Editing Concubinage (section)

=== Ancient Rome ===
{{main|Concubinatus}}
{{See also|Marriage in ancient Rome|Contubernium}}

[[File:Epigrafe funebre per m. vennius rufus, padre, madre, moglie e concubina, da Telese, inv. 3008.jpg|thumb|The ''concubina'' Fufia Chila is included in this family gravestone set up by Marcus Vennius Rufus to commemorate himself, his father and mother, and his late wife (''[[Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum|CIL]]'' IX 2265)]]
''[[Concubinatus]]'' was a monogamous union recognized socially and to some extent legally as an alternative to [[marriage in ancient Rome|marriage]] in the [[Roman Empire]].{{sfn|Treggiari|1981|p=58}} Concubinage was practiced most often in couples when one partner, almost always the man, belonged to a higher social rank, especially the [[Roman senator|senatorial order]], who were penalized for marrying below their class.{{sfn|Treggiari|1981|p=59}} The female partner was a ''concubina''; the term ''[[concubinus]]'' is used of men mainly in a same-sex union or to deprecate a relationship in which the woman was dominant.{{sfn|Gellérfi|2020|pp=89–100, especially pp. 98–99}}

The use of the term ''concubina'' in epitaphs for family memorials indicates that the role was socially acceptable.{{sfn|Kiefer|2012|p=50}} A man was not allowed to have both a ''concubina'' and a wife ''(uxor)'' at the same time, but a single tombstone might list multiple wives or ''concubinae'' serially.{{sfn|Treggiari|1981|pp=69–70, citing ''[[Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum|CIL]]'' VI 1906}} By contrast, the pejorative ''[[paelex]]'' referred to a concubine who was a sexual rival to a wife—in early Rome, most often a [[Slavery in ancient Rome#War captives|war captive]] and hence unwillingly—and by [[late antiquity]] was loosely equivalent to "[[prostitution in ancient Rome|prostitute]]". However, in Latin literature ''concubinae'' are often disparaged as [[Sexuality in ancient Rome#Master-slave relations|slaves kept as sexual luxuries]] in the literal sense of "bedmate".{{sfn|Williams|2006|pp=413–414}} The distinction is that the use of an enslaved woman was not ''concubinatus'' in the legal sense, which might involve a [[Concubinatus#Testatio|signed document]], though even an informal concubine had some legal protections that placed her among the more privileged slaves of the household.{{sfn|McGinn|1991|pp=359–366}}

Concubines occupied an entire chapter, now fragmentary, in the 6th-century compilation of Roman law known as the ''[[Digest (Roman law)|Digest]]'', but ''concubinatus'' was never a fully realized legal institution.{{sfn|Treggiari|1981b|p=60}} It evolved in ad hoc response to [[Lex Julia#Augustus' moral legislation (18–17 BC)|Augustan moral legislation]] that criminalized some forms of adultery and other consensual sexual behaviors among freeborn people ''([[ingenui]])'' outside marriage.{{sfn|McGinn|1991|p=333–375}} Even Roman legal experts had trouble parsing the various forms of marriage, the status of a ''concubina'', and whether an extramarital sexual relationship was adultery or permissible pleasure-seeking with a prostitute, [[Infamia#The infames|professional entertainer]], or [[Slavery in ancient Rome#Sexual ethics and attitudes|slave]].{{sfn|Treggiari|1981b|p=71–74}}

Roman emperors not infrequently took a ''concubina'', often a freedwoman, rather than remarrying after the death of their wife to avoid the legal complications pertaining to [[Inheritance law in ancient Rome|succession and inheritance]]. [[Caenis]], the freedwoman and secretary of [[Antonia Minor]], was [[Vespasian]]'s wife "in all but name", according to [[Suetonius]], until her death in AD 74.{{sfn|Rawson|1974|p=288, especially n. 30}} [[Slavery in ancient Rome#Manumission|Roman manumission law]] also allowed a slave-owner to free the slave and enter into ''concubinatus'' or a [[Marriage in ancient Rome|regular marriage]].{{sfn|Treggiari|1981|p=53}} Epitaphs indicate that both partners in ''concubinatus'' might also be freedpersons,{{sfn|Rawson|1974|p=289}} for reasons that are not entirely clear.{{sfn|Sandon|Scalso|2020|p=154 ''et passim''}}

A slave lacked the [[legal personhood]] to [[Slavery in ancient Rome#Marriage and family|marry under Roman law]] or to contract ''concubinatus'', but the heterosexual union of two slaves, or a [[Ancient Roman freedmen|freedperson]] and a slave, might be recognized as an intention to marry when both partners gained the legal status that permitted them to do so. In this quasi-marital union, called ''[[contubernium]]'', children seem often to have been desired, in contrast to [[Concubinatus#Children|''concubinatus'', in which children]] more often were viewed as complications{{sfn|Rawson|1974|p=291, especially n. 44}} and there was no intention to marry.{{sfn|Treggiari|1981|p=58, noting that intention ''(affectio maritalis)'', though at times hard to determine, was the basis of a valid marriage}}