Nero manumissor impubes: The Case of Domitius LemnusAuthor(s): Paul WeaverSource: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 146 (2004), pp. 202-204Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20191769 .

Accessed: 02/10/2013 13:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202

Nero manumissor impubes: The case of Domitius Lemnus*

Some years ago in an article in Historia 14, 1965, 509-12,1 proposed that Domitius Lemnus procu

rator) Germanici Caesaris (6.8500 = 11.1753 = ILS 1490)

= Lemnus Aug(usti) l(ibertus) procurator

patrimoni et hereditatium, (6.8499 = ILS 1489) was not, as generally held,1 a freedman of Domitia

Augusta, wife of Domitian, who subsequently rose to be a senior procurator under that emperor, but a

freedman of Nero who was manumitted as (L.) Domitius Lemnus before Nero's adoption by Claudius in

50. His nomen (and praenomen) were simply dropped after Nero's accession in 54 by the dedicant of

ILS 1490, his son L. Domitius Lemnus of the same name. H. Chantraine, in his work on the

nomenclature of the emperor's freedmen and slaves, reached the same conclusion,2 as did, among

others, G. Boulvert3 and M. Corbier, in her study of the freedman and equestrian imperial procuratores

patrimonii.4 More recently, however, C. Bruun, in an article on Nero's freedman Phaon,5 raises, with cautious

approval, an objection by Stein6 to Domaszewski's suggestion that another Domitius, L. Domitius

Phaon (10.444 = ILS 3546 = Lit. III. 1.7-8), was a freedman of Nero, on the grounds that Nero, at the

age of 13 in AD 50, had not yet reached the minimum age of 20 required by the lex Aelia Sent?a for a

manumissor. Bruun states: 'If Stein is right, it means that we should not really expect to find any Domitii Aug. lib. who had been freed by Nero.'7

This raises questions of the minimum legal age at which masters, including those in the imperial

household, could formally manumit their slaves.

The lex Aelia Sentia of AD 4 fixed 20 years as the minimum age limit for manumitters. One result

of this, as Gaius remarks (1. 40; cf. Justinian, Inst. 1.6.7), was that, although a master who had reached

the age of 14 could make a will, and in it could institute an heir and leave legacies, yet he could not

grant freedom to a slave. Importantly, however, the lex granted an exception to masters under 20: they

might formally manumit before a special consilium, if the reason advanced was particularly justified and

approved by the consilium: 'vindicta apud consilium iusta causa manumissionis adprobata' (Gaius 1.38;

cf. Justinian, Inst. 1.6.4). This procedure was prescribed even for informal manumissions by masters

under 20 (Gaius 1.41). But all that was required to nullify the legal defect of a manumitter being under

the age of 20 was formal approval of a causa, any causa not otherwise restricted by the law.8 The list of

such iustae causae given in Gaius was not prescriptive and was meant only to indicate the kind of

reasons which the special consilium might approve, but it was broad enough to include a paedagogus

(Gaius 1.39) and ^procurator (Gaius 1.19: 'aut paedagogum aut servum procuratoris habendi gratia',

I am grateful to Jane Gardner for helpful advice and criticism. Inscription references are to CIL unless stated

otherwise. The following abbreviations are used: Buckland = W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery (Cambridge

1908, repr. 1970); Chantraine = H. Chantraine, Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der r?mischen Kaiser (Wiesbaden

1967); Weaver = P. R. C. Weaver, Familia Cae saris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge

1972). 1

E.g. O. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamte2 40 n. 3, 112 n. 4; Dessau, ILS loc. cit.

2 Chantraine 65 n. 15.

3 Esclaves et affranchis imp?riaux sous le Haut-Empire romain (Naples 1970) 137 n. 299, cf. 105 n. 70; Domestique et

fonctionnaire sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris 1974) 40 n. 231, 194 n. 490, 265 n. 48 bis.

4 ZPE 43,1981,75-87, at 77f. 5 Arctos 23, 1989, 41-53, at 46.

6 RE 19 (1938) 1795. 7 Loc. cit. n. 14.

8 Cf. Buckland 542.

This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Nero manumissor impubes 203

Justinian, Inst. 1.6.5).9 Either as procurator or aspaedagogus, this reason for manumission would seem

to cover the case of Domitius Lemnus at some point following the death of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus

in 40 when his young son's name was L. Domitius Ahenobarbus.

The question is, at what age under 20 could this have occurred? When Nero was adopted by Claudius in 50, at the age of 13, he was not only well under the age limit of 20, but, as Stein pointed

out,10 he had not even reached the age of putting on the toga virilis (i.e. c. 14-16 years). On adoption, he became legally Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar11 and, although 'Nero' soon 'prevailed' (?^ev?KT|0?v) as his preferred praenomen,12 his freedmen nevertheless thereafter used 'Ti. Claudius' as their prae nomen and nomen. Lemnus, however, whatever prior title he might have had, could not have claimed

that of 'procurator Germanici Caesaris' until Nero became 'Caesar' on his adoption by Claudius. The

manumission of Domitius Lemnus would have to have taken place when Nero was even younger. A young person under the age of 14 (impubes) who was sui iuris (i.e. not subject to patria potestas)

must be under the guardianship of a tutor, whose consent was required for him to conclude legal transactions. When a young master, with the consent of his tutor, argued before a consilium to manumit, for example, a slave paedagogus, it was presumably for services, past or future, to himself. But not at

any age. An absolute age restriction applied to infants. An infans, i.e. a child under the age of 5 years or

a little older, could not free a slave, whatever the causa advanced.13 This leaves open the possiblity of

manumission by children between the ages of c. 5-14 years, i.e. imp?beres who were pupilli, i.e.

persons sui iuris under a guardian (tutor). The clearest text is Digest 40.2.24 (Paulus): 'Pupillus qui infans non est apud consilium recte manumittit, scilicet tutore auctore, ita tarnen ut peculium eum non

sequatur.' A pupillus who is not an infans can lawfully manumit before a consilium, subject to the

approval of his tutor, with the added proviso that the manumitted slave does not keep his peculium. Other passages from the Digest dealing With pupilli, are less precise. Dig. 40.2.25 (Gaius, De manumis

sionibus, Book 1): 'si tutoris habendi causa pupillus manumittat, probationi esse causam Fufidius ait', canvasses the possibility of a pupillus justifying the manumission of a slave who was to become his

tutor. This was disputed, as it seemingly turned the sanction of a tutor on its head,14 unless one

supposes that an additional or replacement tutor was involved. But it does suggest that, while such

causae could have tested the limits of the consilium procedure for underage manumissores, the

procedure itself was not exceptional or unduly deterring. Dig. 40.2.1 (Pomponius): 'apud praetorem

eundemque tutorem posse pupillum ipso auctore manumittere constat' raises a possible conflict of

interest where the manumitter's tutor also presides at the consilium (unusual, but not out of the question in a case of one with connections such as those of the young Nero).

From the age of 3, when his father died, till his adoption by the emperor Claudius at the age of 13, Nero was sui iuris under the guardianship of a tutor or tutores. These cannot be identified, but were no

doubt nominated by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus for his infant son in his will, or by his mother Iulia

Agrippina on her return from exile in 41. The young Nero, if anyone, would have had little difficulty

complying with the procedure prescribed for manumitting early.

9 For the interchangeability of motives for manumission between masters under 20 and slaves under 30, see Gaius 1.39:

'sed illae causae quas superius in servo minore xxx annorum exposuimus ad hune quoque casum de quo loquimur adferri

possunt. Item, ex diverso, hae causae quas in in minore xx annorum domino rettulimus porrigi possunt et ad servum minorem

xxx annorum.' In the case of manumitting a slave under 30 as paedagogus, it could be taken to mean a teacher for the

master's children, but hardly so in the case of a master much under 20.

10 RE 19 (1938) 1795. 1 * As in 10.932 = /LS 224. 12 Cassius Dio 61 epit. 33. 2C; cf. Historia 14,1965, 511 n. 15. 13 Buckland 542. 14

Dig. 40. 2.25: 'Nerva filius contra sentit, quod verius est: namque perabsurdum est in eligendo tutore firmum videri

esse iudicium pupilli, cuius in omnibus rebus ut infirmum iudicium tutore auctore regitur.'

This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204 P. Weaver

Other instances are possible. One candidate, known by his cognomen only, is the freedman Phaon,

who gave the emperor support and refuge in his last hours.15 This would argue a close and confidential

association, extending over some years if he became a rationibus in succession to M. Antonius Pallas in

55.16 He too could have been manumitted by the young Nero with the name 'L. Domitius Phaon' but

similarly dropped his praenomen and nomen when his patron rose to the principate. Many other reasons,

of course, can account for the omission of nomen by imperial freedmen.17 On the other hand, the

numbers of Augusti liberti who retained a nomen and praenomen in the non-imperial category are small,

almost all of them freedmen who were manumitted before their patron became emperor following an

adoption by a previous emperor, when this involved a change of nomen, as with Nero, and Antoninus

Pius.18

Australian National University Paul Weaver

15 Suetonius, Ner. 48.1-3,49.2; Cassius Dio 63.27.3; Josephus, 574.493; Aurelius Victor, De Caes. 5.7.

16 3.14112.2, from Carnuntum in Raetia.

17 See Chantraine 128ff.; Weaver 37f. 18 The clearest examples, the 'T. Aurelii Aug. lib.' from the early second century, do not involve an underage

manumitter. They were freed by Antoninus Pius before his adoption by Hadrian in 138 when he was T. Aurelius Fulvius

Boionius Arrius Antoninus, e.g. T. Aurelius Egatheus Imp. Antonini Aug. lib. a codicillis (6.8440 = ILS 1529; cf. Fronto,

Epist. 2. 16); T. Aurelius Aug. lib. Strenion (14. 250 = ILS 6174) dated to 152; T. Aurelius Aug. lib. Aphrodisius

proc(urator) a rationibus (14. 2104 = ILS 1475. The only case, however unlikely, where the question of an underage

imperial manumitter other than Nero could arise is that of L. Ceionius Aug. lib. Hermes (6.34805), if it involved L. Ceionius

Commodus, the later co-emperor L.Verus, before his adoption by Antoninus in 138, when he was no more than 8 years old.

See further, Weaver 26ff., Chantraine 63ff.

This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions