Servile Imperialism

Abstract

AbstractJust as the structure of private Roman life and law mandated the conduct of commerce through the master’s allocation of critical functions to his slaves and former slaves, and the exclusion of free persons from mercantile roles, considerations of reliance, loyalty, continuity, and control motivated the princeps to administer his imperium essentially through his slaves and former slaves. And just as within the private Roman household, where for slaves of economic talent and accomplishment (even after “manumission”) the boundary between freedom and slavery was often somewhat imperceptible, analogously for important imperial slaves, gaining “freedom” was an oxymoron. Imperial slaves of skill and accomplishment tended, as they progressed in their careers, to take on a formally “free” status as liberti—but in reality they remained members of Caesar’s family, still dependents of their master, evoking the same envy and fear from free persons that they often aroused when still formalistically enslaved. Yet, markedly successful slaves serving in the emperor’s administration did enjoy significant rewards while still enslaved; thereafter they often became markedly successful “freedmen.” Still, the phenomenon of Servile Imperialism should not be exaggerated, either in its scope or its longevity. Slaves’ ascendancy arose, and reached its acme, in the first century ce, and thereafter declined, although persons not born free continued to hold important administrative positions well into the third century.