Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

INFAMIA. INFAMIA. 635.
turn, Rapina, Injuriae, and Dolls Malus, provided been an old Roman institution. In many cases,
the offender was condemned in his own name, or though not in all, it was a consequence of a judiprovided in his own name he paid a sum of money cial decision. The power of the Censors was in its
by way of compensation; of condemnation in an ac- effects analogous to the Infamia, but different from
tion Pro Socio, Tutelae, Mandatum, Depositum or it in many respects. The Censors could at their
Fiducia (compare the Edict with Cic. pro Rose. pleasure remove a man from the Senate or the
Cont. 6, pro Rose. Amer. 38, 39, pro Caecina, Equites, remove him into a lower tribe, or remove
2, Top. c. 10; Tab. Heracl. 1. 1] 1), provided him out of all the tribes, and so deprive him of his
the offender was condemned in his own name. suffragium, by reducing him to the condition of an
Infamia only followed for a condemnatio in a aerarius. (Cic. pro Clzent. 43, 45.) They could
directa actio, not if a man was condemned con- also affix a mark of ignominy or censure opposite
trario judicio, unless the person condemned was to a man's name in the list of citizens, nota censoria
guilty of some special dishonesty. Infamia was also or subscriptio (Cic. pro Cluent. 42, 43, 44, 46,
a consequence of insolvency, when a man's bona 47); and in doing this, they were not bound to
were Possessa, Proscripta, Vendita (Cic. pro make any special inquiry, but might follow general
Quint. 15; Tab. Heracl. 1. 113-117; Gaius, ii. opinion. This arbitrary mode of proceeding was
154); of a widow marrying within the time ap- however partly remedied by the fact that such a
pointed for molrning, but the Infamia attached to censorian nota might be opposed by a colleague, or
the second husband, if he was a paterfamilias, and removed by the following censors, or by a judicial
if he was not, then to his father, and to the father decision, or by a lex. Accordingly the censorian
of the widow if she was in his power; the Edict nota was not perpetual, and therein it differed
does not speakl of the Infamia of the widow, but it essentially from Infimia, which was perpetual.
was subsequently extended to her. Infamia was The consequences of Infamia were the loss of
a consequence of a man being at the same time in certain political rights, but not all. It was not a
the relation of a double marriage or double sponsa- capitis deminutio, but it resembled it. The Inlia; the Infamia attached to the man if he was a famis became an Aerarius, and lost the suffragium
paterfamilias, and if he was not, to his father; the and honores; that is, he lost the capacity for cer —
Edict here also speaks only of the man, but the tain so-called public rights, but not the capacity for
Infamia was subsequently extended to the womnan. private rights. Under the empire, the Infamia lost
Infamia was a consequence of prostitution in the its effect as to public rights, for such rights became
case of a woman, of similar conduct in a man (qui unimportant.
muliebria passus est), of Lenocinium or gaining a It might be doubted whether the loss of the
living by aiding in prostitution (Tab. Heracl. 1. suffragium u-as a consequence of Infamia, but the
123); of appearing on a public stage as an actor, affirmative side is maintained by Savigny with
of engaging for money to appear in the fights of the such reasons as may be pronounced completely con.
wild beasts, even if a man did not appear, and of elusive. It appears from Livy (vii. 2) and Valerius
appearing there, though not for money. Maximus (ii. 4. ~ 4), that the Actores Atellanarum
It results from this enumeration that Infamia were not either removed from their tribe (nec tribu
was only the consequence of an act committed by moventur), nor incapable of serving in the army: in
the person who became Infamis, and was not the other words such actors did not become Infames,
consequence of any punishment for such act. In like other actors. The phrase " tribu moveri " is
some cases it only followed upon condemnation; in ambiguous, and may mean either to remove from
others it was a direct consequence of an act, as soon one tribe to a lower, or to move from all the tribes,
as such act was notorious. and so make a man an aerarius. Now the mere reIt has sometimes been supposed that the Prae- moving from one tribe to another must have been
tor established the Infamia as a rule of law, which an act of the Censors only, for it was necessary to
however was not the case. The Praetor made cer- fix the tribe into which the removal was made:
tain rules as to Postulatio (Dig. 3. tit. 1. s. 1), for but this could not be the case in a matter of Inthe purpose of maintaining the purity of his court. famia, which was the effect of a general rule, and
WVith respect to the Postulatio, he distributed per- a general rule could only operate in a general way;.
sons into three classes. The second class compre- that is, " tribu moveri," as a consequence of Inhended, among others, certain persons who were famia, must have been a removal from all the
tuflpitudine notabiles, who might postulate for them- tribes, and a degradation to the state of an Aeraselves but not for others. The third class contained, rins. (Compare Liv. xlv. 15.)
among others, all those "qui Edicto Praetoris ut The Lex Julia 1Municipalis does not contain the
infames notantur," and were not already enume- word Infamia, but it mentions nearly the same
rated in the second class. Accordingly it was cases as those which the Edict mentions as cases
necessary for the Praetor to enumerate all the In- of Infamia. The Lex excludes persons who fall
fames who were not included in the second class, within its terms, from being Senatores, Decuriones,
and this he did in the Edict as quoted. (Dig. 3. Conscripti of their city, fiom giving their vote in
tit. 2. s. 1.) Consistently with this, Infamia was al- the senate of their city, and from magistracies
ready an established legal condition; and the Prae- which gave a man access to the senate: but it says
tor in his edicts on Postulation did not make a nothing of the right of voting being taken away.
class of persons called Infames, but he enumerated Savigny observes that there would be no inconas persons to be excluded from certain rights of sistency in supposing that the lex refused only
Postulation, those who were Infames. Conse- the Honores in the municipal towns, while it still
quently the legal notion of Infamia was fixed before allowed Infames to retain the suffragium in such
these edicts. - towns, though the practice was different in Rome,
It is necessary to distinguish Infamia from the if we consider that the suffragium in the Roman
Nota Censoria. The Infamia does not seem to Comitia was a high privilege, while in the munici.
hlave been created by written law, but to have pal towns it was comparatively unimportant.