Concubinage and the Lex Iulia on Adultery

41 Pages·2012·4.06 MB·English

Transactionosf t heA mericanP hilologicalA ssociation1 21( 1991) 335-375
CONCUBINAGE AND THE LEX IULIA ON ADULTERY'
THOMAS A. J.M CGINN
VanderbilUt niversity
The social and legal statuso f Romanc oncubinageh as longb een a subjecto f
debate.2I n thisp aper,I hope to clarifyso mea spectso f thisi nstitutiotnh rough
an examinationo f thel egal texts.T he line of approachi s an inquiryin tot he
notiono f how liabilityf ors exualo ffensews as constructebdy thea dulteryla w
of Augustus,3u ndertakenth roughan explorationo f the ways in whicht he
statutorrye gimew as applied,a nd nota pplied,t o personsw ho weren otl egally
marriedb,u tw how ereu nitedin a respectablaen dr ecognizerde lationship.
Much of whatf ollowsi s devotedt o thes tatuso f concubinagea s a legal
institutionB.u t thed ualisticf rameo f analysist raditionallmy aintainedin the
scholarshipw, hicha ttempttso definec oncubinagea s eithers ocial or legal in
1 I owe a greatd ebt of thankst o ProfessorsB ruce W. Friera nd Susan Treggiari,
who read an earlier drafto f this article and made many valuable suggestions.I
also thank the anonymous referees of this journal and the editor for their
contributionsw, hich have resulted in numerous improvementsR. esearch was
conducted with the financial assistance of the National Endowment for the
Humanitiesa nd the VanderbiltU niversityR esearchC ouncil.
2 For bibliography,s ee the notes below and the appendix at the end of the
article.I depend most of all on the work of Rawson and Treggiari.B . Rawson,
TAPA 104 (1974) 279-305 finds a heavy concentrationof partnerso f freedo r
slave status and concludes that objective impediments,e specially involving
status, were often a bar to marriage and so encouraged concubinage as a
substituteI. differf romh er in thatI believe withm ost scholarst hata n act of the
will rathert han cohabitation(R awson, 279) createda nd maintainedt he marriage
bond and thatt he marriagep rohibitionosf the lex Juliae t Papia did not preclude,
but only penalized, unions thatv iolated the law. S. Treggiari,P BSR 49 (1981)
59-81 examines the relative status of partnersw ithint his type of relationship
and takes Rawson's conclusions one step furthers,h owing that the men were
generallyo f highers tatust han the women (59). Her review of the legal sources
suggestst hatA ugustusd id not exclude ingenuae as possible concubines,a nd that
among the poor, wheret he incentiveso f the marriagel aw were not as keenlyf elt,
"concubinage may have seemed a normal alternativet o marriage"; moreover,
society in general approved concubinage where the male partner was of
significantlyh igher status. As for the relationshipo f this institutiont o the
adultery law, she concludes "although concubinage with a freebornw oman
probably did not constitutes tuprum, there was probably some feeling that a
freebornw oman should become a wife, if the man was of comparable social
status,s o thatt heyc ould produces econd-generatiofnr eebornch ildren."
3 The law referredt o the woman potentiallyl iable to its penalties as mater
familias, whethers he was marriedo r not: Paul. D. 48.2.3.3; Pap. D. 48.5.9(8)
pr.; Idem D. eod. 11(10) pr. On mater familias, see W. Kunkel,R E 28 (1930)
s.h.v. 2183-84; W. Wolodkiewicz, Studi Sanfilippo 3 (Milan 1983) 733-56.
Still essential on the adulteryl aw are A. Esmein,M elanges d'histoire du droit
(Paris 1886) 71-169 and T. Mommsen,R omisches Strafrecht( Leipzig 1899)
688-701. For more of the vast literaturoe n this subject,s ee the notes below.
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
336 ThomasA . J.M cGinn
nature,m ustb e viewed withs kepticismT. o inquirew hetherc oncubinage
enjoyedf ullj uridicals tatuso verlookst hef actt hatm arriagiet selfw as largelya n
institutioonf fact,n otl aw. Kaser's descriptionis apt: "Nach wie vor (i.e. the
beginningo f thec lassical period)i st die Ehe ihremW esen nachp rimilkr ein
Rechtsverhaltniss,o nderne in faktischesV erhailtnids es sozialen Lebens,
'verwirklichLteeb ensgemeinschaft'."4
Even whilep ositivel aw governeda spectso f marriagea nd concubinage,
thesei nstitutionwse rel argelys elf-regulatinSgo.5c ial conventiown as a broader
and strongeirn fluencteh ans tatutlea w, or evenj uristicla w. Manyd etails,s uch
as the marriagec eremony,w ere relegatede ntirelyt o the social sphere.
Evidentlyw, idely-heldu, ncontroversisaol cial normsw ereo ftent ransformed
intol aw in straightforwafradsh iona,s witht her equiremenftso ra ge and degree
ofr elationship.6
Therew ereo ccasionsw hent hel egal authoritieass sumedt her esponsibility
of definingw hatw as sociallya cceptable,n ota n easy taskw herec onvention
clashed withp ositivel aw. Emperorsa nd juristsw ere compelledt o choose
betweenc ompetingst andardosf behaviorw, hichu ltimateldye pendedo n con-
flictingp olicieso vers uchi ssuesa s sexualh onors, uitablep artnerst,h er elative
wortho f differentty peso f relationshipan, d thet ransmissioonf statusf romo ne
generationto then ext.
Withc oncubinagea,s withm arriagee,t hicaln ormsw eret ransformeindt o
positiver ules,b utt hep rocessw as less predictablaen d morep roblematicT.h is
pointi s easilyd erivedf romt hew ritingosf thej uristsw, herea steadyr eference
to theb edrocko f policyo n whicht her ulesr estedc an be observedO. ne cannot
speakd irectlyof "choosing"a conventionb,u ti n thisa rea choicesa imeda t the
regulationof conventionh ad to be made.T he elaborationof a legal regimef or
concubinagel,i ke thatf orm arriagei,s them orer eadilyd istinguishefdr omi ts
societal contextb y the resulto f such hard choices. Ethical rules,a s legal
principlesh, avea differencot ntenatn da differenapt plicationth anp urelys ocial
norms.7M osti mportannt,e itherm arriagne orc oncubinagwe as a creaturbe orn
exclusivelyo f thes ocial or thel egal sphere.
Kaser's descriptiont,h en,h oldst ruef orc oncubinagea,t leastt hes erious,
stablet ypeo f relationshitph att hej uristst akei n hand.8A s withm arriaget,h ey
4 M. Kaser,D as rbmischeP rivatrech1t 2 (Munich 1971) 310 (hereafteKr aser,R P
12). ContrastJ . G. Fuchs,F s. Gerwig (Basel 1960) 31-54 (at 35), who describes
marriagea s utterlyr emovedf romt he legal sphere,b eing governede ntirelyb y the
mos maiorum. See also R. Villers,A NRW 2.14 (Berlin 1982) 285-301.
5 This point is obvious for concubinage; for marriage,s ee M. T. Raepsaet-
Charlier,L 'Egalite' 8 (Brussels 1982) 452-77, esp. 462-65.
6 For these,s ee P. E. Corbett,T he Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford 1930) 47-
51.
7 A good illustrationis found in the legal conceptiono f boni mores: see T.
Mayer-Maly,F g. Kaser (Vienna 1986) 151-67.
8 Thus marriagea nd concubinagew ere supposed to be mutuallye xclusive: Ulp.
D. 24.2.11.2; PS 2.20.1; cf. Pap. D. 45.1.121.1; ConstantinusC . 5.26.1 (a.
326); lustinianusC . 7.15.3.2 (a. 531). (This principle was once judged to be
post-classical: E. Volterra,A CIB 1 [Pavia 1934] 34-165 [at 134]). Treggiari
(above, note 2) 61 shows that keeping multiple concubinae was widely
disparaged, citing Cael. apud Quint.I O 4.2.124; Tac. Hist. 1.72.3, 3.40.1. The
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Concubinagane dt heL exI uliao nA dultery 337
largelyfi lledin t hel egalc ontourosf t hisi nstitutiofnor,e xampleb,y e stablish-
inga nalogourse quiremencotns cerninagge a ndd egreoe fr elationshiBpu.9t t he
mostd ifficuqlut estionth eyf acedw ast hisi:n whatc ircumstancaensd, i np ar-
ticulawr ithw hats ortos fw omenc,o uldc oncubinagbee realizedw ithourtis ko f
a criminaclh argeb eingr aisedu ndert hel exI ulia de adulteriicso ercendis?
The answersg ivenv arieda goodd eal,f romp ersonacl onvictioonr in
responsteo policiesd ictatebdy s pecifiecm perorSso. metimetsh ec ontexitn
whicht her eplyis foundb,e ita recorodf a courdt ecisiona, c ommentaornyt he
lexJ uliae tP apia,a dviceo nh owt oa voidl iabilitfyo rs tuprum(th esec ategories
aren otm utualleyx clusives),e emst oa ffecitt sc ontenAt.n i mportainntf luence
mustb e soughtin contemporaurpyp er-claspsr acticew, hicht oleratedev, en
encouragecdo,n cubinagweh ena manw ithch ildrebny a formewri fe(g ivent he
highr ateso fm ortaliatnyd d ivorces,u chs ituationwso uldh aveb eenc ommon)
wishedt oh avea s a companioan w omano fl owers tatuws ithoujeto pardizing
thea rrangemefnotrsi n heritantchea tw erea lreadyin p lace.'0S o wef indse veral
emperorws hop erhapsse rveda s examples,"a ndm emberosf thes enatorial
juristsw ere uninteresteidn simplea micae: Treggiari,6 0. In special circumstances
slave concubinesa re mentioneda,s when theya re exemptedf roma generalp ledge
or sale of debtor's goods: Ulp. D. 20.1.8; PS 5.6.16; Paul. D. 42.5.38 pr. (= PS
1. 13a. I g).
9 See Ulp. D. 23.2.56; Idem D. 25.7.1.3-4; discussion in J. Plassard, L e
concubinatr omains ous le haut empire( Paris 1921) 40-45.
10 On this importanpt oint,s ee B. Kubler,S Z 17 (1896) 357-65 (at 360-61);
R. Saller, Slavery and Abolition8 (1987) 65-87 (at 71-76).
l Of interesta re Vespasian (Suet. Vesp. 3 ["paene iustae uxoris loco"], 21,
Dom. 12.3; Dio 65.14.1-5; CIL 6.12037) withC aenis, a freedwomano f Antonia,
mothero f the emperorC laudius (PIR2 A 888); AntoninusP ius (HA Pius 8.9; CIL
6.8972) withG aleria Lysistratea, freedwomano f his deceased wife; and Marcus
Aurelius (HA Marcus 29.10) witht he daughtero f his deceased wife's procurator,
name unknowna nd statusu ncertain(s ee note 79 below). That the concubines teps
into the shoes of a departedw ife is reportede xplicitlyf orV espasian and Marcus,
to be inferredf or Pius fromt he death of Faustina early in his reign. For the
childrenf roma preexistingm arriage,s ee Suet. Vesp. 3; HA Pius 1.7, Marcus
29.10. Childrena re rarelya ttestedf orc oncubinage:T reggiari( above, note 2) 68-
69. The legal bar to marriageb etweens enatorsa nd freedwomenla id down by the
lex Iulia et Papia (which did not spell invalidityu ntill ate in the classical period:
see note 28 below) may also have helped determinet hat these women became
concubines,n ot wives: B. Rawson, in Eadem ed., Tile Family in AncientR ome
(Ithaca 1986) 1-57 (at 14). However,t he point should not be pressed too hard.
Presumablye, mperorsw ere able to finds uitablem arriagep artnersif theyw anted
them.I f affectionf or a particularf reedwomanw as decisive as a motive for the
union, the legal penaltiesm ightb e toleratedo r even ignoredb y such men. In a
sense, to take a concubine was to ignore the law, althoughi t is unlikelyt hat
caelibes witht hreeo r more childrenw ere penalized: Rawson,4 9 n. 94. The point
is importanft or the general question of upper-classp ractice; if merelyt akinga
concubined id not exempto ne fromt he law's penalties,t he statutei s unlikelyb y
itself to have motivateda decision to live in concubinagei nstead of marriage.
Not one of these emperorst ook up with a sua liberta (below), perhaps another
sign that the marriagel aw was not uppermosti n theirm inds.T he purelys ocial
concern with the relativelyl ow status of the woman and the wish to avoid
complicatingt he issue of successiont o propertyt ake prideo f place as motives.
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
338 ThomasA . J.M cGinn
order.1E2p igraphiceavl idencseu ggesttsh ep racticwe as fairlyw idespreadat,
leasta mongt hep roperticelda sses.1F3o ry oungm enw, hot ypicallmy arrieadt
aroundag e 30,14c oncubinagper ovidead meanst oc ompanionshainpd s exual
gratificatiinont h ey earbs etweepnu bertayn dm arriage.15
Concubinagwe as also an optionw hereo bjectiveo bstaclest o marriage
existedS.o ldierasn ds ailorsw, how eref orbiddteonm arrwy hileo na ctived uty,
frequenttloyo kc oncubineass partnersA.1 s6h ortagoef m arriageabwleo mena,t
leasto n somel evelso f societyp,r esenteadn obstacleo fa nothekri nd.1F7r e-
quentlmy enm arrieddo wnb, utw hent heg ulfin s tatubse tweetnh ep artnewrsa s
especiallbyr oada,s betweepna tronusa ndl ibertac, oncubinagwea sr egardeads
them orer espectabrlee lationshipI.1t i8s worthn otintgh att heju risttsy pically
dealw ithr elationshifposrw hichn oo bjectiviem pedimetnotm arriageex iested,
butw hichw erec haracterizbeydt hel acko fi ntentto b e marrieodr ,t op refear
positivdee scriptiobny,t hei ntentto l ivew itho ne'sp artneinr c oncubinage.
Finallyi,t i s likelyt hatt heA ugustalna wso n adulterayn dm arriagien di-
rectleyn couragetdh er iseo fr espectabcloen cubinaagse a ni nstitutiroenc ognized
in itso wnr ightT. he adultersyt atutsee ta sidef rivoloulsia isonsw ithm ost
typeos fw omenas unacceptabwleh, ilet hel exI ulia etP apia conferrae dd egree
ofl egitimacoyn o neo rm oret ypeosf c oncubinage.
Ideallyc,o ncubinagdeid n otd istracutp per-clamsse nf romth er esponsibili-
tieso fm arriagaen df amilyb,u tp rovidead w ayo fe nsurintgh att hesew erem et
inp ropesre asonA. s an institutioitnt ,e ndetdo r eflecrte ceiveodp inionov ert he
properar ticulatioonfa socialh ierarchbyas edo n ranka ndg enderl:o w status
12 There is Marcus Aurelius' grandfathe(Mr .A. 1.17.2), PontiusP aulinusa nd his
freedwomand uring the reign of Severus (Ulp. D. 24.1.3.1: like the following
text,a findingo f fact by a court),a nd a close contemporaryC,o cceius Cassianus
and an ingenua (Pap. D. 34.9.16.1). Rawson (above, note 2) 291-92 gives two
epigraphical instances; the senatorial status of one is challenged by Treggiari
(above, note 2) 66. Not all of these are knownt o be "second marriages."
13 CIL 5.1918, 6.14027, 9.944, 9.2255, 10.1267, 11.1471 (doubtful),
14.4454. In most or all of these examples, a concubine was taken after
dissolutiono f a marriage:M . HumbertL, e remariagea Rome (Milan 1972) 105-
6.
14 R. Saller, CP 82 (1987) 21-34.
1S AugustineC onf. 4.2; Treggiari( above, note 2) 76; Saller (above, note 10)
74.
16 C. Starr,T he Roman Imperial Navy2 (New York 1960) 82-84, 90-94; G. R.
Watson, The Roman Soldier (Ithaca 1969) 133-42. A number of these
relationshipsc an fairlyb e characterizeda s matrimoniai niusta,w here the parties
intendedm arriage.
17 Dio 54.16.2 assertst hatt herew ere far more males thanf emalesi n the elite
population of 18 B .C. Noteworthyi s the fact that most women married and
typically remarriedu pon dissolution of a union, while many men remained
celibate, thats ome males were willingt o take as marriagep artnersf emalesw ho
had not yet reached sexual maturitya,n d thatt herea ppear to have been a great
numbero f marriagesw here the husbandw as of notablys uperiors tatus. See the
discussioni n S. B. Pomeroy,G oddesses, Whores,W ives, and Slaves (New York
1975) 164-66; P. A. Brunt,I talian Manpower (Oxford 1987 rev. ed.) 148-54;
Saller (above, note 10) 68-71. The imbalancei n sex ratio is explainedp lausibly
as a consequenceo f them oref requenetx posure/infanticoidfe f emales.
18 See below, note 54. The marriagel aw raised anothero bjective obstacle, as
seen above.
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Concubinagaen dt heL ex Iulia on Adultery 339
womenw ere thei deal concubinesf oru pper-classm en.19W heni t functioned
properly(o f course,i t did nota lwaysd o so), concubinaghe elpeda ssures ocial
reproductioinn, t hes enseb otho f biologicalr eproductioann d of transmissioonf
propertyan d status.A t the same time,c ommonlyh eld notionsa bout sexual
honorw erer espectedi,n sofara s concubinesl,i kep rostituteasn d slaves,m ight
servea s an approveds exualo utletf orm aleso fa nya ge.
At the same time,t he potentiafl orc onflictis evident.I t is notj ust that
realityd id nota lwaysm easureu p to thei deal.T he variousd emandsm adeu pon
and expectationisn vestedi n thei deal itselfw eren ote asy to reconcileT. o be
understoopdr operlyc,o ncubinagem ustb e viewedi n thec ontexto f a systema,
morale conomyw hereind ifferenvta luesa nd practicesin thea reaso f marriage,
sexualitya,n d social reproductiocno existedo, ftenu neasilys, ide by side. The
neatp ictured elineatedin thep recedingp aragraphds oes onlyp artiajlu sticet o
thisc omplexs cheme,f orr easonss etf orthb elow.
The argumentth atf ollowsi s ofteni ntricatet,h ej uristict extsr eluctantto
yield theirm eaning.F or the convenienceo f the reader,I offera general
summaryh ere.
The incidentatlr eatmenotf concubinagbe y theA ugustanst atuteiss readily
revealeda s unsatisfactorIyt. w as leftt o thej uristst o steera troubledc ourse
betweent hed evilo f thea dulteryla w andt hed eepb lue sea of socialc onvention.
Givent hel ack of sufficiengtu idancef romp ositivel aw and thec omplexityof
thei ssueso f social policyp osed by thisp roblemi,t is nots urprisintgo findt he
juristsa doptings olutionst hatd ifferedf rome ach otheri n significanwt ays.
More thant his,t heo pinionsr enderedb y somej uristsa re themselveasm biva-
lento re vens omewhaste lf-contradictory.
In thes ectionso f thep apert hatf ollowt hes urveyo f statutlea w,I set forth
a three-folddi visioni n juristico pinion.A conservativge roupo f threeju rists
(Atilicinus,M arcellus,U lpian) is the mostr eluctantt o expandt he rangeo f
acceptablec oncubinagbe eyonda narrowb ase. Two othersc onstitutina gm iddle
group( Papinian,M arcian)t emperth eirm orel iberals tancew ithv ariousq ualifi-
cations.T he broadi nterpretatiorne,p resentebdy one jurist( Paul), appearst o
allow a fairlyg enerousd iscretionin thec hoice of a concubineT. he difficult
evidenceo f Modestinusis introduceidn a separates ection,w hereI attemptto
charth is positiono n them ap of thisj uristicd ebate.H e is seen to emergea s
one of thosem osth ostilet o thep racticeo f concubinagaen d to stando utside,in
a certains ense,t hep arameterosf thisd iscussionI. n thec oncludings ection,I
explainw hyt hej uristsu ltimatelfya iledt o come up witha n adequater esponse
to thec hallengep osedb yc oncubinage.
19
Sailer (above, note 10) 73: "This peculiarlyR oman notion of proprietyin
concubinagee mbodies a combinationo f the social subordinationex pectedb y the
masterc lass froms ervile classes and the sexual subordinationex pected by men
fromw omen."
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
340 ThomasA . J.M cGinn
1. StatuteL aw.
Augustusa, ctingo n theb asis of his tribuniciap otestas,p romulgatetdh e
lex Iulia de adulteriicso ercendiisn 18 or 17 B.C.20 Thiss tatuthe ada s its
principala im the repressiono f those formso f non-maritasle xual relations
consideredu nacceptablbey R omans ocietyp, articularalydu ltery.2'
Such acts weren owp unishedf ort hef irstt imeb y triali n a standingcr imi-
nal courtt, heq uaestiop erpetuad e adulteriis.2T2h isc ourtc ontinuedto function
20 Dio 54.16.3-6. Bettere vidence on the date is lacking:s ee G. Rotondi,L eges
publicae populi Romani (Milan 1912; repr. Darmstadt1 962) 445-47. It falls in
with the series of leges Iuliae passed at this time: V. Arangio-Ruiz,S critti 3
(Naples 1977) 249-94 (at 250-51).
21 Apart from adulterya nd criminal fornication( stuprum), there has been
disagreementa s to what the law punished.A . Guarino,S Z 63 (1943) 175-267,
argued againstP . Lotmar,M e'langes Girard 2 (Paris 1912) 119-43 and otherst hat
it also punishedi ncest,b ut even the late classical juristst reatt his as a separate
crime (see above all Pap. D. 48.5.39[38] pr.-7), to the extentt hat incestuous
marriagesm ightr eceive protectionu nder the statute( Ulp. D. eod. 14[13].4).
Stuprumw ithi ngenui was punishedb y the Republicanl ex Scantinia, thought he
details are uncertainM: ommsen( above, note 3) 703-4; I. Pfaff,R E 4.A1 (1931)
s.v. stuprum 423-24; A. Berger, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Roman Law
(Philadelphia 1953) s.v. lex Scantinia, stuprumc um masculo. This offensew as
almost certainlyn ot punished by the adulterys tatute:G . Rizzelli, BIDR3 29
(1987) 355-88 (at 383n. 97) (I thankD r. Rizzelli forh avinga llowed me to see a
copy of this article before its publication).B y the late classical period, it may
have been broughtw ithint he ambito f the lex Iulia (perhaps throughl egislative
action). So two textso f Papinian and Modestinus( barringi nterpolation)P: ap. D.
48.5.9(8) pr.; Mod. D. eod. 35(34).1. G. Flore, Studi Bonfante4 (Milan 1930)
335-52 (at 348-52), argued that rape was repressed by the statute. This is
untenable,t hought he offensew as punishable qua adulteryO. n adulterya s the
main offenseo f the lex Iulia, see Corbett( above, note 6) 139: Guarino, 185-86;
J. A. C. Thomas,I ura 12 (1961) 65-80 (at 65); Rizzelli,p assim.
22 Before thep assage of the lex Iulia, the repressiono f sexual misbehaviorw as
generally conceded to the private sphere. Most of our informationc oncerns
adultery,t he offenseo f the marriedw oman and her lover. If an adulterousp air
were caughti n the act, the husbandm ightk ill withi mpunityb oth partieso n the
spot (for the wife,s ee Gell. 10.23.5; shorto f death,a varietyo f insultsm ightb e
visited upon the lover: Hor. Serm. 1.2.37-46, 64-79, 127-34; Val. Max.
6.1.13). Otherc ases were dealt withb y a iudicium domesticumc onvenedb y the
fathero f the offendingw omani f she were still in potestate,a nd by her husbandi f
she were wed cum manu or (perhaps) if she were sui iuris. Women guilty of
adulterym ightl ose one-sixtho f theird owry under the actio (or exceptio) de
moribus (UE 6.12). Cases thatw ere especially notorious,o r (perhaps) where a
domestict ribunacl ould not be constitutedw, ere prosecutedb y the aediles through
the iudicia populi (Cic. Rab. 3.8; Livy 8.22.2-4, 10.31.9, 25.2.9; Val. Max. 8.1
absol. 7). Some legislatione xistedo n the subject,t o judge fromt he statemenbt y
Paul (Coll. 4.2.2) that the firstc haptero f the Augustans tatuteo brogatedm any
laws and the reporta ttributedto Sallust by Plutarch( Comp. Lys. et. Sul. 3.2) to
the effectt hatS ulla introducedl egislationo n marriagea nd "sophrosune" (Val.
Max. 8.1 absol. 8 is not convincinge vidence on pre-Augustanle gislation,b ut
see the referencea t Hor. Serm. 1.3.105-6). On the situationp revailingb eforet he
introductiono f the lex Iulia, see Esmein (above, note 3) 73-74; W. Kunkel,
Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des romischen Kriminalverfahrens in
vorsullanischer Zeit (Munich 1962) 121-23 (who refutesM ommsen's extreme
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Concubinagaen dt heL ex Iulia on Adultery 341
throughoutth ec lassical periodo f Romanl aw, untila s late as thee arlyt hird
century.2A3f terwardosf, fensews erea ddressede xclusivelyth rougthh ec ognitio
extrao rdinem.24
Criminapl enaltiesw ereo rdainedf ort hea dulteroufs emales pousea nd her
lover.T hese werec hieflyp atrimoniailn natured, ictatingt hec onfiscationof
one-halfo f thea dulterer'ps ropertyo,n e-thirodf thew oman's,a s well as one-
halfh erd owry.25U pon convictionn, eithero ne could delivero ral or written
testimonbye forea court,a nd thea dulterecro uld notw itnessa will.26In addi-
tion,t herew as relegatioi n insulamf orb othp arties,2w7 hilec onvictedw omen
weref orbiddento remarry.2L8a terl aw establishedt hed eathp enalty.2T9h ose
pessimismo ver the "inadequacy" of the pre-Augustanr egime); A. H. M. Jones,
The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (Totowa 1972) 15,
30; G. Pugliese, ANRW 2.14 (Berlin 1982) 722-89 (at 732n. 17) (who argues
that Sulla's proposals never became law); L Garofalo,S DHI 52 (1986) 451-76
(especially 455-56, 474-76), and II processo edilizio (Padua 1989) 121-34 (who
shows how the competencyo f the aediles in all criminal mattersi nvolving
women defendants derived from their responsibilityf or prosecuting sexual
offenses).O n the rules attributetdo the regal period,s ee now P. Giunti,A dulterio
e le2gi regie: Un reato fra storiae DroDaganda( Milan 1980).
23 That the quaestio persistedt his long is the dominantt hesis,r epresentedb y
U. Brasiello,S tudi Betti4 (Milan 1962) 551-70 and W. Kunkel,K leine Schriften
(Weimar 1974) 33-116 (at 74). It is defendedb y R. A. Bauman, Antichthon2
(1968) 68-93 against Garnsey,J RS 57 (1967) 56-60. On the late development
of a specialized juristicl iteratureo n criminall aw, see Bauman, Index 5 (1974/5
[1979]) 39-48.
24 On thec ognitio procedures, ee I. Buti,A NRW 2.14 (Berlin 1982) 29-59.
25 PS. 2.26.14.
26 The latteri s apparentlya juristic extension:s ee Pap. D. 22.5.14; Paul. D.
eod. 18; Ulp. D. 28.1.20.6.
27 PS 2.26.14, which insistso n separationo f the guiltyc ouple: "...dummodoi n
diversasi nsulas relegentur.W" e do not know if the relegatio was permanenotr in
tempus: E. Sehling,S Z 4 (1883) 160-63 (at 162) holds for the latter,b asing his
conclusion on the provisions against remarriagea nd giving testimony.S ome
have questionedw hethera ny formo f relegatio was imposedb y the law itself:U .
Brasiello, Repressione penale (Naples 1937) 93-96; G. Branca,E nciclopedia del
diritto1 (Milan 1958) s.v. adulterio (dirittor omano) 620-22 (at 621); Bauman,
Antichthon( above, note 23) 80n. 95; C. VenturiniS,D HI 54 (1988) 66-109 (at
88n. 61). The contraryv iew is more convincing:c ompare the early cases where
exilium( a harsherf ormo f exile) is metedo ut as an aggravatedp enalty( Tac. Ann.
2.50.1-3, 2.85.1-3 [with Suet. Tib. 35.21, 4.42.3; Pliny Ep. 6.31.4-6);
deportatio (a latert ermf or exilium) is given where adulteryi s combined with
incest (duplex crimen:M arci. D. 48.18.5). See B. Biondi, Scritti 2 (Milan 1965)
47-74 (at 50-57); P. Garnsey,S ocial Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman
Empire (Oxford 1970) 116; R. Rilinger,H umiliores Honestiores (Munich 1988)
157-80.
28 For the prohibitiona gainst remarriage,s ee Ulp. D. 48.5.30(29).1. The
husband was guiltyo f lenocinium, and where lovers in adulterym arriede ach
other,t heiru nion was void: Pap. D. 34.9.13. An SC pursuantt o the lex lulia et
Papia forbadea womand eprehensa (but not convicted)t o marrya membero f the
senatorial order: Ulp. D. 23.2.43.10-13 (UE 13.2 shows a post-classical
extensiono f the principle).M arriagec ontractedin violationo f this ban rendered
the spouses caelibes undert he marriages tatute;a n SC passed underM arcus and
Commodus declared void unions that violated the prohibitionsim posed on the
ordo senatorius:R . AstolfiL, a lex lulia et Papia2 (Padua 1986) 114-19.
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342 ThomasA . J.M cGinn
foundg uiltyof a typeo fc omplicitiyde ntifiebdy t hel awa s lenociniumwe re
subjectetdo t hes amep enaltieass adultererins;f acta,l l accessorietso t hem ain
crimew erep unishedb,y t hel atec lassicapl eriodat l easti,n t hes amew aya s the
principalsW.30e a ren oti nformaesd t ot hes tatutopreyn altiefso rs tuprum.31
The law didn ot,t o all appearanceos,f fear definitioonf thea ctsi t out-
lawedT. herew asa simplep rohibitioofna dulteriuamn ds tuprumqu, alifiebdy
ther equiremeonfta mensr ea.32T hej uristcso mplainth att hes tatutdei dn ot
distinguisahd equatelbye tweenth et wop rincipaclr imesb, utu sedt hew ords
stupruman da dulteriumin discriminatelyP.r3o3p erlysp eakings,t uprum,
althoughin a genericse nsei t mighrt eferto anyt ypeo f unapprovesde xual
activit(yin cludinagd ulterym),e antu,n derth isl aw,f ornicatiwonit ha n unmar-
riedw omanw how asn ote xempftr omth es tatutopryen altiews,h ilea dulterium
wast hes exuaol ffensceo mmittwedit ha non-exemmpta rriewdo man.34
Thisp ointis ofc ruciailm portancTeh. eq uestionof l iabilituyn derth el aw
alwaysd ependeda,s we haves een,o n thes tatuos ft hef emalep artnetro the
sexuala cta ti ssuea, statuws hichth el exI uliad efineodn ly(a sidef romsc attered
referencteos them aterfamiliaisn) then egativeT. hisw as accomplishebdy
settingfo rthe,x pressloyr by implicatiocne,r tainca tegorieosf womenw ith
whoms exualr elationms ighbt e enjoyedw ithoufte aro f prosecutioInn. this
way,A ugustudsr asticallcyu rtailetdh er angeo fp ossibles exualp artnerfso r
Romanm aleso utsideo f marriagein, sofaars thisr angew as definedat law.
Strictlsyp eakingo,n lyp rostitutpers,o curessessla, vesa, ndp eregrinwese rel eft
29 The referencest o this penaltyi n Alex. Sev. C. 9.9.9 (a. 224); Diocl., Max.
C. 2.4.18 (a. 293); and ConstantinusC . 9.9.29(30).4 (a. 326) are convincingly
shown to be interpolatedb y M. Wlassak, Anklage und Streitbefestigungim
Kriminalrechtd er Romer (1917) 63-64 and Biondi (above, note 27) passim,
against the view of Mommsen( above, note 3) 699, who arguedf or introduction
in the thirdc entury.A side froma special case regardings laves convicted of
adultery,t he capital penaltym akes its firstl egitimatea ppearancei n Constantius,
Constans CTh. 11.36.2 (a. 399). Worthyo f note is Inst. 4.18.4, which falsely
claims to derive this penalty from the statute itself. The post-classical
developmenti tself is disputed.B iondi ratheri mprobablya ttemptst o derive the
death penalty from the ius occidendi, the conditional "privilege of slaying"
grantedo utragedh usbandsa nd fathersb y the statuteB. ettera re Venturin(ia bove,
note 27) 68, and R. Bonini,R icerche di dirittog iustinianeo2 (Milan 1990) 109-
12, 151-53.
30 For lenocinium, see Pap. D. 48. 5.9(8) pr.: "quasi adulter."I n time, most
accessoryc rimesu ndert he statutec ame to be identifiedas species of lenocinium.
Note that the wife who accepts money "ex adulteriov iri" is punished "quasi
adultera": Marci. 48.5.34(33).2.
31 Sehling (above, note 27) 160 argues that they were identical to those laid
down fora dultery.
32 Ulp. (1 de adult.) D. 48.5.13(12): "Haec verba legis 'ne quis posthac stuprum
adulteriumf acitos ciens dolo malo' et ad eum, qui suasit,e t ad eum, qui stuprum
vel adulteriumin tulit,p ertinent."
33 See Pap. D. 48.5.6.1; Ulp. D. eod. 14(13).2; Mod. D. eod. 35(34) pr.; Idem
D. 50.16.10.1.
34 The terminologyh as been given carefuls tudyb y Rizzelli (above, note 21)
passim.
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Concubinagaen dt heL ex Iulia on Adultery 343
as possible concubines.35T he juristsa dded one more category,c onvicted
adulteresses:
Ulp. (2 ad legem Iuliam et Papiam) D. 25.7.1.2: Qui autem
damnatama dulteriii n concubinatuh abuit,n on puto lege lulia de
adulteriist eneri,q uamvis,s i uxoreme arnd uxisset,t eneretur.
I do not thinkt hata man who keeps as a concubinea womanc on-
victedo f adulteryis liable undert he lexI ulia on adulterya,l though
he would be liable if he marriedh er.
The law forbadea nyonet o marrya convicteda dulteressb; y Ulpian's day
offenderws erec hargedw ithl enocinium.3B6y compellingth esew oment o wear
the toga,t he same statuter educedt heirs tatust o thato f a prostituteU. lpian
invokest hisa nalogy37a nd in thiss ense simplya ppliesa provisionw hichh e
accepts as implied by the law. Far froms ervinga s a privilege,i t is a
confirmatioonf thel ow statusim posedo n convictedad ulteresses.
Anotherf actorin thed eliberationosf thej uristsw as thee videntm entionof
concubinageb y thel exI ulia et Papia. This is suggestedf irsbt ya passingr efer-
ence to thes tatutem ade by thej uristM arciani n a contextt hatg uaranteeist s
significancef ort he questiono f liabilityf ors tuprumb, utd oes not shed any
lighto n thel egislativpe rovisionit self.3O8t here videncee, quallyc ircumstantial
in nature,p ointsi n thes ame directionA. ll of thep assages in theD igest title
D. 25.7 ("De Concubinis")c ome fromju risticw orkso r sectionso f workst hat
commento n thel ex Iulia et Papia,39a s do twor elevantt extso f Modestinus.40
Naturallym, ucho f thism ateriaal ppliesr uleso n marriaget o concubinageb y
35 These are the typeso f womene xemptedu ndert her egimeo f the adulteryla w.
On prostitutess,e e Tac. Ann. 2.85; Dioclet., Maxim. C. 9.9.22 (a. 290); Salv.
Gub. Dei 7.3. Procuressesa re included througha nalogy with prostitutesS. laves
were not explicitlye xempted,b ut theyw ere understoodn ot to qualifya s matres
familias: see note 3 above and Mod. D. 23.2.24; Pap. D. 48.5.6 pr.; Mod. D.
eod. 35(34) pr.; Dioclet., Maxim. C. 9.9.23 pr. (a. 290), C. eod. 24(25) (a. 291);
PS 2.26.16. HA Aurel. 49.4-5 suggestsa change in the law: very temporaryi,f
true.F or peregrinesI, follow L. Mitteis,R omischesP rivatrechtb is auf die Zeit
Diokletians 1 (Leipzig 1908) 70.
36 See Ulp. D. 48.5.30(29).1.
37I do not mean to suggestt hisr ule mustb e originalt o Ulpian.
38 Marci. D. 25.7.3.1, controversialb, ut see Biondi, Scritti giuridici 2 (Milan
1965) 77-188 (at 159-60); Kaser, RP 12 328-29 and below.
39 The firstf oura re fromB ook 2 of Ulpian's Libri ad legemI uliam et Papiam
(Iul.-Ulp. D. 24.2.11 pr. and Ulp. D. eod. 11.1-2 are fromt he thirdb ook), the
next fromB ook 10 (correctedf romt he ms. 12 by 0. Lenel, Palingenesia iuris
civilis 1 [Leipzig 1889, repr. Graz 1960] cols. 1125n. 3, 1134n. 1 and 3
[hereafteLr enel, Pal. 1, 2]) of Paul's commentaroyn the same law. The following
two textsa re fromB ook 12 of Marcian's Institutiones,w hich like the preceding
two books (Lenel, 1 cols. 667-69) deal with this law, as does part of the 19th
book of Paul's Responsa, the origino f the next fragmen(tL enel, 1 col. 1250),
and the last is fromt he second book of the Pauli Sententiae, part of which
concerned this legislation (Lenel, 1 col. 1298; cf. # 1968 and 1969). Paul. D.
50.16.144 (below) also comes fromB ook 10 of his commentaryon this law.
40 Both are fromt he firstb ook of his Regulae, which dealt with,a mong other
things,t he marriagel aw: Mod. (1 reg.) D. 23.2.24; Idem (1 reg.) D. 48.5.35(34)
pr., withL enel, Pal. 1 cols. 732-733.
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344 ThomasA . J.M cGinn
analogy, which helps account for its placement.B ut not all of it can be
explainedi n thisw ay.
Of interesits a texto f Paul,41w hichc ontainst hed efinitiongsi venp ellex
orp aelex byt wos cholarsF. or thes akeo fc larityI, r everset heo rderp referrebdy
Paul himselff ort het wo sets of definitionsT.h e antiquarianG raniusF laccus
gives" a womanw hoh as sex witha marriedm an"a s thec ommonc ontemporary
definitiona,n d "an unmarriedw omanu xorisl oco," thee quivalento f Greek
pallake, as a secondarym eaning.4T2h e juristM asuriusS abinuso bservest hat
the latterw as the meaningo f pellex "apud antiquos,"43b ut thati n his day
differenwt ordsw ere used to describes uch a woman,a mica, and the more
respectablec oncubina: "quam nunc vero nominea micam,p aulo honestiore
concubinamap pellari."P aul reporttsh esed efinitionisn hisc ommentaroyn the
marriagel aw, evidentlyin ordert o illustratae changei n usage. The jurists
consistentluys e concubinat or efert o thep artneirn ther espectablree lationship
mentionedb y Flaccus in his secondaryd efinition.4Sa4b inuss ays outrightth at
41 Gran.-Mas.-Paul. (10 ad legem Iuliam et Papiam) D. 50.16.144: "Libro
memorialiumM asurius scribit' pellicem' apud antiquose am habitam,q uae, cum
uxor non esset, cum aliquo tamenv ivebat:q uam nunc vero nominea mnicamp,a ulo
honestiore concubinam appellari. Granius Flaccus in libro de iure Papiriano
scribitp ellicem nunc volgo vocari, quae cum eo, cui uxor sit, corpus misceat:
quosdam eam, quae uxoris loco sine nuptiisi n domo sit, quam 7rcaAAavi Graeci
vocant."
42 Pacius (Mommsen, Kruger ad loc.) reads "quondam" for "quosdam." The
change relegatest he second definitiont o a period beforeF laccus' day, which at
firstg lance betterc orrepondst o Sabinus' "apud antiquos." It is unnecessary,
however, since it is possible, even plausible, that two definitions existed
simultaneously(b oth at the time Flaccus wrote and before); moreover,S abinus'
antiqui themselvesc annotb e pushed en bloc farb ack into thep ast: see note 43.
43 All three appearances in the Digest of antiqui used as a substantive
synonomousw ith veteres (VIR s.h.v.) are attributablteo Sabinus. See Paul. (17
ad Plautium) D. 5.4.3 withL enel, Pal. 1 col. 1174n.1; Mas.-Ulp. (18 ad edictum)
D. 9.2.27.21 with G. MacCormack, TR 51 (1983) 271-93 (at 275-76). These
otheri nstancess uggest" apud antiquos" should be translated" in the writingso f
the Republican jurists," not "among earlier generations,"a s the Pennsylvania
Digest has it. See also P. M. Meyer, Der romische Konkubinat nach den
Rechtsquellenu nd den Inschriften(L eipzig 1895) 9-14; J. Plassard (above, note
9) 18-19. For Sabinus, then,a ntiqui has the meaningg iven veteres by juristso f
the imperialp eriod (includingS . himself).O n this usage, see F. Schulz, History
of Roman Legal Science (Oxford 1946) 100. (The narrowerv iew of the meaning
of veteres proposed by 0. Behrends,R HD 55 [1977] 7-33 is difficult.)O n
Sabinus' reliance on the antiqui or veteres,s ee P. SteinB IDR3 19 (1977) 55-67
(at 62).
44 This is the only example of paelexlpellex in thej uristics ources: VIR s.h.v.
The juristsu se amica only two othert imes.O ne instancei s irrelevant(S caev. D.
34.2.40.2: a woman's friend)T. he othera ppears in a quotationf roma will, which
appears to reflectp opular usage (see below, note 89): Paul. D. 34.2.35 pr. As
expected,n on-legalu sage is far more varied. Concubina and its cognates,w hile
not widely attestedb efore the law (a fact which suggests it did not yet enjoy
statusa s a termo f art), are employeda fterwardtso refere ven to non-respectable
relationships: TLL s.v. concubina, concubinatus, concubinus. The primary
meanings of paelex and its cognates have a pejorative force-mistress of a
marriedm an, membero f an orientalh arem,w oman of loose morals (sometimesi t
functionss imply as a termo f abuse). There are a few examples (mostly late)
This content downloaded from 96.242.68.144 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions