Freeing infames

If a slave prostitute, gladiator or so on is freed do they take the names of manumitor or does that impart infamia to the manumitor?

They adopt the name, and likely remain a client of him. Infamy is only attached to the individual, and if raised to a situation that doesn't impose infamy, they are nonetheless forever stained with having been so, though this has much less restriction than actual infamy. The patron/former owner is not affected.

1 hour ago, caldrail said:

They adopt the name, and likely remain a client of him. Infamy is only attached to the individual, and if raised to a situation that doesn't impose infamy, they are nonetheless forever stained with having been so, though this has much less restriction than actual infamy. The patron/former owner is not affected.

Thanks. I knew infamia can spread through a family but I was unsure if it could be transmitted the manumission.

I suppose it would be unlikely you'd hold onto a former infame as a client but if you were a position to own one I suppose your reputation might be a bit dodgy anyway.

Not at all. Take gladiators for instance. Professional lanistas weren't the only owners, military officers used them as bodyguards and trainers, even private citizens sometimes had a troupe among their possessions for rent. Cicero, in one of his letters, praises his friend Atticus for the splendid troupe he owns. But then I suppose the association with virile masculinity more than compensated for official infamy. 

Prostitutes might be a little different. Wealthy men could of course have any slave they wanted on demand. Wives would suffer of course, that was not the correct behaviour of a Roman matron. I do note however that some of the urban villas in Pompeii have alcoves in the back wall which they could rent to prostitutes quietly. Let's not speak about that eh?

On 8/5/2022 at 8:44 PM, caldrail said:

Prostitutes might be a little different. Wealthy men could of course have any slave they wanted on demand. Wives would suffer of course, that was not the correct behaviour of a Roman matron. I do note however that some of the urban villas in Pompeii have alcoves in the back wall which they could rent to prostitutes quietly. Let's not speak about that eh?

There must have been many stories about wives cheating on their wealthy husbands in the Roman history too 🙂

Yes there was. Not least Messalina, the third wife of Claudius. She is reputed to have challenged a leading prostitute to see who could have sex with the most men in one night, and apparently she won.

The other one that came to my mind is Albucilla whose treason was apparently one of the reasons why Pontius Pilate's relative, Pontius Fregellanus, lost his senator's rank (while Pontius Pilate himself lost his governship of Judeah about the same time - all this happened 5-6 years following the other treason by all-mighty Sejanus, who ruled Roman politics in the absence of Tiberius in Rome and was apparently the main driver for raising Pontius family members to high imperial positions, because before Pilate and Fregellanus no other members of the same Pontia gens had ever been known to occupy such positions)

On 8/6/2022 at 3:44 AM, caldrail said:

Not at all. Take gladiators for instance. Professional lanistas weren't the only owners, military officers used them as bodyguards and trainers, even private citizens sometimes had a troupe among their possessions for rent. Cicero, in one of his letters, praises his friend Atticus for the splendid troupe he owns. But then I suppose the association with virile masculinity more than compensated for official infamy. 

Prostitutes might be a little different. Wealthy men could of course have any slave they wanted on demand. Wives would suffer of course, that was not the correct behaviour of a Roman matron. I do note however that some of the urban villas in Pompeii have alcoves in the back wall which they could rent to prostitutes quietly. Let's not speak about that eh?

Just revisiting this for anyone reading this thread re: does infamia spread through ownership.

To add to @caldrail's comment:

 

Quote

Many high-ranking Romans acquired gladiatorial troupes not only for entertainment (for instance, at a banquet) but as bodyguards or hired murderers.  It is curious that, unlike a lanista, a noble Roman citizen could rent out or sell his troupe of gladiators without being held in contempt. It was considered a lanistae's trade and principal job, while for noble Romans it was looked upon just as a sideline income.

Nossov, K. "Gladiator" 2009.
(An Osprey edition so not an academic work but I thought an interesting confirmation in print)

It also seems that gladiators who were sentenced damnatio et ludii when manumitted weren't given full rights but were instead made peregrinus dediticius; a person who was free but considered a possible danger to the state. This meant that a freed gladiator did not get citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana. This meant that if they came within one hundred miles of Rome they were subject to re-enslavement, although this may not have been automatic and more of a form of parole.

Freedmen were ineligible for citizenship, gladiator or not, in line with traditional Roman practice. But realise that the granting of citizenship was not an ongoing process anyway, it was an edict, a one-off event, with citizenship passed on to children of provincials awarded full citizenship of Rome.

On 11/5/2022 at 6:17 AM, caldrail said:

Freedmen were ineligible for citizenship, gladiator or not, in line with traditional Roman practice. But realise that the granting of citizenship was not an ongoing process anyway, it was an edict, a one-off event, with citizenship passed on to children of provincials awarded full citizenship of Rome.

Well, libertini (freedmen) had limited rights, not quite as onerous as dediticii, and the libertini gained more rights as the empire progressed