You are on page 1of 24


Author(s): Susan Treggiari

Source: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 49 (1981), pp. 59-81
Published by: British School at Rome
Stable URL:
Accessed: 18-02-2018 13:14 UTC

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

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

British School at Rome is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Papers of the British School at Rome

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

Concubinatus in Roman society of the classical period is an acceptable and often

openly acknowledged sexual relationship, not covered by the law but with some
rules of its own. It was expected to last some considerable time. The woman
certainly and, it will be argued, the man, was not expected to be married to a third
person. The couple living in concubinatus lacked the intention to be married to each
other (affectio maritalis). It will be suggested that, whereas in contubernium between a
slave and a free person affectio maritalis might be present, but the legal status of the
slave partner ruled out marriage, social rather than legal disparity was an important
factor in ruling out the marriage of a concubine. This social disparity usually,
perhaps always, took the form of the superiority of the male partner.2 This is under-
lined by the striking fact that the relationship is not reciprocal. The woman is
called concubina (the etymology is transparent - a word without the nuances of, for
instance, coniunx), but there is no term to describe the male partner. There are also
subtle indications that it is the intentions of the man which are crucial : arguments
in the jurists turn on whether the man regarded the woman in the light of a wife
or of a concubine. Concubines in the inscriptions are praised for their affection,
chastity and pietas, and as objects of love but not specifically for having regarded
the man in the light of a husband.3 They are expected to have the virtues of a wife
but not her pretensions. Their position approached that of a wife most closely

xMy thanks are due to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for
its generous support and to Ernst Badian, Beryl Rawson and other participants at the colloquium
on 'Women in the Roman empire* held at Vassar College in March 1980 for their generous criticism.
Annotation has been kept as brief as possible. The following abbreviations are used :
Castelli = G. Castelli, 'II concubinato e la legislazione augustea', Scritti giuridici (Milan: Hoepli,
1923), pp. 143-63.
Castello = Carlo Castello, In tema di matrimonio e concubinato nel mondo romano (Milan: Giuffré, 1940).
Corbett = P. E. Corbett, The Roman law of marriage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930).
Meyer = Paul M. Meyer, Der römische Konkubinat (Leipzig: Teubner, 1895; repr. Aalen: Scientia,
Orestano = R. Orestano, 'Sul matrimonio presunto in diritto romano', Atti del congresso internazionale
di diritto romano e di storia di diritto III (Milan: Giuffré, 1948).
Plassard = J. Plassard, Le concubinat romain sous le haut empire (Paris: Sirey, 1921).
Rawson = Beryl Rawson, 'Roman concubinage and other de facto marriages' {TAPA 104, 1974,
Robleda = O. Robleda, El matrimonio en derecho romano. Esencia, requisitos de valides, effectos, dissolubilidad
(Rome: Anal. Gregoriana, 1970).
Volterra = E. Volterra, 'Matrimonio. Diritto romano', Enciclopedia del Diritto (Milan: Giuffré, 1975,
Watson = Alan Watson, The Law of Persons in the later Roman Republic (Oxford : Clarendon Press,
2Later, when many upper-class women were Christian and upper-class men were on the
whole pagan, the former appear sometimes to have lived in concubinage with Christian men who
were their social inferiors. Plassard holds (p. 163) that in most couples in the classical period the
woman was socially superior, but this conclusion is vitiated by his faulty methodology in collecting
and interpreting the epigraphical evidence.
*Amantissimae (CIL VI, 9375, 22293, 24441), 'pro mentis quae dilexit eum' (6873); pussima
21607; pientissima 24953; carae / carissimae (24857, 24953, 25014).

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

when they had been freed from slave

firmly under the man's control than t
Legal, literary and epigraphic eviden
attempt will first be made to define w


Watson4 has shown that in the comedies of Plautus the concubina is a kep
who has a recognised arrangement with a certain man. She is clearly disti
from an arnica ('girl friend5). The contrast is particularly clear in Mi
Philocomasium lives with the soldier as his concubina but is also secretly t
of young Pleusicles. A different distinction is drawn by Paulus in the title d

D. 50. 16. 144, Paulus libro decimo ad legem luliam et Papiam:

Libro memorialium Massurius scribit 'pellicem' apud antiquos eam habitam, quae, cum uxor
non esset, cum aliquo tarnen vivebat: quam nunc vero nomine amicam, paulo honestiore
concubinam appellari . . .

In his book Memorialia Massurius (Masurius Sabinus, who worked in the time of Tiberius)
writes that 'paelex' in old writers refers to a woman who lived with a man although she was
not his wife, but that now she is called arnica (which is outspoken but accurate) or given the
rather more honourable name of concubine.5

Although here both amicae and concubinae live with a man, there is a difference in
honour, which can be glossed as follows: concubinae are always amicae, but amicae
are not always concubinae. More important, although concubinatus is not a legal
institution, it is of interest to the lawyers and discussed in the Digest. They leave
ordinary amicae out of account.6 Concubinae are relevant to discussions of marriage
or family property because they can be confused with wives. It is significant that
although Justinian's team decided to make a separate chapter of the Digest on
concubinae, the earlier writers treated them (as far as we know) specifically in relation
to the Augustan laws on marriage.7
In post- Plautine literary sources the content of the word concubina is often vague.
It is used of Caenis, who was to the widower Vespasian 'paene iustae uxoris loco'8
and of Acte, who was maîtresse en titre to Nero while he was married, and of other
individual mistresses in unclear contexts.9 But it is most commonly used (according
to the Thesaurus) of whole harems of women kept by emperors and members of the

4Pp. 1-10, especially pp. 1-2.

5The rest of the text concerns paelex, a term for a mistress which is chiefly literary. Castello has
a detailed but not entirely satisfactory discussion (pp. 9-23).
6'Amica' in the sexual sense may occur in a few epitaphs. Cf. Rawson 299-300.
W. 24. 2. 11, 25. 7. 1, Ulp.; 25. 7. 2, 50. 16. 144, Paul, on the Lex Julia et Papia, 48. 5. 14 pr.
Ulp., de adulteriis. Like wives, concubines can of course crop up in various contexts apart from
specific discussions of marriage.
8< Almost in the position of / a substitute for a legal wife ' (Suet. Vesp. 3, cf. Dom. 12).
»Suet. Nero 50, Sen. Suas. 2. 17, Mart. 3. 82. 11.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

upper classes. This usage is a co

establish facts.10 Harems are prop
In the latter, for example, a ma
provided with a wife or concub
for either:

viv(i) Alive
C. Vibi Pet. f. Gaius Vibius Balbus
Fab. Balbi son of Petro of the
sibi et concubinae) Fabian tribe, to himself
sive uxsori ei(us) . . . and to his concubine or wife . . .n

A man dedicating a monument to his fellows in a trade-guild will include their

descendants and their wives and concubines. At Fanum Fortunae, a man reserved
a space for himself, wives and concubines, freedmen and freedwomen.12 Such in-
scriptions suggest that concubinatus was expected to be a common alternative to
marriage among ordinary Romans of the artisan class and that concubinae were
socially almost as respectable as wives. The wives of the guildsmen were not expected
to resent the inclusion of concubinae.
Roman marriage was made by two consenting parties who intended to be
husband and wife. They each had affectio maritalis or honor matrimonii. Consummation,
cohabitation, dowry, public celebration of the wedding were all usual but inessential
concomitants, useful particularly in making the intention of the couple known. If
children were born and acknowledged by the man, this too indicated that he
regarded the relationship as marriage. The problem for Lesbonicus is that if he
gives his sister to Lysiteles without a dowry people will assume that she is a con-
cubine, not a wife.13 Lysiteles' intention and that of the bride's family will be made
clear to outsiders if there is a dowry.
Whether a given relationship is a marriage or not may therefore be privileged
information. The will of both partners is needed to make a marriage; the lack of
intention of one partner suffices to reduce the union to concubinatus, conceivably
unbeknownst to the other. This is the extreme possibility and in practice would
presumably not last long. We have indications of it in the heroic context oïAeneid IV.
Aeneas and Dido initiate a sexual relationship, cohabitation and even an administra-
tive partnership, with some supernatural accompaniments which she might regard
as the equivalent of a wedding ceremony. Later, Dido begs Aeneas not to leave
her by the marriage they have begun. He replies that he never mentioned marriage.14
Ambiguity of this sort was unlikely to occur among upper-class Romans, especially
when the woman had a family to protect her interests. Nor does it seem likely that

10Cf. Cael. apud Quint. Inst. 4. 2. 124 = ORF3 no. 162. 17, Tac. Hist. 1. 72, 3. 40, Pliny Epp.
3. 14. 3. See further below, p. 77.
UCIL IX. 5256 (Asculum). Since the woman is not named, she cannot be a current partner
about whose status Vibius has doubts: she must be a potential mate, still in the future.
12C7L XI. 6136 (Forum Sempronii), 6257.
13Plaut. Trin. 689-91. Cf. Watson pp. 2-b.
14See Gordon Williams, Tradition and originality in Roman poetry (Uxiord: Clarendon Press,
1968), 378-87. The main references are Aen. IV. 125-6, 165-71, 316, 338-9.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

the foreign princess Cleopatra was d

her union with Mark Antony before h
But what might more commonly h
was disputed when he could not testif
cited and not resolved by Cicero,15
comes to Rome and begins an appare
becomes pregnant. The man then dies,
the man and the status of the second
marriage with the second woman an
intention to remain married to his firs
her so, or he had not intended marriag
and she only a concubina. Similar disc
in the jurists.16 A second example of
tentions is given when he becomes ins
living with a freedwoman of his own
was his concubine, not his wife. A l
consent could not legally marry any
so the freedwoman would have been in an awkward situation.17
On this point that it is only affectio which decides whether a union is marriage
or concubinage, we may cite the following passage :

D. 39. 5. 31. pr., Pap. libro duo decimo responsorum:

Donationes in concubinam collatas non posse revocari convenit, nee, si matrimonium inter
eosdem postea fuerit contractum, ad irritum reccidere quod ante iure valuit. an autem maritalis
honor et affectio pridem praecesserit, personis comparatis, vitae coniunctione considerata
perpendendum esse respondi : 'neque enim tabulas facere matrimonium'.

It is fitting that gifts bestowed on a concubine cannot be revoked, nor if marriage is subsequently
contracted between the same parties, should a gift which was previously legally valid become
invalid. But, I replied, the question must be carefully weighed whether maritalis honor et affectio
preceded the (sc. apparent) marriage, taking into account the relative standing of the parties
and their union in their way of life: for a contract is not what makes a marriage.18

Behind this discussion lies the fact that it was illegal for a husband and wife
to give each other substantial gifts.19 But there was no such difficulty between a
man and his concubina.20 The question might then arise what the woman's status

1&Deorat. 1. 183,238.
16E.g. D. 34. 9. 16. 1, Pap.
17Z>. 23. 2. 45. 5, Ulp. For others than libertae, unilateral divorce was possible even when the
divorced partner was mad: D. 24. 2. 4, 24. 3. 2. 2, 24. 3. 22. 7, Ulp.). Some held that even a concubina
could not leave her patron (D. 25. 7. 1 pr., Ulp.).
18Cf. G. Longo, 'Affectio maritalis', Ricerche romanistiche (Milan: Giuffré, 1966) 301-21.
19See especially D. 24. 1.
20In D. 24. 1. 58 pr.-l, Scaevola discusses a similar case where a man gives a concubine farms
and slaves and then, after marrying her, exchanges them for others, and the case of a man who
gives rations to the slaves of a concubine who is subsequently his wife. This is a far cry from the
grasping meretrix concubine of the hostile literary tradition which runs from comedy to the changed
world of the Christian period (e.g. Sid. Ap. Epp. 9. 6. 2: *. . . quantum de bonusculis avitis paternis
sumptuositas domesticae Chary bdis abligurisset . . .') and beyond.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

was at the time the gift was gi

particular case envisaged here
status from concubine to wife
it can be established that affec
that marriage has replaced con
beginning of marriage, then it
In diagnosing marriage or c
status of the parties, personis c
senatorial rank, were forbidden

D. 24. 1. 3. 1, Ulpian libro trigesimo

. . . divus tarnen Severus in liber
affectione uxoris habita, sed magis

The deified Severus made the opp

Pontius Paulinus, that she was not
as a concubine.22

The presumption would be that between a senator and a freedwoman the relation-
ship was concubinatus. Since some members of the senatorial order were rash enough
to attempt marriage with freedwomen23 further arguments about Pontius Paulinus'
intentions might need to be brought. This is where the vitae coniunetio might need to
be considered. No doubt this was a delicate business. Did the couple live together?
Did the woman have a fixed allowance, like a kept woman in comedy, or share
everything with the man, like a wife?24 Did he give rations to her slaves (cf. n. 19) ?
Was she the châtelaine ? How was she treated when guests of the man's social class
were invited ? Even in the upper classes, it might not be easy to read such signs and
distinguish a concubine from a wife;25 among the poorer citizens it would be more
difficult still. The transmutation of concubinatus into marriage, which we have seen
happening among the propertied classes, might be a fairly frequent phenomenon
lower down the social scale.26
Mixed up with the affectio and honor maritalis is the social position which the
woman enjoyed vis-à-vis third parties, her dignitas. A libertà who was her patron's
concubine might have almost as much honour as a Roman matron.27 There are a
couple of passages on legacy to a concubine of clothes which had been bought or

21The man's relations would be the interested parties.

22For intention, cf. D. 25. 7. 4, Paul, id. Sent. 2. 20. 1.
23Z>. 23. 2. 23 and 44 on the prohibition; 23. 2. 27 and 31 on violation of the law; 23. 2. 58:
the libertina conceals her status.
24Cf. D. 23. 2. 1, Mod., defining marriage as 'coniunetio maris et feminae et consortium omnis
vitae, divini et humani iuris communicatio'. For the idea see, e.g., Gic. Off. 1. 54, Quint. Deci. 247,
Ritterp. 13, vv. 12-13.
25For instance, Domitian was expected to kiss Caenis, his father s concubine, when he met her
(Suet. Dom. 12).
26Late emperors encouraged men to marry concubines by whom they had had children and
to legitimise the children born before the marriage: CJ 5. 27. 5. 10; cf. Corbett p. 95. The policy
was sometimes at least endorsed by churchmen: cf. e.g. Ambrose Sermo 52. 9 = Migne XVII. 735.
27Z). 23. 2. 41. 1, Marceli.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

made for her (a frequent type of le

discussed an economical gentleman w
been used by a previous concubine.2
clothes which had been bought or pre
this should not include the clothes of
had both been wives. Labeo said that t
the words of the testator should be i
have been had a daughter or any othe
agreed with Labeo that the concubine
grounds : 'But it makes little differen
a man leaves things bought or prep
between them except in dignity.' zo
Intention, then, and the social sta
cubine are crucial. Also, surely, soci
is to be wife or concubine. As Mod
succinctly puts it,

D. 23. 2. 42 pr. : libro singulari de ritu nuptia

Semper in coniunctionibus non solum quid

In unions one must consider not only wha

The sentence introduces a statemen

grand-daughter or great-grand-daugh
perhaps the generalisation may also
particular woman or take her as a c
who had to determine what a relation


Who, then, are the women whom we find living as concubines an

men involved? The hardest data on practice come from the inscri
I shall therefore discuss first. For purposes of comparison, I examine
all the concubinae attested in CIL VI, inscriptions from the City of R
those from the rest of Italy {CIL IV, V, X, XI, XIV).

Inscriptions from Rome

I agree with Rawson in finding a major cluster of concubinae of freed
of them are linked with a freedman. It is, I think, remarkable th
colliberti appear among these pairs of libertini and that there are onl
patron-libertà couples in this group (I. 2, 3).32 The other 11 coupl

28D. 32. 45.

29Z>. 32. 1.29pr.
30Z>. 32. 49. 4 (italics mine).
31Cf. CJ 5. 4. 22 : ... pares honestate personas . . .
32These numbers refer to Appendix A.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

partners are of freed status sho

This sometimes leaves open th
members of the same household
C. 1. Logus was freed by a C. M
who freed his concubine Pom
Conversely, C. Marius D. 1. Is
M. Avillius who freed his partn
freed by P. Saenius and by th
(I. 12; 6 might be similar). But
wife. Clear connection in slavery
and in this respect there is a m
who are of freed status and the
where I find eight colliberti,
sharing a nomen.
One freedwoman is concubi
This normally implies slave stat
name was given for the sake of
Gorgio concubina Rufionis5, so
identification of Gorgio. It is p
than his concubine, but a freed
omitted. Rufio is a classic slave
than free birth. There are four
(XI), who will be discussed lat
Up to seven women are of s
teenage Lucilia (VI) whose part
dominus could have been used e
to take it literally here, since h
could surely have found room f
example of the man Rufio cited
(VII) seem to be just that: all b
suppose that they are in fact
Similarly Eos (XII), the conc
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetuli
She is commemorated by kind
The two women whose partne
name could perhaps be freedwom
emphasis in both inscriptions (p
is on the man. If they were
assumption is that they were f
prove that they were not mere
In nine examples the woman i
or freeborn. One of these (V)
avoid regarding him as a slave a
to him, I would again invoke th

33Cic. Mil 60.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

inscription comes from the tomb of

a freedman. This leaves us with onl
who has a free concubine. He is a spec
often 'married' free women.
Two men identified as of freed status have free concubines who might perhaps
be freedwomen. Aebutia Prima (Vili. 1) has the same nomen as her partner, which
makes it possible that she was his freedwoman or colliberta (cf. I. 1-3). The monu-
ment of the ivory-worker Clodius Bromius (VIII. 2) is more interesting. He names
himself first, then Ammia, 'concubina mei amantissima', then a child pet (deliciae),
whom they shared (perhaps their own child, perhaps a favourite slave), then two
joint freedmen, one freedman of Bromius and one freedman /woman of Ammia. It is
clear that she was a woman of means, who held property jointly with her partner
and alone.
A group of four pairs where both partners are of undefined free status (IX)
produces no shared nomina which might indicate that the man was patron or that
both had a shared slave background. But M. Antonius Symmachus, commemorated
in the Monumentum Marcellae, is probably a freedman or the son of a freedman of
one of the Antoniae (IX. 2) and M. Tullius Agatho and his concubine come from
one of the tombs between the Appian and Latin roads which were used chiefly by
people of slave background in the Julio-Claudian period (IX. 4).
There are no attested freeborn concubinae. But the freeborn status of the male
partner may be stressed (XI). I have included here the emperor Pius, under-
standably not named with filiation but as divine. He is only mentioned incidentally,
in an inscription to a slave of his concubine Lysistrata (XI. 1). The exact social
position of the other freeborn men listed is unclear, except for Tillius Sabinus (X),
who is a private serving in the city police. I would not follow Rawson in con-
jecturing that L. Caesennius (XI. 2) was closely related to the consul of a.d. 61,
though I agree with her suggestion that the other two (XI. 3, 4) are probably of
late republican or early imperial date, because they lack a cognomen.34 Apart
from Pius, then, none of these men is necessarily of upper-class background and it is
possible that the other three are on about the same comparatively humble level as
Tillius. On the other hand, four of the women are libertinae, so between them and
even lower-class ingenui there was a clear distinction of status. What is interesting
about this group is that none of the women is the libertà of her partner. Lysistrata,
however, had been freed by Galeria Augusta, Pius' late wife. It is possible that
some of the other ingenui had followed this respectable method of recruiting a
concubine. Pupia L. D. 1 Rufa, for instance, could have been freed by L. Silius and
a putative wife Pupia (XI. 4).
In the total sample of 35 couples, at least one and up to seven of the women
are slaves, at least 19 are libertinae, nine are of uncertain free status and could be
libertinae. Conversely, of the men there are one to three slaves (I think only one),
18 libertini, eight free {libertini or ingenui) and six freeborn. The six freeborn men
have as concubines one free woman, one probable slave and four freedwomen; the
eight free men have one slave, three probable slaves and four free women; the

34Pp. 292, 290.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

18 libertini have two probable sl

and the public slave has a free w
have a freedwoman and a free w
concubines are almost always of
represented, and that concubina
But shared slave background is n
relationship (which the jurists l

Inscriptions from Italy

The Italian cities show much t
cubinae are explicitly attested as
are linked with a collibertus (I.
shared experience of the same
man is a freedman, there are no
possible.38 Where the man is of
status (III. 1, 2, 3) she is never h
cubines at least one and perha
be a fairly close patronage lin
who was freed by Titia Fusca (V
concubines have a patrona.™
Four women are given only on
Sosima, Cila and Iusta seem lik
may have been omitted for brevi
M. 1. Rufio, concubina Salvia,
Conversely, women of undefin
there are no pressing reasons for
attested with freedmen. It is rat
free men of the same nomen (V
free birth was illegitimate, he
If we turn to the status of the
at least 20 out of 45. If we assum
freed status, we can add four

35This reckoning is close to that giv

36Of the libertinae, at least two (I
himself, five by other men (I. 7, 10,
11, 12, 13, XL 1, 2, 4; sometimes joi
37These numbers refer to Appendix
are fragmentary or doubtful or do
1502, 1935, 5256, 5910, 6296; X. 367
38I. 4, 5. The woman in 5 is freed by
perhaps his patron.
39L 3,8, 10, 11, 14; III. 1; VII. 4.
40IX. 1. Cf. G. E. F. Chilver, Cisalpi
41Chilver has shown that the two
varied between towns in northern Ita

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

freedmen among the 1 1 free men wit

claim free birth.42 The most striking f
number of those involved in the imp
seviri from Fanum Fortunae, Ricina,
men; seviri Augustales of freed status
Beneventum, Allifae and Noia, a mag
freedman Apollinaris from Mutina,44
town council at Falerii.45 Among the
Cingulum, Allifae and Tuder.46 It is ea
libertini would be unable to marry free
The status of the other men is less cle
pectinarius (repairer of carding-combs,
(I. 9) and one a doctor (III. 3). There
is interesting because his inscription is
fellow-veteran of the Eighth Legion,
(CIL V. 937). Their careers were clos
freedwoman and Lucius kept a freedwo
equal billing on the tombs and we at le
honourable status.47 Similar question
concubine : examples of this will be dis
In the total collection of 45 couples
four probable slaves, 25 freedwomen
ingenua. Among the men, there are no
1 1 of free status and nine freeborn. Th
probable slaves, five freedwomen and tw
freedwomen, seven free and one ingen
probable slaves, 17 freedwomen and s
man and woman often shows clearly. A
freed status for the woman, while a fai
often of some position in the towns. Ag
of colliberti is not prominent.48
The Roman inscriptions discussed
found at most two among her examp
children were consciously avoided in co
support in St. Augustine's descriptio

42Filiation is only prima facie evidence for c

"I. 2, 3, 6, 12; IV. 4; I. 3; I. 7, 16; IV. 5, 6;
44I. 14. The Apollinares correspond to Augus
«III. 1.
46VII. 3; VIII. 1,2.
47I. 4 is similar.
48The more recently discovered inscriptions reported in V Année Epigraphique do nothing to
change this picture.
49291, citing CIL VI. 28431 (where it is uncertain whether the unnamed concubine is the
mother of the illegitimate child) and 14706 (where the partner is unnamed and the child, M. f.,
may be legitimate offspring of another relationship). The deliciae in VIII. 2 may be the couple's son.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

qua sane experirer exemplo m

quod foederatum esset genera
etiam contra votum nascitur,
gains in pathos when we remem
when he broke with his concubi
Africa, she left with him their
three couples with children,
Numidius Berullus arranged in
L. f. Quartinus, who had died
concubine Allia Nysa, of himsel
named men whose connection
child Allius is the natural ch
probably from Allia's father or
memorates himself and his c
Vera, who appears to be legitim
and is therefore his child but n
Rufus commemorates his con
and Maria Pieris. Presumably
Maria Pieris an illegitimate d
A feature of considerable im
monument as concubines. Th
dedicates. A solitary republica
comes from a substantial tomb on the corner of Via Statilia and Via S. Croce in
Gerusalemme :

CIL P. 2527a, ILLRP 795

P. Quinctius T. 1. libr(arius) / Quinctia T. 1. uxsor / Quinctia P. 1. Agate libertà / concubina. /

Sepulcr(um) heredes / ne sequatur.

Here the wife is probably a colliberta, but the concubine is explicitly the freedwoman
of P. Quinctius. In later inscriptions from Rome itself there are only two instances
where both a wife and a concubine are commemorated.

C/LVI. 1906 =32292 (1. 13)

M. Servilius M. 1 . Rufus / lictor se vivo fecit sibi et / Petiae G. 1 . Primae uxori et / Marciae
D. 1. Felici concub. obitae / Serviliae M. 1. Apate uxsori suae.

It is simplest to suppose that Rufus invested in a tomb which was meant first of all
for himself and his current wife Prima. He included in the inscription his previous
concubine, who was dead. Later, Prima died and he married Servilia Apate
(possibly his freedwoman or colliberta) who was added to the list (probably while
alive, so that she could be assured of her place in the family tomb) . I agree on the
order of the three unions with Rawson, but I would date the concubinatus to a time

™Conf. IV. 2; VI. 12-15.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

when both Rufus and Felix were of

tubernalis should have been used.

CIL VI. 23210 (1.9)

D. Occius D. 1. Eros fecit sibi et suis
D. Occio D. f. patrono Felici 1.
Rosciae O. 1. Strategini Aeschino 1.
concubinae suae Thini 1.
Rosciae O. 1. Pupae M. Helvio Felici
coniugi suae Antigonae 1.
Domestico 1. Pupae f. Crateroni 1.
Doxae 1.
hoc monumentum Rosciae Thaidis est.

The wife and the concubine are both Rosciae. The wife's son is commemorated as
a freedman, so he must have been born a slave, before her manumission. He was
freed by Eros, who may have been his father (Tupae f.' meaning 'my son by Pupa'
as well as Tupa's son'). Pupa would then have been the contubernalis of Eros and,
after she was freed, his legitimate wife. Concubinatus with Strategis would have
followed the wife's death. She might be a freedwoman of Pupa.
The Italian examples are three.

CIL V. 1918 (VI. 1) (Concordia)

P. Cervonius P. f. Marinus / testamento fieri iussit / Ginciai Sex. f. Secundaf / uxori Gilai

An ingenuus has a freeborn wife but a probably slave concubine. But all three are
given portrait heads on the tomb, the two women flanking the man.

CIL IX. 2255 (IV. 4) (Telesia)

M. Vennius Rufus sévir / sibi et / M. Vennio Demetrio patri / Venniae Rufae matri / Valeriae
Urbanae uxori / Fufiae Chilae concubinae.

A sevir, whose parents' shared nomen raises the suspicion of servile origin for them if
not for him, is coupled with two women of citizen status, whose relative social
standing escapes us. As in the previous example, the concubine is named second,
but this may be for reasons of chronological or social precedence. In the next
example, chronology may decide.

CIL X. 1267 (IV. 6) (Noia)

Caesiae Archeni concub. / M. Critonio Hipparco / Augustali / Critoniae Glycinnae uxori.51

Finally, there is a damaged inscription from Ostia which commemorates an

eques of 27, various family members and a concubine, bona f emina (CIL XIV. 4454).
In this and other inscriptions discussed above, it is clear that the concubine is one
of the family. The men who commemorate concubines also almost always specify

51It is not clear who put up the inscription.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

that the tomb is for themselve

ashes eventually resting elsewh
One can hardly help being st
were freed by women.52


With this scanty harvest of information from the inscriptions, we can now turn
briefly to the jurists. Here we are dealing with extracts selected in the sixth century
from the writings of lawyers during the period from the Augustan marriage legislation
(18 b.c. and a.d. 9) down to Modestinus in the early third century. Most of the
jurists concerned come from the end of the period and though they were trying to
explain the Augustan laws, these laws had been developed and modified by later
emperors and interpreted by other jurists. The opinions given by Ulpian, for
example, are sometimes controversial and need not be taken to represent a generally-
accepted doctrine of current practice in his own day or earlier : but it is they and
not the counter-arguments of other lawyers which have been made canonical by
the sixth-century editors, who included them in the Digest
I shall attempt here simply to list the sort of women whom the lawyers regard
as eligible concubinae. Even such an apparently elementary task is impeded by
frequent uncertainty whether the texts we have have been edited - cut, altered or
supplemented - by Tribonian's team, working two centuries after the Roman law
on marriage had been given a new direction by the first Christian emperor and in
a period when Christian and ascetic doctrine had for centuries and with some
success attacked the freedom of male sexual mores and the practice of concubinatus.
In the exceedingly brief Digest title on concubines (25. 7), an extract from
Ulpian (commenting on the Lex Julia et Papia) refers to the possibility of having as
a concubine one's own freedwoman or a woman condemned for adultery and to
the impropriety of a woman who was previously her patron's concubine becoming
the concubine of his son or grandson or of a man having as concubine a girl under
the age of twelve.53 More generally, he states that he agrees with Atilicinus (mid-first
century a.d.) that the only women who could be kept as concubinae without fear of
accusation were those against whom a man could not commit stuprum (fornication).54
Paulus55 adds that a provincial administrator could keep a woman of the province
as concubine (though not as wife, we are told elsewhere).56 Marcianus says that a
concubine could also be someone else's freedwoman or a freeborn woman or -

62A. I. 5, 6, 8, 9, 1 1, 12, 13; XL 2. 4; B. I. 3, 8, 10, 1 1, 14; III. 1 ; VII. 4. I have no explanation.

5325. 7., 3; 2; 3; 4.
64Z). 25. 7. 1. 1. It was impossible to commit stuprum with a prostitute (48. 5. 14. 2, as long as
she was not married), lena or actress (h.t. 11.2), woman condemned for adultery (at least in Ulpian's
opinion, 25. 7. 1.2). Castelli (p. 149) adds the other women with whom marriage was forbidden to
ingenui by the Lex Julia according to Tit. Ulp. 13. 2.
65Z). 25. 7. 5.
"D. 23. 2. 38, 57, 63, 65; 24. 1. 3. 1; 34. 9. 2. 1.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

especially - one who was of obscure bir

which follows this apparently clear st
Elsewhere in the Digest it emerges t
but it was expected that he would wis
this recognition.58 There seems to b
outsiders being regarded as concubines
The libertà-concubina (a man's ow
frequently mentioned. Ulpian, in th
famous generalisation that it is mor
concubine than as wife.59 This is to
concubine deserts her patron without
wife or concubine she should not have
she made should be considered invalid
she merely became a concubine) . Wha
with her patron as concubine is on
patron, both in regard to privileges an
penalised if she unilaterally divorced h
to concubines too. Marcellus too implie
to a wife, for a freedwoman who wa
not.61 The special position of the freed
could not be expected to perform se
woman might and that, like a wife, sh
because, although a concubine, she ret
As for freeborn women in gener
century), according to the Digest
concubines :

D. 25. 7. 3 pr.-l libro duodecimo institutionum: In concubinatu potest esse et aliena libertà et
ingenua et maxime ea quae obscuro loco nata est vel quaestum corpore fecit, alioquin si honestae
vitae et ingenuam mulierem in concubinatum habere maluerit, sine testatione hoc manifestum
faciente non conceditur. sed necesse est ei vel uxorem earn habere vel hoc recusantem stuprum
cum ea commitere: Nec adulterium per concubinatum ab ipso committitur. nam quia con-
cubinatus per leges nomen assumpsit, extra legis poenam est, ut et Marcellus libro septimo
digestorum scripsit.63

If the whole of the first sentence is accepted as Marcianus5 own,64 then we have a
clear statement that both someone else's freedwoman (sc. as well as the male

67D. 25. 7. 3.
68D. 20. 1. 8, Ulp., 42. 5. 38, Paul.; Plaut. Epid. 66; CJ 7. 15. 3. 2. Gf. Watson pp. 6-7.
«D.25. 7. 1 pr.
80D. 24. 2. 10 Mod., 24. 2. 11, 38. 11. 1. 1, Ulp.
61Z>. 23. 2. 41. 1.
62Z>. 38. 1. 46, Valens; 48. 5. 14 pr., Ulp.
63A vexed passage. Recent commentators include Castello 166, 189; S. Solazzi, 'II concubinato
con r "Obscuro loco nata"' (SDHI 14 (1948) 269-77); Orestano; G. Longo, 'Presunzione di
matrimonio' (Studi Paoli (Florence, 1956) 485-8; Robleda p. 89.
64'Et maxime ea' or the whole phrase 'et maxime . . . fecit' have been suspected.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

partner's own freedwoman) an

especially a freeborn woman w
prostitute. Castello attempted t
dishonourable places such as tav
deny the phrase its normal sense
of the higher-class men who wro
sentence contradicts the first,67
may not be a concubine, unless th
happy to follow the distinguished
badly tampered with in Justinian
this seems partly supported by t
sentence probably had something
the Augustan law of adultery,
took account of concubinage,68 w
a man who has a concubine is not
We may now turn to a passag
Modestinus. This has also been

Digest 48. 5. 35 pr. libro primo regularu

causa non matrimonii continet, excep

A man who keeps a free woman for s

the exception of course of a concubin

The suspect words are the last th

the adverb videlicet is impossible
of Augustus, Justinian or inter
(because the sources are so scant

65Pp. 135-8.
66Cf. Cic. 2 Verr. 5. 167: Homines ten
loco; Livy 26. 6. 13: loco obscuro tenui
^Alioquin . . . committere. The grammar
that at least sine . . . /adente is postcla
stuprum could be brought with the pas
thing on the lines of this sentence exis
68But concubinatus was hardly, as Cas
«»Adulterium and stuprum are often
must be meant here, since married w
which would have to mean 'by him' (?
rather expect 'ipsum': 'nor is fornicat
concubinage with a particular woman
70Some moderns also emend liberam to
p. 131, Orestano p. 52.
71For excepta cf. TLL I. B., Cic. Red. in
but classical. Admittedly, the conjunct
postclassical law. Cf. Castelli p. 145.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

words were tacked on in the sixth cent

here will be the shortest cut to circul
tel quel.73
A final appeal to Modestmus:

Digest 23. 2. 24 libro primo regularum: In liberae mulieris consuetudine non concubinatus sed
nuptiae intellegendae sunt, si non corpore quaestum fecit.

In intercourse with a free woman, marriage not concubinage is to be understood, unless she has
been a prostitute.74

This brings us back to the ambiguity in Roman custom between marriage and
concubinage. The excerpt comes from a major chapter on marriage, but its context
within the chapter is a hotchpotch, which does not help us to see the exact implica-
tions here. Was any 'living-in' arrangement legally marriage, unless the woman was
an ex-prostitute? Or were outsiders to assume it to be marriage unless the woman
had been a prostitute and unless the couple acknowledged it to be concubinage?75
The latter explanation seems the more probable. Intellegendae sunt is not the same as
sunt. The full text of Modestinus might have been more enlightening than this
On balance it is likely that concubinage with a freeborn citizen woman was
permissible from Augustus' time until probably as late as Modestinus. Why would
Augustus, anxious as he was to increase the birthrate of legitimate children, have
allowed it ? There are three main reasons : one is that concubinatus was entrenched in
Roman mores and impossible to prohibit effectively. I doubt if it would have occurred
to Augustus to attempt to limit the liberty of his fellow-citizens, especially upper-
class men, in such a way. Instead, he fixed rewards for married men and fathers and
corresponding disabilities for bachelors and the childless. Secondly, Augustus was
also interested in safeguarding the social and racial purity of the senatorial class,
for instance by prohibiting marriage with ex-slaves, and in protecting the moral
purity of all freeborn citizens by maintaining the penalties established in the
Republic for marriage with members of professions branded as 'infamous'.76 So the
prohibition of legal marriage between various types of individual, by Augustus and
subsequent emperors, made concubinage a necessary alternative. Thirdly, the
maintenance of (to put it crudely) a class-system. Just as it was more honourable

72For a recent statement of the view that Augustus made concubinatus with an ingenua stuprum,
that morals were looser in Modestinus' time and loosened still further in the sixth century see
P. Csillag, The Aueustan laws on family relations (Budapest: Akad. Kiado, 1976) p. 252, n. 539.
73V. Arangio-Ruiz {Aegyptus 5 (1924) 107) is prepared to accept the Modestinus text as classical
and to hold that he and Ulpian (D. 25. 7. 1. 1) give two parts of the same equation, 'dicendo
Modestino che si ha stupro ogni volta che ci si congiunga non matrimonialmente con donna libera
che non sia la concubina, e ribadendo Ulpiano che non si possa avere a concubina se non quella
donna libera con cui non si commette stupro'.
™Bas. XVIII. 4. 13 (ed. Heimbach III, p. 169), quoted by Orestano pp. 51-2, talks of a pre-
sumption of marriage if the woman is free and not a prostitute. Orestano gives a list of the moderns
who hold that the compilers expanded the scope of this passage by substituting liberae for ineenuae.
75Cf. Volterra 743-4.
76Ulp. Reg. 13, 1-2.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

for a patron to keep his freedwo

only to marry her if he was of l
by this indication of her social inf
due to a matron,78 so it would b
a woman who was below him in t
with an obscuro loco nata, to h
relationship between Mark Ant
In the Pnncipate, while other h
concubines, Marcus Aurelius, h
legitimate children, lived as a wi
presumably a woman of free b
position.80 Although upper-cla
have been well advised to fulfil th
the ages of 25 and 60 and produ
that they incurred a charge of s
Since concubinage was socially ac
as there was a marked difference
Augustus and for a couple of cen
What then of the passages which
statement that concubines ought
to commit stuprum.81 I think it
and had been ever since Atilicinu
Marcianus passage83 is too uncert
to hold that Modestinus is giving
but allows that the stable union of concubinatus^ does not fall under the law on
stuprum. Admittedly, he expresses himself clumsily, perhaps because concubinatus was
only exempt by implication in the Augustan law. This would explain why Marcellus
had had to clarify the same point.85 There is a fourth passage which I do not fully
understand, but perhaps the first sentence may be used to show that arguments on
stuprum could be circular :

D. 34. 9. 16. 1, Pap. libro octavo responsorum: Quoniam stuprum in ea contrahi non placuit,
quae se non patroni concubinam esse patitur . . .
Since it has been decided that fornication is not committed against a woman who allows herself
to be the concubine of a man other than her patron . . .

Such a woman contrasts with the freedwoman who is concubine of her patron and
therefore a quasi-matrona, subject to the adultery law. It appears that a woman

"£>. 40. 2. 20. 2, Ulp.

78Z). 25. 7. 1 pr., 48. 5. 14 pr., Ulp.
"Cic. Att. 16. 11. 1, Phil 2. 3, 3. 17, 13. 23.
™SHA Marcus 29. 10.
81D. 25. 7. 1. 1, quoted above p. 71.
82Plassard pp. 69, 84 comes to a similar conclusion.
"I). 25. 7. 3 pr.-l.
84£>. 48. 5. 35 pr.
85Z). 25. 7. 3. 1.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

who became the concubine of an outsi

or protected by the adultery /fornicat
that he said that a concubine should o
if Papinian's rule can be applied to any
clearly can, for he goes on to discuss
- then any free woman who becomes
becomes her patron's concubine) at
cannot commit fornication (whether h
this is right men with concubinae and
the law on stuprum.**
Augustus, then, did not attempt to r
of the upper classes were offered ince
in mid-career: just as the concubines o
the attested individual concubines of t
older men and widowers,87 but no dou
tion was unlikely to be often invok
centives to marry would be less str
normal alternative to marriage (p. 6
concubinatus when there was a gap in
freedwoman or a humilior [pbscuro loc
a freedman from a better class of household with a freedwoman of humbler back-
ground. Lack of dowry or perhaps even sterility may have debarred some women
from marriage with social equals but allowed them to be concubines. It is also
important to remember that concubinage might be of short duration, transmuted
into marriage, broken off by death or the man's marriage with another woman.88
Although concubinage with a freeborn woman probably did not constitute stuprum,
there was probably some feeling that a freeborn woman should become a wife,
if the man was of comparable social status, so that they could produce second-
generation freeborn legitimate children. So the lawyers asked and answered questions
about stuprum and some, such as Ulpian, were perhaps inclined to narrow the field
of possible concubines. There is a possible trace of the same view in the third century,
for the Historia Augusta (an unreliable source, which may merely be reflecting later
ideas)89 says that Aurelian forbade men to keep freeborn women as concubines.
But even if this is right, the practice must have continued, for Constantine en-
couraged men to marry their freeborn concubines and legitimise the children.90
There was considerable legislative activity in this area in the Christian period, into
which we cannot enter here, but we may note that social inequality of partners was
in the forefront of the emperors' minds.

8«Cf. Castelli p. 153.

87To the examples already given we may add M. Aurelius's grandfather (Marcus Conf. 1.
17. 2).
88Cf. D. 45. 1. 121.1, Pap. Abandoning concubinage for marriage is a step towards moral and
social redemption in later moralists: e.g. Aug. Conf. 6. 15, Sid. Ap. Epp. 9. 6. 2, Leo Epp. 147 (Migne
LIV. 1205).
**Aur. 49. 8.
»°CJ 5. 27. 5 pr.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

Known freeborn concubines are

evidence of the Rome inscripti
woman (on the evidence of the
preferred. But, although an impo
in any of our sources.92 While
taciturnity, we may hazard th
significant than contubernium, w


Although it would theoretically be possible that some of the men in our

examples lived with a wife and a concubine simultaneously, all the inscr
explicable in terms of consecutive relationships. Even funerary reliefs s
women can be interpreted in the same way. In the literary source
'concubina' may be loosely used of the mistress of a married man, for in
Acte during Nero's marriage to Octavia93 or of the multiple concubinae
rich (or of persons very susceptible to the attacks of orators and mo
were clearly not living in a semi-permanent 'monogamous' relationsh
concubinae of the inscriptions and jurists are closer to wives than to me
casual mistresses. In fact Justinian seems to be right when he says 'O
uxores habentibus concubinas vel libéras vel ancillas habere nee antiq
nostra concedunt'. 'Neither ancient law nor our own allows a man who h
to have a concubine, whether free or slave.'94 Constantine had expli
against simultaneous marriage and concubinage in 326 :

CJ 5. 26. 1. Imp. Constantinus A. ad populum

Nemini licentia conceditur constante matrimonio concubinam penes se habere.

Nobody is allowed to keep a concubine while his marriage continues to exist.

The Sententiae Pauli state succinctly 'Eo tempore quo quis uxorem habet,
habere non potest'. 'A man cannot have a concubine at a time when he h
If concubinatus is rightly taken as extra-legal in classical law, then i
whether there was an explicit ruling against a man having both wife an
but nee antiqua iura . . . concedunt is probably still true of the Principa
discussing the freedwoman who had unilaterally divorced her patron

91None attested in the Rome inscriptions, one from Cisalpina. Cocceius Cassian
had a freeborn woman, Rufina, as a concubine, according to a decision by the emp
and Caracalla (D. 34. 9. 16. 1, Pap.
^Concubinae are rare in inscriptions from the Latin West outside Italy (CIL Vil
ö3Suet. Nero 50. Tacitus more correctly calls her paelex (A 13. 46, in Poppaea's
where she is described as libertà (A 13. 12, 14. 2; Suet. Nero 28. 1). Claudius' mistre
and Cleopatra are paelices (Tac. A. II. 29-30). Paelex is the correct word for the love
man, often used with the wife's name in the genitive.
**CJ 7. 15. 3. 2. Cf. pr. (a.D. 531).
»62. 20. 1.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

conubium with another man as long a

says that one of the indications that
was that he became engaged or took
men might try to get round the juris
incompatible. We have seen that empe
concurrent concubinatus. As for lesser
to stipulate for 200 if her husband
'. . . si concubinae tempore matrimoni
amount to a formal renewal of concubin
with a woman who had been concubin
a preliminary to marriage, attested by
might follow the ending of a marriag
Ulpian's statement just cited is in
in the De ratore where contempora
hypotheses.98 However, even in th
relationships were normally regarded
Susan Treggiari


CIL vi
A. Probable Colliberti or Patronus - Libertà
1. 9443: P. Clodius P. 1. Metrodorus glutinarius = Clodia P. 1 Philargyris.

B. Patronus = Libertà
2. 38623: *M\ Matrinius M\ 1. Alexa = Bassa 1. {columbarium)
3. 35879: *C. Munatius C. 1. Phileros = Munatia G. 1. Apicula (Apicula 1.)

C. Others
4. 6873 : Q,. Fabius Maximi 1 . Ipitus = Sempronia L. 1 . Apate*
5. 21821 : Gn. Licinius Cn. 1. Philomusus = Mevia T. et Q,. et O. 1. Clara
6. 7976: L. Lurius L. et D. 1. Favitus = Arria D. 1. Hospita
7. 7214: C. Marius O. 1. Isochrysus = Avillia M. 1. Sotis (columbarium)
8. 22293: *G. Matius C. 1. Logus = Pompeia O. 1. Siges
9. 23210: *D. Occius D. 1. Eros = Roscia D. 1. Strategis
10. 24441: *Cn. Pompeius Gn. 1. Bithus = Galpurnia Gn. 1. Optata
11. 36282: *M. Sabidius M. 1. Salvius = Varia D. 1. Oppidana
12. 9645: P. Saenius P. O. 1. Arsaces menestrator ab Hercul. Primig. = PetroniaO. 1.
13. 1906 = 32292: *M. Servilius M. 1. Rufus lictor = Marcia O. 1. Felix
14. 33579: - L. 1. Glyco = - Sex. 1. Ghila


1. 22125: Rufio = Marcia M. 1. Goragio

»•D. 24. 2. 11.2.

"D. 45. 1. 121. 1.
•«Above p. 62.
"'marks the person who made the dedication. Ages are given in brackets, f precedes the names
of children. MM =* Monumentum Marcellae, MI AL = Monumenta inter Appiam et Latinam.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to


1. 9692: M. Fufius M. 1. Eros nomencl. = Arbuscula*
2. 21242: *M. Licinius Crassi 1. Echelus = Epinoe


1. 2354: Bithus Publicus Paullianus = Aemilia Prima (hères)*


1. 4599: Philoxenus = Licinia Musa (MM)


1. 21607: *P. Coelius Abascantianus dominus = Lucilia (15-19)


1. 24953: *G. Marius Crescens = Primigenia (22)
2. 25014: *T. Petronius Doryphorus = Prima (15)
3. 24857: *Cn. Postumius Bellicus = Salvia


A. With same nomen
1. 37633: *A. Aebutius A. 1. Auctus = Aebutia Prima (columbarium)

B. With different nomina

2. 9375: *P. Glodius A. et Clodiae 1. Bromius eborarius = Guriatia Ammia


A. With same nomen
1. 11614: M. Ancharius Mystes = Ancharia Natalis

B. With different nomina

2. 4521: M. Antonius Symmachus = Cusinia Chreste (MM)
3. 20138: Q. Iulius Milo = Galventia Clara
4. 5036: *M. Tullius Agat(h)o = Oppia Goracinene (sic) (MIAL)


1. 32734: T. Tillius T. f. Pal. Sabinus coh. xii urb. = Caninia Musa


1 . 8972 : Divus Pius = Galeria Aug. libertà Lysistrate (on a monument to her slave)
2. 13937: L. Caesennius L. f. Stel. - = Maria O. 1. Mu - *
3. 33090: *A. Glodius A. f. Col. = Saturia D. 1. Philoclea
4. 26556: L. Silius P. f. Cor. = Pupia L. D. 1. Rufa


1. 17170: Cossus Gaetulicus = Eos (permissu Corneliae Cossi Gaetulici f. V. V.)


A. Colliberti
1. X. 6114 *A. Plautius Theodori 1. Apella magister Augustalis = Plautia A. 1.
Rufa conlibert. (Formiae)
2. XI. 6234 *M. Lartidius M. 1. Hilarus sexvir = Lartidia Philema conliberta
(Fanum Fortunae)

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

B. Probable colliberti or patronus = libertà

3. IX. 2681 *Ofillius O. 1. Vrimus sevi
4. IX. 5753 L. Naevius L. 1. Theomedes sexvir = Naevia L. 1. Flora (Ricina)
5. XL 3751 Q. Laelius Q.. 1. Philargyrus = Laelia Q.. Q.. 1. Prima* (Lorium)

C. Others
6. V. 2853 *P. Caecilius P. 1. Liccaeus ///Illvir = /ama G. 1. Fausta (Patavium)
7. IX. 1194 *G. Ennius C. 1. Hilarus August. Beneventi = Appuleia C. 1. Prima
8. IX. 2245 *M. A/>puleius Dialogus sevir August. = Licinia D. 1. Methe (also to
his patron, M. Appuleius Faustus sevir Aug.) (Telesia)
9. IX. 3444 *C. Aponius G. 1. An*- paenularius = T- P. 1. Galla (Peltuinum)
10. IX. 4823 C. Maclonius C. 1. Teres = Septicia O. T. 1. Flora* (Forum Novum)
11. IX. 5231 T. Avi- T. 1. Piai- = Pontia O. 1. Callista (Asculum)
12. X. 4908 *N. Papius N. 1. Menothemis sexvir = - M. 1. Irene (Venafrum)
13. X. 5089 *G. Longidius G. L. 1. Philodamus = Gentia L. 1. Ge (Atina)
14. XL 849 *L. Attius L. 1. Salvius Apol. = Annaea O. 1. Statia (also to his patron
L. Attius L. 1. Dio) (Mutina)
15. XIV. 3727 C. Arrius C. 1. Dasius = Alfedia L. 1. Lucris (Tibur)

D. Presumed libertinus = libertina

16. IX. 1711 * - ius Amaranthus August(alis) refect(or) pecten(arius) - Q. 1.
Hev - nis(?) (Beneventum)


1. IX. 3496 Q. Salvidenus Q. 1. Diomedes = Sosima (Peltuinum)
2. IX. 5388 M. Eppius M. 1. Rufio = Salvia* (Firmum Picentinum)


1. IX. 5447 C. Helvius Agens Vlllvir . . . haruspex = Orbicia D. 1. Procula (30)
(from decurions) (Falerii)
2. X. 5470 *G. Feliutius Protus = Ammia L. 1. Tusca (Aquinum)
3. X. 4918 P. Novius Philosor/ms medicus = Gaiatia M. 1 . Primigenia* (Venafrum)


A. With the same nomen
1. X. 5491 *M. Lucius Theodorus = Lucia Prima (also to his colliberta) (Aquinum)

B. With different nomina

2. X. 5697 -us Pulius N. 1. Hones(i)mus = Gavia (Isola del Liri)
3. XL 1270 P. Salvius Thelus = Murria Prima (from his colliberta) (Placentia

C. Man presumed libertinus, woman free

4. IX. 2255 *M. Vennius Rufus sevir = Fufia Chila (Telesia)
5. IX. 2368 *G. Purellius Papia Aug(ustalis) et quaestor Aug(ustalium) Allif
= Atilia Iarine (Allifae)
6. X. 1267 M. Critonius Hipparcus Augustalis = Caesia Arche (Noia)


A. With the same nomen
1. XL 4240 L. Albius L. - Hilarus = Albia - Urbana (Interamna Nahars)
2. XIV. 3777 Herenm«.y Postumus = Herennia Lampas (cuius ossa ex Sardinia translata
sunt) (Tibur)

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to

B. With different nomina

3. V. 148 *P. Cassius Adiutor Vibia Optata (Pola)
4. V. 1210 *Galerius = Flaminia (Aquileia)
5. X. 4246 *Cn. Numidius Berullus = Allia Nysa + L. Allius L. f. Quartinus (7)
6. X. 8288 *- ?lienus Rtdus = -odia Erotis (Privernum)


1. V. 1918 *P. Cervonius P. f. Marinar = Cila (Concordia)
2. X. 5018 C. Vivius P. f. Ter. = Iusta (Venafrum)


A. Patronus = libertà
1. V. 5172 Septimius C. f. Fortunatus = Septimia (Bergomum)

B. Probable patronus = libertà

2. IX. 1460 *G. Valerius C. f. Aem. Arsaces legione V Alaudae = Valeria C.
Urbana (Ligures Baebiani)
3. IX. 5686 M. Cernitius M. f. Vel. Pollio Ilvir bis Augus(talis) = Gernitia M. 1.
Nymphis (Cingulum)

G. Others
4. V. 936 *L. Titius L. f. Vot. veteranus Leg. VIII Aug. stipendiorum XXV
mensor frumenti = Titia Fuscae 1. + Vitalis f., Ing(e)nua f. (Aquileia)
5. IX. 5137 Sex. Pompeius Sex. f. Laenas trib(u) Sab. = Vetiedia Q.. lib. Donata


1. IX. 2346 *Aquillius L. f. Ter. Rufus fled. Ilvir praef. i.d. = Maria Stacte + C.
Aquillius Florus f. et Maria Pieris f. (Allifae)
2. XI. 4662 Q,. Varenus G. f. Clu. Ingenuus aed. q. Ilvir i.d. = Flaminia H


1. V. 4153 *P. Mucius Biraci f. = Naevifl Sp. f. Tertulla + Mucia Vera f.
(between Cremona & Brixia)

This content downloaded from on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:14:03 UTC
All use subject to