 18369, 19018, 21604, 26091, 38178; IX, 5481; XIV, 202; Thylander, IPO, A, 102; AE 1929, 154; NS 1928, 209, n. 11.

17 III, 7802, ‘d.m. Isidorae domo Asiae’ (aged 18) ‘Primus Aug. disp. vik. b.m.’ The interpretation ‘vik(ariae)’ is not entirely certain. It is possible that the name of the dispensator has been omitted (cf. the earlier reading in III, 1222). For a comparable omission in the formula ‘Augusti 1. 1.’ see p. 121 below.

18 e.g. VI, 6392, ‘Felicia Hipparchi vicaria’; XII, 4451 (Narbo), ‘Myrine Fausti col. Narbonesium servi vicaria’; cf. VI, 6393–6, 6398–401. Ancilla occurs once for the slave of an Imperial slave (NS 1939, 86–7).

19 v, 7239. Iulia Prima; VI, 13850, Caecilia Primigenia; their daughter is Caecilia Sp. f. Saturnina; 15492, Claudia Laurina; 16787, Aemilia Secunda coniunx; VIII, 17335, Pompeia Chelia (viro); V, 1801, Sallustia Minnidis l. Ionis contubernalis; IX, 321, Zosimenis conserva.

20 See Section III, p. 127 below.

21 Hispalis (II, 1198), Tarraco (II, 6091); Lugdunum (XIII, 1818), Mediolanum Santonum (XIII, 1054), Suessiones (XIII, 3461), Aventicum (XIII, 5092), Vindonissa (XIII, 5194); Virunum (III, 4808, 4828, 11549), Sarmizegetusa (III, 7938), Apulum (III, 7802), Athens (III, 556), Corinth (III, 7268 = V, 8818), Ancyra (III, 256); Carthage (VIII, 12631, 12727, 24710), Thabraca (VIII, 17335, AE 1895, 10, cf. AE 1937, p. 15), Tebessa (AE 1937, 29), Sitifis (VIII, 8488), Mascula (VIII, 2228).

22 Against Erman, o.c. (n. 2), 405, 413 ff.

23 For manumission vicario relicto cf. Cod. Theod. IV, 8, 3; Cod. lust, VI, 46, 6; VII, 9, 1; see Erman, o.c. (n. 2), 432 and n. 3.

24 Cod. Iust. XI, 37, 1, ‘praesertim cum servi eiusmodi officia administrare debeant’. Cf. Mommsen ad CIL V, 83.

25 See Section III.

26 But there are numerous exceptions, e.g. VI, 10547, ‘Acratus Ti. Iuli Aug. liberti Himeri lib.’, which also exhibits the full spelling of ‘libertus’ common in inscriptions of lib. liberti.

27 e.g. VI, 14990, ‘l(iberto) et vernae’ (5 years old); AE 1903, 338, ‘Flaviae Sozusae Flavia Aug. lib. Oeogonomia vernae suae’ (13 years); VI, 12948, ‘Sex. Avonio Primigenio Euzelus Aug. lib. fecit vernae suo’ (12 years).

28 e.g. VI, 8441, ‘d.m. Aegypto servo Barbari Aug. lib. a codicillis’, cf. vi, 5264, ‘Iulia Restituta Acuti Aug. lib. liber.’

29 The ages are: 50, 46, 46, 44, 41, 40, 30, 25, 25, 25, 23, 22, 22, 18, 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5.

30 The figures are: 32 (dispensator), 18, 16, 14, 12, 7, 3. 3, 2, 1, 1; also a group of older slaves of Acte: 38, 35, 33, 20.

31 o.c. (n. 2), 458 ff., but see Buckland, o.c. (n. 2), 596, and esp. Berger, , Iura, VIII (1957), 124Google Scholar, n. 7. In VI, 9005 the status of Coetus Herodianus ‘praegustator Divi Augusti, postea vilicus in hortis Sallustianis’, is not that of Caesaris servus, as the phrase ‘Iulia Prima patrono suo’ indicates. For VI, 8495, ‘lib. libertabusque eius’, quoted P-W VIIIA, 2052, see n. 10 above.

32 See CQ (n.s.) XIII (1963), 272 ff.

33 Others are: (freedmen) a sede Augustae, paedagogus, aquarius, and one tabularius; (slaves) acroamatica Graeca, a manu, scriba librarius, vilicus (2), cubicularius, tabularius, dispensator (2).

34 VI, 8498 (liberti), 8547 (two liberti and one liberta), 8581 (libertus and liberta), 9059 (libertus and liberta), 33738 (four liberti); AE 1950, 170 (eight liberti); III, 14180 (two liberti); V, 42 (two liberti et heredes), 7751 (three liberti); VIII, 12883 (liberti); XII, 4490 (liberti).

35 Others are: cubicularius, tabellarius castrensis, adiutor a veste castrense, a cura amicorum, a veste, supra velarios de dom. Aug., adiutor ab admissione, decurio lecticariorum, a mappis, invitator, silentiarius.

36 Tertullian, ad uxor. II, 8, ‘nonne … severissimi quique domini et disciplinae tenacissimi servis suis foras nubere interdicunt? scilicet ne in lasciviam excedant, officia deserant, dominica extraneis promant.’ Cf. Plautus, , Casina, III, 3, 36Google Scholar; Cato, RR, 143; Varro, , RR, I, 17, 5Google Scholar; II, 10, 6; Columella, , RR I, 8, 5.Google Scholar

37 Cf. manumission matrimonii causa included by Gaius (1, 19) among the iustae causae manumissionis for slaves under thirty under the Lex Aelia Sentia.

38 Wives of lib. liberti (in chronological order): Iulia Glaphyra colliberta (XIV, 2302), Baebia o. l. Parhalia (VI, 5909) Iulia Thyrsi l. Iole (VI, 19060), Tertia (AE 1913, 216), Iulia Sperata (V, 1251), Iulia Coetonis (III, 2097); Dionysia (vi, 13659), Carithesua (VI, 8761), Moschis contub. (XIV, 2780); Domitia Nereis (VI, 8598), Primigenia contub. (VI, 18112), Gemina Syntyche (VI, 14646); Flavia Acte (VI, 8762); Ucena Victoria (?) (XIV, 3718). Lib. servi: Felicula (VI, 11242), Claudia Prima (VI, 8759); Flavia Avita (VI, 18296, cf. 25429), Atreia L.f. Procula (VI, 8833), Terpusa conserva (VI, 8605), Iulia Pyrallis (VI, 20649), Ampliata conserva (X, 695). Single names without status-indication refer to servae.

39 (a) -anus: Acteanus (VI, 15027), Augustanus (VI, 8772; VIII, 13092; AE 1937, 72), Popp(a)eanus (VI, 99, 8954), Priscillanus (AE 1926, 164), Scapulanus (VI, 10302), Scurranus (VI, 5197), Hyperephanus (VI, 18205).

(b) -inus: Amphioninus (VI, 12797), Rufioninus (VI, 20201).

40 The following discussion is based on a collection of 251 inscriptions of Imperial freedmen and slaves with second name in -ianus, Hülsen, Ch., Röm. Mitteil. III (1888), 222–32Google Scholar, compiled the list as it stood at that time, including several without status-indication. His remarks are mostly in the nature of annotations rather than a full discussion of the implications of the second names. I have checked his list and made some corrections and a considerable number of additions. I have not included those without specific status-indication, which are all from the early first century or earlier (see esp. VI, 10395 and X, 6638), because of their uncertain status and the likelihood that some at least are servi publici (e.g. VI, 4431, ‘Hymnus Aurelianus a byblioth. Lat. porticus Octaviae’; 4435, ‘Montanus Iulianus vilic. a byblioth. Octaviae Lat.’).

41 See Hirschfeld, O., ‘Der Grundbesitz derrömischen Kaiser in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten’ Klio II (1902), 46ff.Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften (1913), 516ff.

42 See nn. 62 and 64 below.

43 Cf. Mommsen, , Staatsr. III, 426Google Scholar, n. 3; Vitucci, , Diz. Epig. IV, 916.Google Scholar

44 But with exceptions, e.g. VI, 2344, 2345. See Halkin, L., Les esclaves publics chez les romains (1897), 35Google Scholar; Buckland, o.c. (n. 2), 320, n. 7; Mommsen, , Staatsr. I, 323Google Scholar, n. 3.

45 Cf. Halkin, o.c. (n. 44), 145 f. Among these one case is interesting as indicating explicitly the means of acquisition by the new owner: 11, 2229, ‘Trophimus c(olonorum) c(oloniae) ser. emptu Germanianus’.

46 VI, 18269; 6228, 6356. For the Germani corporis custodes of the Statilii cf. Mommsen, , Staatsr. II, 824Google Scholar, n. 6. For other examples, all from the early principate, see Hülsen, o.c. (n. 40), 222, n. 2.

47 For the frequent omission of ‘servus’ from the status-indication of servi publici cf. ‘Caesaris’ which is the predominant form of status-indication for Caesaris servi in the Julio-Claudian period.

48 In the bilingual inscription VI, 732 = IG XIV, 996, ‘T. Flavius Aug. lib. Hyginus Ephebianus’, the Greek has Τ. Φλάουιος Ύγεῖνος, omitting both the second name and status-indication.

49 e.g. nomenclator Caesaris, trierarchus Caesaris. Examples of vicariani are: VI, 4037; III, 12289; V, 2386; XIV, 2259; post-Claudian: VI, 8408, 9059; X, 6666; VI, 8831, 8754.

50 Halkin, o.c. (n. 44), 34.

51 Staatsr. I, 323, n. 3, ‘man darf sie wohl als den Ausdruck einer Zwitterstellung zwischen den wirklichen Freien und den wirklichen Sclaven auffassen’.

52 ibid. II, 836.

53 Salary: Frontinus, de Aqu. 100, Pliny, Ep. X, 31Google Scholar; peculium: Dig. XVI, 2, 19; will: Ulpian, , Frag, XX, 16Google Scholar, CIL VI, 2254.

54 Mommsen, , Staatsr. I, 324Google Scholar; Halkin, o.c. (n. 44), 118 ff.; but cf. Buckland's reservations, o.c. (n. 2), 319 f.

55 Thylander, H., Étude sur l'épigraphie latine (1952), 128 f.Google Scholar

56 Petronius, Cen. Tr. 71.

57 As the time of taking the second name is the important point, rather than the date at which the inscription was put up, inscriptions of Imperial freedmen with nomen are relevant to the reign of the emperor concerned or earlier, as the second name was always taken by a slave before manumission.

58 Agathoclianus: VI, 20706a cf. 10245; Alypianus: VI, 33788; Anterotianus: VI, 12652, 25033, PIR 2, A 734; Celadianus: VI, 8909, PIR 2, C 616, Suet. Aug. 67; Faustianus: VI, 14828; Rufioninus: VI, 20201. For Demosthenianus, VI, 4173, cf. PIR 2, D 47; and for slaves of Livia: VI, 3927. 4245, 8727.

59 Iulianus: VI, 5751, 5837, 22679; AE 1953, 24; IGRR 1, 39; IV, 1477. Fabianus: VI, 23569; XIV, 3920; PIR 2, F 13, Seneca, Apoc. 13; Tadianus: VI, 15062; Vestinianus: XI, 3173, PIR 1, I 410; Vinicianus: VI, 8938, PIR 1 V 445.

60 Acteanus, Acteniana: VI, 15027; X, 7980; Pallantianus: VI, 143, 8470.

61 Daphnidianus: V, 6638; Diodorianus: AE 1902, 78; Epagathianus: III, 12289; Epaphroditianus: VI, 15082; Gamianus: VI, 10245, 15350; Gratianus: VI, 8933–4 Lentianus: V, 2386; Pamphilianus: VI, 4226; Primigenianus: IX, 4977; Regillianus: XI, 7745; Thamyrianus: III, 12289; VI, 8486; Thyamidianus: XI, 3199; Vitalianus: X, 1732.

62 Agrippinianus: VI, 15616, 24164, 33737; Antonianus: VI, 18203; Galbianus: VI, 8819, 18048, 37759, 38003; Neronianus: VI, 10172–3, 15347; Octavianus: VI, 15551; Othonianus: XIV, 2060; Popp(a)eanus: VI, 8954.

63 Crispinillianus (VI, 8726) is probably derived from Calvia Crispinilla, Nero's former ‘magistra libidinum’ (Tacitus, , Hist. I, 73Google Scholar). Volusianus (VI, 10267) is assigned by Hirschfeld to L. Volusius Saturninus (PIR 1 V 660), who is probably too early.

64 Arminianus: VI, 12348; perhaps C. Arminius Gallus (PIR 2, A 1065). Augustanus: VI, 8772; VIII, 13092; AE 1937, 72; Domitianianus: VI, 8532; AE 1922, 122.

65 Atticianus: VI, 8408, 8410, 8451, 11390, 16616, 18049; Caenidianus: VI, 15110, 18358; X, 6666; Epaphroditianus: VI, 239 (Epaphroditus, however, is a common name in these inscriptions, cf. from this period VI, 8439, 8865, 15615, 33468); Parthenianus: V, 2156.

66 Those without status-indication, mostly dated to the reign of Augustus, have second names predominantly from the senatorial or non-servile group.

67 Cf. VI, 8410, ‘Atticus Aug. lib. a rationib.—Fructus Imp. Caesaris Domitiani Aug. Atticianus tabular(ius) a rationib.’; VI, 29960 (Diogenes—Diogenianus); VI, 9035 (Narcissus— Narcissianus); VI, 1884 (Phaedimus—Phaedimianus); III, 12289, ‘Thamyrus Aug. disp. Alexandrianus—Hymenaeus Aug. lib. Thamyrianus’. Other pairs in different inscriptions are numerous, e.g. Amphion (V, 1067), Amphioninus (VI, 12797); Anicetus (VI, 11631), Anicetianus (XIII, 5699); Atimetus (XIV, 4793), Atimetianus (VI, 656; XV, 7289, 7818); etc.

68 o.c. (n. 40), 231 f.

69 VI, 33760. In line 2 Hülsen proposed to read ‘P. Aeli Aug. liber …’ against the reading, the standard abbreviation ‘Aug. lib.’ for the freedmen of Trajan and Hadrian, and the spacing of the line which must have contained the personal name.

70 IGRR I, 1255–6 (A.D. 118).

70a VI, 28789, ‘L Vibio Charixeno alumno Callistianus Aug. lib. Sabinianus’. It is probable that here we have a former slave of Vibia Sabina Augusta (but cf. CIL ad loc.).

71 o.c. (n. 40), 232. Cf. Mommsen, CIL VIII, p. 1335 and n. 14.

72 Licinianus: VI, 244, 3968.

73 There is only one exception to the latter rule, VI, 12652, ‘Atimetus Pamphili Ti. Caesaris Aug. l. l. Anterotianus’.

74 All are from Rome: VI, 252, 602, 1884, 8504, 8754, 8886, 8909, 8920, 8933–4, 33788.

75 Julian: VI, 3968, 4037, 5197; Claudian: V, 2386; VI, 9060; IX, 4977; X, 1732; XIII, 5092; XIV, 2259; Flavian: V, 2156; VI, 239, 301, 8408, 8410, 8438, 8439, 8451, 8475, 8575, 8831, 9059, 33468; X, 6977; XIV, 2431; Ulpian: VI, 634, 8865; AE 1926, 164; incerti: VI, 594, 8723, 8836; XII, 117.

76 Julian: VI, 4358, 8820, 9066; Claudian: VI, 8822–4; XI 5756; XIV, 3920; Flavian: VI, 8819, 33737.

77 EE VIII 335 X, 6666; AE 1922, 122; XII, 257

78 T. Flavius Epaphroditus Ephebianus Aug. lib. a rationibus (VI, 33468), a vicarianus, was almost certainly not head of the a rationibus, nor of senior status. Ti. Iulius Aug. l. Optatus is not included as his second name, Pontianus, which appears in x, 6318 but not in x, 769, seems to have been assumed on his promotion to procuratorial rank as ‘procuratoret praefectus classis’ at Misenum (‘cognomen equestre’, CIL ad loc.), and not to be derived from a previous master.

79 Wives of liberti: Julio-Claudian: Claudia Homonoea (VI, 12652), Antonia Mystiche (VI, 4037), Claudia Emma (AE 1902, 78), Pompeia Secunda (III, 12289; VI, 8486), Claudia Aphrodisia (VI, 15357), Perellia Gemella (amico) (X, 2857), Antonia Laeta (vi, 17901); Flavian: Laitonia Festa (VI, 8504), Flavia Idusa (VI, 8920), Herennia Secunda (VI, 8451), Flavia Aug, lib. Helpis Caenidiana (VI, 18358), Mulleia Tertulla (VI, 18242), Flavia Nice (VI, 8438), Sextia Chrysis (VI, 9035), Ulpia Camilla (VI, 29138), Vibia Fortunata (VI, 29194), Ulpia Alypia (VI, 29154); undated: Cornelia Gemella (VI, 16397).

Wives of servi: Julio-Claudian: Iulia Constans (VI, 8901), Claudia Aug. I. Amanda (VI, 15350), Iulia Procula (XI, 7745), Lucilia C.f. Pira (XIV, 2259), Attia Sex. I. Daphne (AE 1912, 183), Claudia Psamathe (VI, 15570), Nonia Nymphe A. Noni I. (VI, 4903); Flavian: Sextilia Prisca (VI, 11390), Flavia Faustina (III, 4894), Caelia Marcella (VI, 13910), Flavia Aug. lib. Tyche(VI, 18456), Claudia P … (VI, 31099), Ulpia Bassa (VI, 8865), Volusia Comice (XIV, 3396), Antonia Auge (VI, 27388), Iulia Iusta (VI, 8575), Memmia Panthera (VI, 28593), Claudia Prisca (XIV, 2431), Antonia M.f. Dionysia (VI, 38010); undated: Maia Fortunata (VI, 33553), Iulia Restituta (X, 4225), Plautia Ianuaria (VI, 8723), Claudia Thelge (VI, 15615) Annia Cypris (VI, 11782), Sextilia Prima (VI, 18553), Scantia Priscilla (VI, 25997), Iulia Elate (VI, 20433), Claudia Arescusa (VI, 19456), Cornelia Regilla (VI, 34014).

The wife is usually coniunx, sometimes uxor, sometimes contubernalis even with a husband of freedman status, e.g. VI, 17901.

80 X, 1732; VI, 13850.

81 Servilia Primilla (d. 25), Iulia Constans (d. 22), Claudia Psamathe (d. 23), Caelia Marcella (d. 32), Claudia Thelge (d. 45, married 22 years), etc.

82 e.g. Heliconis Agrippinae vestifica, Prima cont-(ubernalis), Secunda Drusilliana, etc. The marriages of the -ianae also conform to this pattern: VI, 18358: Flavia Aug. lib. Helpis Caenidiana—Callistus Aug. lib. Hyginianus; VI, 4402: Thetis Antoniae Drusi I. Scapliana—Marius cons(ervus); VI, 3952: Asia Liviae Cascelliana—Eutactus Liviae capsar(ius).

83 VI, 10172–3.

84 Cascelliana: VI, 3952; Maecenatiana: VI, 4095; Scapliana: VI, 4402; Drusilliana: VI, 8824; Acteniana: X, 7980; Caenidiana: VI, 18358.

85 III, 7853, ‘Felix Caes. n. ser. ex vi(k).’ Cf. III, 5121, 5691.

86 That such recruitment did in fact take place during the lifetime of the ordinarius is shown by VI, 8410, where one slave of Atticus Aug. lib. a rationibus under Domitian passed into the emperor's familia as Fructus Imp. Caesaris Domitiani Aug. Germanici Atticianus tabular(ius) a rationibus, while another remained to be manumitted by Atticus as Fortunatus Attici Aug. lib. a rationib(us) lib. tabular(ius). Cf. III, 12289.

87 Cf. SHA Hadr. 21, ‘libertos suos nec sciri voluit in publico’.