Dediticii

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

In this inscription from AD 232, Walldürn, Roman Germany, Alexandrian dediticii join two scouts (exploratores) in a dedication to Dea Fortuna after the restoration of the decrepit baths at their military outpost.[1]

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

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

Dediticii ex lege Aelia Sentia

Under Augustus, in AD 4 the lex Aelia Sentia created a new class of freedmen who, while technically free, held no rights of citizenship, a status they shared with peregrini dediticii. If a slave during his servitude had been subjected to certain punishments but later freed (either by the master who punished him or by a subsequent owner), he was excluded from the political liberty that had customarily followed manumission in Republican Rome. Gaius describes these slaves as those "who have been chained by their masters as a punishment, or those who have been branded, or interrogated under torture concerning some wrongdoing and convicted of that offence, or handed over to fight in gladiatorial combat with swords or with wild beasts, or sent to the games (ludi), or thrown into custody" and then manumitted.[8] These criminalized former slaves were perceived as a threat to society, and if they came within a hundred miles of Rome, they and their property could be seized and sold.[9]

Like slaves, these dediticii held no rights to succession and therefore could not create a stable family line through passing down property.[10]

The law also created a dilemma for owners particularly of agricultural slave crews. Chaining was a routine means of controlling and disciplining slaves that might be preferred to harsher punishment such as whipping, torture, or disfigurement. Employing it now meant that masters were automatically denying their slaves any hope of ever becoming citizens, a hope that had been used as a way to encourage them to work hard and willingly. The lex Aelia Sentia was thus one more way in which Augustus appropriated the traditional power of a paterfamilias to govern his own household.[11] Even if an owner acquired a slave who had been subjected to one of these forms of punishment, but did not himself chain or punish a slave and then manumitted him, the former slave still could not enjoy the rights of citizenship.[12]

Dediticii and the Constitutio Antoniniana
The fragmentary papyrus of the Constitutio Antoniniana on display

The Constitutio Antoniniana of AD 212, with which Caracalla granted universal citizenship to all free men within the empire, has sometimes been interpreted as excluding those who had become subjects through a deditio (that is, a person who was a dediticius).[13] However, this constitution does not survive in a single, unified, intact text; the wording pertaining to the excluded dediticii is vexed; and Ulpian and Dio Cassius both clearly state that the grant was universal.[14]

On the basis of the Tabula Banasitana, it has been argued that the intention was to exclude dediticii whose loyalty was not assured.[15] But before the constitutio, there had been no bar to peregrini dediticii being granted citizenship, and those who served in the Roman military—as the "barbarian" troops of the numeri did—regularly became citizens as a reward at the end of their service.[16] If all foreign provincials under treaty were excluded, it becomes harder to discern how the constitutio would achieve its aims of broadening the tax base and enlarging the cultivation of Roman religion.[17] The granting of citizenship could not be meaningfully "universal" if it excluded so many people, and though no similar large-scale expansions of citizenship are known, by the 5th century the free inhabitants of the empire are clearly represented in the sources as all citizens.[18] "Potentially disloyal" would be a nebulous category not readily defined as a matter of law, and a likely solution is that only a subgroup of dediticii were excluded, the former slaves treated as criminals and barred from citizenship by the lex Aelia Sentia.[19] In this view, the dediticii exception in Caracalla's constitutio was thus carefully limited and framed so as not to contravene the 200-year precedent of the Augustan lex.[20]

References
  1. Pat Southern, "The Numeri of the Roman Imperial Army," Britannia 20 (1989), p. 139, no. 16; CIL 13.6592 = AE 1983, 729); further discussion by Iiro Kajanto, "Epigraphical Evidence of the Cult of Fortuna in Germania Romana," Latomus 47:3 (JUILLET-SEPTEMBRE 1988), pp. 570–572, 578.
  2. Adolph Berger, s.v. "Dediticii", Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (American Philosophical Society, 1953), p. 427.
  3. Christian Baldus, "Vestigia pacis. The Roman Peace Treaty: Structure or Event?" in Peace Treaties and International Law in European History from the Late Middle Ages to World War One (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 122.
  4. Herbert W. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 85 (1954), p. 192.
  5. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 194.
  6. L. De Ligt, "Provincial Dediticii in the Epigraphic Lex Agraria of 111 BC?" Classical Quarterly 58:1 (2008), pp. 359–360.
  7. Herbert W. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," pp. 188–189, 191.
  8. Ulrike Roth, "Men Without Hope," Papers of the British School at Rome 79 (2011), p. 90, citing Gaius, Institutes 1.13 and pointing also to Suetonius, Divus Augustus 40.4
  9. Jane F. Gardner, "Slavery and Roman Law," in The Cambridge World History of Slavery (Cambridge University Press, 2011), vol. 1, p. 429.
  10. Roth, "Men Without Hope," p. 91.
  11. Roth, "Men Without Hope," pp. 92–93.
  12. Roth, "Men Without Hope," pp. 93–94.
  13. Olivier Hekster, Rome and Its Empire, AD 193–284 (Edinburgh University Press, 2008), p. 47.
  14. Herbert W. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," pp. 188–189, 191.
  15. A. N. Sherwin-White, "The Tabula of Banasa and the Constitutio Antoniniana," Journal of Roman Studies 63 (1973), pp. 97–98.
  16. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 194.
  17. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," pp. 188, 191.
  18. A. H. M. Jones, "Another Interpretation of the Constitutio Antoniniana," Journal of Roman Studies 26:2 (1936), pp. 224, 227.
  19. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 196.
  20. Benario, "The Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana," p. 196.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.