Sex and the Corruption of Slaves

Matthew Perry (Juilliard School, NY)

Roman lawmakers established the actio servi corrupti to help owners protect the integrity and value of their slaves. Broadly defined by the praetor’s edict as behavior that made a slave worse, servi corruptio covered a wide range of misconduct. Nearly all of the examples mentioned in the Digest concern acts that either caused direct damage to the slave’s owner (such as persuading a slave to injure, steal or run away) or affected the value of slave as an economic instrument (such as persuading a slave to be lazy, extravagant or insolent). Two intriguing inclusions to the list of offenses were seducing a slave and convincing a slave to engage in an illicit sexual affair (stuprum). Jurists considered such misconduct detrimental not simply because it involved persuading slaves to act without their masters’ knowledge, but also because the sexual activity itself had the potential to make slaves worse.

Legal historians have closely analyzed the nuances of servi corruptio, including the prohibitions against illicit sexual affairs, but have commented little on the cultural values behind such a law. Social historians have considered illicit sexual affairs with slaves in various contexts, but have focused primarily on the injury such affairs inflicted upon the slave-owner and his or her honor rather than the damage done to the slave. This paper will build on this historiography by analyzing how illicit sexual affairs contributed to the devaluation of slaves and how this concept of corruption informs our understanding of Roman expectations about sexuality and social status.

Slaves had little claim to their own sexuality, could be compelled to perform sexual tasks by their owners, and were not expected to behave in accord with the clearly defined standards of sexual conduct for free individuals. Despite all the ways in which slaves’ sexuality distinguished them from citizens, the inclusion of sexual offenses in the category of servi corruptio complicates historical interpretations about the relationship between a slave’s sexuality and social status. By demonstrating that sexual behavior was an important factor in determining the status of slaves—jurists believed that illicit sexual affairs did indeed make slaves worse and believed that the bodily integrity of slaves was worthy of protection—these legal opinions also reveal that Roman jurists imagined the differences in the status of various groups of slaves using criteria akin to those governing free individuals. Given the importance that Romans attributed to such differences among citizens, the existence of a sexually-ordered hierarchy among slaves suggests that free Romans acknowledged sexuality as a critical aspect of slave status.