THE POSrrICl\· OF' F.:1.EBDNEN IN THZ EA3LY RONAN Er(PIrlE A senior honors thesis presented to 'The fa.cul ty of the Department of European Languages of The University of Hawaii In partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors June 1969 By Carol Eark THE :FOSITION OF' FfiEEDlvlEN IN THE EARLY ROIvipj\j EEl-JIHE In the early Homan Empire, the generosity of Roman law allowed slaves to obtain freedom easily by purchasing it with their Ow'il earnings (peculium) or through manumission performed by their masters. Liberation of slaves was so common an occurrence that ex-sIeves formed 8 l&rge cless of freedmen, or libertini, who rB.nged from humble, illiter8,te menials to men of high intelligence, literacy, energy end ambition. Freedmen V.rere a prominent feature of social life in the early Empire, not only because of their huge numbers but also because of their political and economic influence on society. A few occupied positions of great power in the imperial bureaucrs.c;y. Well-known examples of such men 1'Jere Callistus, Pallas and NarCissus, who, holding the three great secretari­ ates among them, were able to juggle with offices, governor­ ships t ps,rdons and punishments, in Claudius' naILe. But the great majority of freedmen engaged in end were dominant in the businesses, trades t and crafts of the ci ty. 'rhey were the managers of a great p8rt of the economy, ho\t-iever humble some of their pursuits might have been. This thesis deals with the legal, social and economic position of this majority of freedmen. It proposes to show how they fared in .rioman life, in consequence of their status as freedmen. Its scope includes only ordinary libertini, formally freed by a rtoman rue.ster under normal conditions. 2 The term libertini here applies only to actual ex-slaves and 1 not their sons, who were considered ingenui, or freeborn. Before proceeding to a discussion on freedmen themselves, it is necessary, first, to trace the origin of slaves, since the source of slaves is that of freedmen. and also to describe briefly some of the conditions which existed at that time. In the late Hepublic, when aome was extending her empire through military conquest in Spain, Gaul, Africa and the East, thousands of war captives poured into Rome and Italy as slaves. For example, one campaign in Epirus yielded 150,000 slave captives. Also, after the defeat of the Aduatuci, Caesar claimed to have sold 53,000 Gauls into slavery. This influx of sl~ves had altered the make-up of the population of Rome so greatly that in the ~pire, Lucan called Rome a city filled with the scum of every nationality. Manumission of many of these slaves was prevalent at the beginning of the Empire. This was due in part to the lacx of any real barrier to the granting of liberty and in part to the Stoic doctrine of the fraternity of man, for, when master and slave were conSidered brothers, frequent manumis- sion was bound to be the result. In addition to philosophical considerations, there were a variety of reasons which moti- vated ~asters to bestow freedom on their slaves. Some masters freed their slaves so that they might have a large retinue of freedmen accompanying them to the city and a9plauding their speeches and literary recitE-tions. Others, on their desthbed, freed their slaves so that a crowd of 3 grateful free~~en might attend their funeral. But gratitude aYld genuine affection also moved masters to manumit their slaves. ly:any a slave 01~ed his freedom. to the fact that he had faithfully served his master for many years. Also, a master's love for a female slave might result in her libera- tion, so that he could take her as a wife, since unions be- tween bond and free were not legally recognized. Augustus endeavored to check the incre8sing numbers of freedmen by restrictions on manumission by will in the Lex Fufia Caninia (2 B.C.) and by lifetime acts in the Lex Aelia Sentia (4 A.D.), so that foreign slaves ~ight not "pollute the Roman race. It The imposi tion of 8_ 5 per cent tax (vicesi:rr.a libertatis) on manUl-nission by the Lex Aelia Sentia failed to discourage manumissions, which continued nevertheless, on a wide scale. For, from the tax paid on nanumissions between 80 to 50 B.C. we may estimate the number of freedmen to have been about one half million, which probably did not include 2 those inforn.:.all,y manumi tted. The proportion of freedmen to the entire population seems to have been about three-fourths, according to Lily Ross Taylor's study of urban epitaphs. 3 l"~iss Taylor believes that this is an incredible figure and that it can not be an accurate reflection on the make-up of the entire population. Notwithstanding the inaccuracy of such statistical evidence. it at least gives us some idea of the numbers of the class with which we are dealing. Formal manumission granted not only co~plete freedom but also citizenship to the slave. A slave properly manumitted 4 by the rod. i.e., before a magistrate, by will, or by a 30man master. and not in violation of Augustan legislation, became a civis Homanus libertinus. in contrast to the ingenuus. or freeborn citizen. But. although he was a citizen, the freed­ man was not on entire equality with the freeborn in the areas of public, private and criminal law. In private lalli the pos i tion of freedmen was essentially on the same plane as that of the freeborn.rhey shared many of the rights and fell under many of the same laws which held for the freeborn. They had the capacity to contract civil marriage (ius conubii) and the right to acquire property, make contracts. and make and take under a will (iu§. commercii). In general, it vias recognized that they cane under the same laws of the family which applied to freeborn citizens. 'rhe freedman was recognized as the head of the household and. as a consequence of the right of marriage, he held the natria potestas. the pOi'rer of life and death, over the members of his family. The only peculiarity in his position arose when he redeemed his wife and children from slavery. In this case, he would be their patron, in addition to being a husband and father. On the other hand, the son. if he freed his father, beca~e his patron. Evidence of this is found on a number of inscriptions which bear the words patrono et filio, and patri et patrono. But more important than these things was the freedman's relationship to his former master. i";anumission did not allow him to turn his bbck on his for:ner mS.ster and to break conpletely 5 with his past. He still found himself under his former mas- teres authority, which was enforceable and which was generally thought unwise to disobey. The relation of patron to freedman was not considered to be like that of master over slave. ::tather, it was thought to approximate that of father over son. From this relationship there follo~led many duties and obliga- tions which were owed to the patron. These put the freedman at a serious disadvantage when he entered society. 'rhey were of three kinds, the obseguium et officium, operae, and bona. The obsequium and officium, terms which are not easily defined. usually meant the respect and various small services which a freedman oiiied to his patron. In the Republic, they were only a moral obligation expected of freeQ~en, but in the Empire they were judiCially sanctioned by the Lex Aelia Sentia. This law confirmed the subordinate position of the freedman to his patron and reinforced it by fixing a punishment on ungrateful freed~en, for it was felt in the Senate that the obedience and duty which they owed in their servitude ought 4 to continue in their condition as freedmen. This was a strict law, aimed at preserving the rights and protecting the dignity of the patron, at a time when the traditional relationship between pa,.tron and freedman was breaking down. The obseguium and officium were the legal expression of the filial relationship of freedman toward his patron. The patron became his legal father. Accordingly. the freedman was bound to treat his patron with the same respect a son owed his father. The obsegui~~ was in actuality a list of 6 of prohibitions designed so that the freedman might not infringe on his patron's rights. Just as a son might not bring charges against his father, so also the freedman might not bring legal actions, civil or criminal, against his patron, unless he secured special permission first from the praetor. And if the freedman did commit an offense against his patron, it was considered all the more grave because of the family- like relationship between them. Two marriage laws, the Lex Iulia de adulteriis and the Lex Iulla de marltandis ordinibus, both of 18 B.C., seem to be an application of the obseguium. Under the former law, a patron, if he discovers his freedman in the act of adultery with his wife, may kill him on the spot. However, if the patron is the offender, the freedman does not have this sa~e right. Under the latter law, a freedwoman who deserts her patron-husband cannot marry another person without his con­ sent.