Dediticii

Last updated

In this inscription from AD 232, Walldurn, Roman Germany, Alexandrian dediticii join two scouts (exploratores) in a dedication to Dea Fortuna after the restoration of the decrepit baths at their military outpost. 200910311224MEZ Saalburg-Museum, CIL XIII 06592, Walldurn.jpg
In this inscription from AD 232, Walldürn, Roman Germany, Alexandrian dediticii join two scouts (exploratores) in a dedication to Dea Fortuna after the restoration of the decrepit baths at their military outpost.

In ancient Rome, the dediticii or peregrini dediticii were a class of free provincials who were neither slaves nor citizens holding either full Roman citizenship as cives or Latin rights as Latini . [2]

Contents

A conquered people who were dediticii did not individually lose their freedom, but the political existence of their community was dissolved as the result of a deditio , an unconditional surrender. [3] In effect, their polity or civitas ceased to exist. Their territory became the property of Rome, public land on which they then lived as tenants. [4] Sometimes, this loss was a temporary measure, almost a trial period to see whether the peace held, while the people were being incorporated into Roman governance; [5] territorial rights for the people or property rights for individuals might then be restored by a decree of the senate (senatus consultum) once relations were perceived as having stabilized. [6]

In the Imperial era, there were three categories of people who held dediticius status defined as freedom without rights: the peregrini dediticii ("foreigners under treaty") who had surrendered; peregrini who had immigrated into the empire; [7] and former slaves who were designated libertini qui dediticiorum numero sunt, freedmen who were counted permanently as dediticii because of a penal status that denied them the rights usually ensuing from manumission. [8]

Dediticii ex lege Aelia Sentia

Under Augustus, in AD 4 the lex Aelia Sentia created a new class of freedmen who, while technically free, held no rights of citizenship, a status they shared with peregrini dediticii. The jurist Gaius called the status of dedicitius "the worst kind of freedom." [9] In modern scholarship, these former slaves are sometimes referred to as dediticii Aeliani to distinguish them from the original dediticii, free people who surrendered and were brought under treaty. [10] [lower-alpha 1]

If a slave during his servitude had been subjected to certain punishments but later freed (either by the master who punished him or by a subsequent owner), he was excluded from the political liberty that had customarily followed formal manumission in Republican Rome. Gaius describes these slaves as those "who have been chained by their masters as a punishment, or those who have been branded, or interrogated under torture concerning some wrongdoing and convicted of that offence, or handed over to fight in gladiatorial combat with swords or with wild beasts, or sent to the games (ludi), or thrown into custody" and then later manumitted. [12] They existed in a state of permanent delinquency (turpitudo). [13] A dediticius caught in adultery could be killed with impunity. [14] A manumitted slave would not become dediticius, however, if he had been bound while used as surety for a loan, or if the chaining was carried out by a mentally ill person (furiosus) or ward. [15]

Unlike the peregrini dedicitii, who could make a will under the local law of their community, [16] these dediticii were like slaves in holding no rights to succession and therefore could not create a stable family line through passing down property. [17] When they died, any property they had went to the person who had manumitted them. [18] Their assimilation to the status of foreigners under surrender has been somewhat perplexing to scholars; W. W. Buckland considered this one of the instances in Roman law of "rules... made to apply to cases quite different from that for which they were invented." [19]

The law also created a dilemma for owners particularly of agricultural slave crews. Chaining was a routine means of controlling and disciplining slaves that might be preferred to harsher punishments such as whipping, torture, or disfigurement. Employing it now meant that masters were automatically denying their slaves any hope of ever becoming citizens, a hope that had been used as a way to encourage them to work hard and willingly. The lex Aelia Sentia was thus one more way in which Augustus appropriated the traditional power of a paterfamilias to govern his own household. [20] Even if an owner acquired a slave who had been subjected to one of these forms of punishment, but did not himself chain or punish a slave and then manumitted him, the former slave still could not enjoy the rights of citizenship. [21]

These criminalized former slaves were characterized as a threat to society, and if they came within a hundred miles of Rome, they and their property could be seized. [22] The dediticius was then sold into perpetual slavery outside the hundred-mile radius. If released by his master, he became a slave of the Roman people, at the disposal of the state but with none of the privileges of the public slaves (servi publici) in civil service. [23]

Why the lex Aelia Sentia permitted the manumission of a slave perceived as a danger is not entirely clear. [24] Sales contracts sometimes stipulated a term of servitude, typically ranging from one to five years, after which time the slave was to be manumitted. [25] Augustus imposed a term of twenty to thirty years on war captives who had shown resistance; [26] age and the physical toll of slavery well past the average life expectancy of slaves might have been thought to reduce the threat.[ citation needed ]

Dediticii and the Constitutio Antoniniana

The fragmentary papyrus of the Constitutio Antoniniana on display Constitutio Antoniniana.png
The fragmentary papyrus of the Constitutio Antoniniana on display

The Constitutio Antoniniana of AD 212, with which Caracalla granted universal citizenship to all free persons within the empire, has sometimes been interpreted as excluding those who had become subjects through a deditio (that is, a person who was a dediticius). [27] However, this constitution does not survive in a single, unified, intact text; the wording pertaining to the excluded dediticii is vexed; and Ulpian and Dio Cassius both clearly state that the grant was universal. [28]

On the basis of the Tabula Banasitana , it has been argued that the intention was to exclude recent dediticii whose loyalty was not assured. [29] But before the constitutio, there had been no bar to peregrini dediticii being granted citizenship, and those who served in the Roman military—as the "barbarian" troops of the numeri did—regularly became citizens as a reward at the end of their service. [30] If all foreign provincials under treaty were excluded, it becomes harder to discern how the constitutio would achieve its aims of broadening the tax base and enlarging the cultivation of Roman religion. [31] The granting of citizenship could not be meaningfully "universal" if it excluded so many people, and though no similar large-scale expansions of citizenship are known, by the 5th century the free inhabitants of the empire are clearly represented in the sources as all citizens. [32] "Potentially disloyal" would be a nebulous category not readily defined as a matter of law, and a likely solution is that only a subgroup of dediticii were excluded, the former slaves treated as criminals and barred from citizenship by the lex Aelia Sentia. [33] In this view, [34] the dediticii exception in Caracalla's constitutio was thus carefully limited and framed so as not to contravene the 200-year precedent of the Augustan lex. [35]

Dediticii are absent from later Imperial law, and Justinian (reigned AD 527–565) abolished the status as already obsolete [36] in the year 530. [37] However, an early medieval legal text correlates wergilds, the compensation paid for the taking of a life according to the victim's social status, with Roman statuses including that of dediticius, though wergilds were not a feature of Roman law. [38]

Notes

  1. ↑ The term Latini Aeliani is also found in modern scholarship, but the lex Aelia did not in fact permit slaves so criminalized to obtain Latin rights, as could free people brought under deditio. [11]

Related Research Articles

AD 4 was a common year starting on Wednesday or a leap year starting on Tuesday of the Julian calendar and a leap year starting on Tuesday of the Proleptic Julian calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Catus and Saturninus. The denomination "AD 4" for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

AD 24 (XXIV) was a leap year starting on Saturday of the Julian calendar. At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Cethegus and Varro. The denomination AD 24 for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Romano-British culture</span> Pre-Saxon England

The Romano-British culture arose in Britain under the Roman Empire following the Roman conquest in AD 43 and the creation of the province of Britannia. It arose as a fusion of the imported Roman culture with that of the indigenous Britons, a people of Celtic language and custom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manumission</span> Act of a slave owner freeing their slaves

Manumission, or enfranchisement, is the act of freeing slaves by their owners. Different approaches to manumission were developed, each specific to the time and place of a particular society. Historian Verene Shepherd states that the most widely used term is gratuitous manumission, "the conferment of freedom on the enslaved by enslavers before the end of the slave system".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman citizenship</span> Citizenship in ancient Rome

Citizenship in ancient Rome was a privileged political and legal status afforded to free individuals with respect to laws, property, and governance. Citizenship in ancient Rome was complex and based upon many different laws, traditions, and cultural practices. There existed several different types of citizenship, determined by one's gender, class, and political affiliations, and the exact duties or expectations of a citizen varied throughout the history of the Roman Empire.

The ius gentium or jus gentium is a concept of international law within the ancient Roman legal system and Western law traditions based on or influenced by it. The ius gentium is not a body of statute law nor a legal code, but rather customary law thought to be held in common by all gentes in "reasoned compliance with standards of international conduct".

<i>Constitutio Antoniniana</i> Edict issued by Roman Emperor Caracalla (212)

The Constitutio Antoniniana, also called the Edict of Caracalla or the Antonine Constitution, was an edict issued in AD 212 by the Roman emperor Caracalla. It declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Status in Roman legal system</span> Status of a person under ancient Roman law

In Roman law, status describes a person's legal status. The individual could be a Roman citizen, unlike foreigners; or he could be free, unlike slaves; or he could have a certain position in a Roman family either as head of the family, or as a lower member.

In Roman Law, the lex Iunia Norbana classified all freedmen into two classes according to their mode of enfranchisement: enfranchised citizens, and enfranchised Latini. The date of this lex is uncertain, with arguments for as early as 25 BC or more commonly 17 BC, or as late as AD 19.

The lex Fufia Caninia of 2 BC was a law passed under Augustus, the first Roman emperor, concerning the manumission of slaves. The law placed limits on the number of slaves that could be formally released from slavery by means of a will. Testamentary manumission had been established in early Rome as one of three procedures recognized in Roman law as not only granting libertas (liberty) to the formerly enslaved person but also full citizenship.

The Lex Aelia Sentia was a law established in the Roman Empire in 4 AD. It was one of the laws that the Roman assemblies passed at the behest of the emperor Augustus. Along with the Lex Fufia Caninia of 2 BC, this law regulated the manumission of slaves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social class in ancient Rome</span> Roman hierarchical social status and afforded rights

Social class in ancient Rome was hierarchical, with multiple and overlapping social hierarchies. An individual's relative position in one might be higher or lower than in another, which complicated the social composition of Rome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slavery in ancient Rome</span>

Slavery in ancient Rome played an important role in society and the economy. Unskilled or low-skill slaves labored in the fields, mines, and mills with few opportunities for advancement and little chance of freedom. Skilled and educated slaves—including artisans, chefs, domestic staff and personal attendants, entertainers, business managers, accountants and bankers, educators at all levels, secretaries and librarians, civil servants, and physicians—occupied a more privileged tier of servitude and could hope to obtain freedom through one of several well-defined paths with protections under the law. The possibility of manumission and subsequent citizenship was a distinguishing feature of Rome's system of slavery, resulting in a significant and influential number of freedpersons in Roman society.

<i>Peregrinus</i> (Roman) Provincial inhabitant of the Roman Empire

In the early Roman Empire, from 30 BC to AD 212, a peregrinus was a free provincial subject of the Empire who was not a Roman citizen. Peregrini constituted the vast majority of the Empire's inhabitants in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. In AD 212, all free inhabitants of the Empire were granted citizenship by the Constitutio Antoniniana, with the exception of the dediticii, people who had become subject to Rome through surrender in war, and freed slaves.

Vindicius was a Roman slave manumitted for his service to the Roman Republic in the first year after it was founded. Ancient sources tell the story as an aetiology for manumissio vindicta, a form of manumission that granted the former slave Roman citizenship. The historicity of Vindicius and the linguistic validity of connecting his name to the etymology of vindicta are dubious, but the story is an example of how Roman legendary history valued patriotism and integrated slaves into civic life.

Lucius Visellius Varro was a Roman senator, who was active during the reign of Tiberius. He was consul in AD 24 as the colleague of Servius Cornelius Cethegus. He is best known for accusing Gaius Silius of being complicit in Sacrovir's revolt and misappropriating money from the provincial government in Gaul. His prosecution ended with Silius' death.

Gaius Sentius Saturninus was a Roman senator, and consul ordinarius for AD 4 as the colleague of Sextus Aelius Catus. He was the middle son of Gaius Sentius Saturninus, consul in 19 BC. During his consulate the Lex Aelia Sentia, concerning the manumission of slaves, was published.

<i>Contubernium</i> Quasi-marital relationship involving slaves

In ancient Rome, contubernium was a quasi-marital relationship between two slaves or between a slave (servus) and a free person who was usually a former slave or the child of a former slave. A slave involved in such a relationship was called contubernalis, the basic and general meaning of which was "companion".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ancient Roman freedmen</span> Social class of former slaves

Freedmen in ancient Rome existed as a distinct social class (liberti or libertini), with former slaves granted freedom and rights through the legal process of manumission. The Roman practice of slavery utilized slaves for both production and domestic labour, overseen by their wealthy masters. Urban and domestic slaves especially could achieve high levels of education, acting as agents and representatives of their masters' affairs and finances. Within Roman law there was a set of practices for freeing trusted slaves, granting them a limited form of Roman citizenship or Latin rights. These freed slaves were known in Latin as liberti (freedmen), and formed a class set apart from freeborn Romans. While freedmen were barred from some forms of social mobility in Roman society, many achieved high levels of wealth and status. Liberti were an important part of the "most economically active and innovative entrepreneurial class" in the Roman Empire. The legal and social status of freedmen remained a point of cultural and legal contention throughout the Republic and Empire.

A lex Visellia was any Roman law passed by someone whose name was Visellius.

References

  1. ↑ Pat Southern, "The Numeri of the Roman Imperial Army," Britannia 20 (1989), p. 139, no. 16; CIL 13.6592 = AE 1983, 729); further discussion by Iiro Kajanto, "Epigraphical Evidence of the Cult of Fortuna in Germania Romana," Latomus 47:3 (1988), pp. 570–572, 578.
  2. ↑ Adolph Berger, s.v. "Dediticii", Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (American Philosophical Society, 1953), p. 427.
  3. ↑ Christian Baldus, "Vestigia pacis. The Roman Peace Treaty: Structure or Event?" in Peace Treaties and International Law in European History from the Late Middle Ages to World War One (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 122.
  4. ↑ Herbert W. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 85 (1954), p. 192.
  5. ↑ Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 194.
  6. ↑ L. De Ligt, "Provincial Dediticii in the Epigraphic Lex Agraria of 111 BC?" Classical Quarterly 58:1 (2008), pp. 359–360.
  7. ↑ Mary T. Boatwright, "Acceptance and Approval: Romans' Non-Roman Population Transfers, 180 b.c.e.–ca 70 c.e." Phoenix 69:1/2 (2015), pp. 124 et passim.
  8. ↑ Herbert W. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," pp. 188–189, 191.
  9. ↑ Pessima … libertas: Gaius, Institutiones 1.26, as cited by Deborah Kamen, "A Corpus of Inscriptions: Representing Slave Marks in Antiquity," Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 55 (2010), p. 104.
  10. ↑ Pedro López Barja, "The Republican Background and the Augustan Setting for the Creation of Junian Latinity," in Junian Latinity in the Roman Empire, p. 97.
  11. ↑ Pedro López Barja and Jacobo Rodríguez Garrido, "Of Mice and Junians: On the Latin Condition," in Junian Latinity in the Roman Empire, pp. 124–126.
  12. ↑ Ulrike Roth, "Men Without Hope," Papers of the British School at Rome 79 (2011), p. 90, citing Gaius, Institutiones 1.13 and pointing also to Suetonius, Divus Augustus 40.4
  13. ↑ Luigi Pellecchi, "The Legal Foundation: The leges Iunia et Aelia Sentia", in Junian Latinity in the Roman Empire vol. 1: History, Law, Literature (Edinburgh University Press, 2023), p. 62 and n. 34, citing Gaius, Institutiones 1.15.
  14. ↑ Simon Corcoran, "Junian Latinity in Late Roman and Early Medieval Texts: A Survey from the Third to the Eleventh Centuries AD," in Junian Latinity in the Roman Empire, p. 136.
  15. ↑ Corcoran, "Junian Latinity in Late Roman and Early Medieval Texts," p. 135, n. 26.
  16. ↑ Egbert Koops, "Masters and Freedmen: Junian Latins and the Struggle for Citizenship," Integration in Rome and in the Roman World: Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Lille, June 23-25, 2011) (Brill, 2014), pp. 115–116, n.69.
  17. ↑ Roth, "Men Without Hope," p. 91.
  18. ↑ Pellecchi, "The Legal Foundation," p. 63.
  19. ↑ W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge University Press, 1908), p. 534.
  20. ↑ Roth, "Men Without Hope," pp. 92–93.
  21. ↑ Roth, "Men Without Hope," pp. 93–94.
  22. ↑ Jane F. Gardner, "Slavery and Roman Law," in The Cambridge World History of Slavery (Cambridge University Press, 2011), vol. 1, p. 429.
  23. ↑ Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, p. 596.
  24. ↑ Barja, "The Republican Background," p. 82.
  25. ↑ Thomas E. J. Wiedemann, "The Regularity of Manumission at Rome," Classical Quarterly 35:1 (1985), pp. 169–173.
  26. ↑ Wiedemann, "The Regularity of Manumission," p. 170, n. 21, citing Suetonius, Augustus 21; Cassius Dio 53.25.4.
  27. ↑ Olivier Hekster, Rome and Its Empire, AD 193–284 (Edinburgh University Press, 2008), p. 47.
  28. ↑ Herbert W. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," pp. 188–189, 191.
  29. ↑ A. N. Sherwin-White, "The Tabula of Banasa and the Constitutio Antoniniana," Journal of Roman Studies 63 (1973), pp. 97–98.
  30. ↑ Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 194.
  31. ↑ Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," pp. 188, 191.
  32. ↑ A. H. M. Jones, "Another Interpretation of the Constitutio Antoniniana," Journal of Roman Studies 26:2 (1936), pp. 224, 227.
  33. ↑ Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 196.
  34. ↑ Accepted also by t Koops, "Masters and Freedmen: Junian Latins and the Struggle for Citizenship," pp. 124–125.
  35. ↑ Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 196.
  36. ↑ Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, p. 402.
  37. ↑ Corcoran, "Junian Latinity in Late Roman and Early Medieval Texts," p. 141.
  38. ↑ Corcoran, "Junian Latinity in Late Roman and Early Medieval Texts," p. citing the 9th-century Aegidian Epitome (Par. Lat. 4416 f. 50v).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.