This paper examines article G32, a funerary epitaph from Pompeii that commemorates a freed slave couple — Marcus Petacius Dasius and Petacia Vitalis — and their freeborn son, Marcus Petacius Severus. Drawing on Cooley and Cooley's Pompeii: A Sourcebook and Seneca's letters, the paper analyzes what the inscription reveals about Roman slavery, the practice of manumission, patron-client relationships, tribal affiliation, naming conventions, and gender hierarchy. The epitaph demonstrates that freedpeople occupied a distinctive and evolving social position in Roman society, and that the status of their children differed significantly from their own, illustrating the complex stratification of citizenship and social mobility in ancient Rome.
G32: [Marcus Pe]tacius Dasius, freedman of Marcus. [To Marcus Pe]tacius Severus, son of Marcus, of the Menenian tribe, his son; to Petacia Vitalis, freedwoman of Marcus, freedwoman.
Article G32 in Pompeii is an epitaph from a tomb. As Cooley and Cooley (2004) point out, "inscriptions carved in stone on public and private monuments were intended to perpetuate the memory of the individuals concerned" (p. 1). Tomb carvings like this one can be used to "provide a vivid picture of life in an ordinary town" in ancient Rome (Cooley and Cooley, 2004, p. 2). Although some parts of the original inscription are missing — indicated by Cooley and Cooley (2004) with brackets — the reader can fully understand the context and multiple meanings of the epitaph. The most notable feature of the inscription is that it refers to a freedman, a freedwoman, and their child.
The epitaph therefore raises a range of questions about the role of slaves in Roman society and the specific structure of Roman slavery. For example, it points to the evolving relationship between slaves and masters, and between liberated slaves and their former masters — now their patrons. The epitaph also reveals that the same master, Marcus, owned both the freedman and the freedwoman, which raises questions about gender roles and marriage norms in ancient Rome.
Furthermore, the son of the two former slaves was born free under Roman law. The epitaph mentions the tribe to which the patron Marcus belongs because the son of the freedman and freedwoman automatically becomes a member of that tribe. Thus, the nature of tribal lineage and membership is also called into question. Article G32 triggers inquiry into the political, social, cultural, and demographic dimensions of daily life in ancient Rome.
As Cooley and Cooley (2004) note, Pompeii was a minor town and not especially important within the empire. Even so, this single artifact reveals a great deal about life throughout the empire. Freedmen and freedwomen "were a distinctive feature of Roman society, and became increasingly prominent from the Augustan period onwards," until 212 CE (p. 146). Manumission was a great honor and a significant ceremonial act in ancient Rome. Former slaves were "keen to celebrate their achievement in becoming Roman citizens," and one way of expressing this was by advertising it on their gravestones (Cooley and Cooley, 2004, p. 146). Because of this eagerness to advertise their social status, freedmen and freedwomen are "consequently over-represented in the funerary record" (Cooley and Cooley, 2004, p. 146).
Slavery in ancient Rome was not based on race per se, but might have been based on other factors such as being born outside the empire. Usually, slaves were foreigners who were captured at sea, during warfare, or during episodes of conquest and plunder ("Slaves and Freemen"). Rarer were Roman-born slaves who were sold by their parents for money, a practice that was "not uncommon" ("Slaves and Freemen").
The life of a slave was harsh; Seneca made this clear in his letters: "I shall pass over other cruel and inhuman conduct towards them; for we maltreat them, not as if they were men, but as if they were beasts of burden" (Seneca, Letter 47). Slavery was certainly "an abusive and degrading institution" in which "cruelty was commonplace" ("Slaves and Freemen"). Slaves were lashed even for speaking out of turn: "The slightest murmur is repressed by the rod; even a chance sound — a cough, a sneeze, or a hiccup — is visited with the lash" (Seneca, Letter 47).
As Seneca argued passionately against the institution of slavery, manumission became increasingly commonplace in ancient Rome. Manumission was voluntary for slave owners, and there may have been any number of reasons why an owner would choose to undertake the ceremony. This epitaph is particularly important because of the way Augustus made manumission laws stricter during his reign. It could be that "the Romans (or at least Augustus) were wary of having their citizenship tainted by 'foreign or slave blood'" ("Augustan Manumission Laws").
Nothing is known of Marcus, who owned both Marcus Petacius Dasius and Petacia Vitalis. Because slaves were not permitted to marry, it is clear that the couple married after their respective manumissions. Most likely, they met while they were both in the household of Marcus.
Even though their master freed them, the former slaves "became clients of their patron and retained close connections with their original household" (Cooley and Cooley, 2004, p. 146). The relationship was ongoing and often amicable: "They might still live in the same house, and might be buried in the household's tomb at their death" (Cooley and Cooley, 2004, p. 146). Although the gravestone of Marcus is not discussed in Pompeii, this living arrangement could have applied to Marcus Petacius Dasius and Petacia Vitalis. However, there is insufficient data in the epitaph to draw firm conclusions about how close the relationship between the liberati and their patron actually was.
"How names reflect hierarchy and gender in Rome"
"Freeborn son's tribal designation and full citizenship"
After manumission, many former slaves enjoyed considerable success as they integrated into mainstream Roman society. Both Marcus Petacius Dasius and Petacia Vitalis could have found gainful employment within or outside of the patron's household. Once liberated, however, freedmen and women were still "excluded from reaching the ranks of the governing class" and could only "achieve positions of importance and act as benefactors of the community at a lower level" (Cooley and Cooley, 2004, p. 147). Occupations available to Petacia Vitalis included midwifery; as a man, Marcus Petacius Dasius had greater occupational freedom. He could even own his own slaves, as it was permissible for freedmen to become slave owners.
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.