Were Roman Freedmen Truly Free?

By Leah Munoz, The Derryfield School (Manchester, NH) 2024

In the midst of chaos, corruption, and political division during the Roman Republic (509 B.C.E.- 27 B.C.E.), freedmen in Roman society were viewed as inferior. Their former status as slaves was undoubtedly uncomfortable for many Romans, resulting in significant social and legal discrimination against freedmen. The macula servitutis, or the “stain of slavery,” was a permanent marker on freedmen and prevented them from enjoying liberties that other Roman citizens experienced [1]. This “stain” of slavery on freedmen created a complex position for them as they entered Roman society after manumission. Challenging laws established to limit freedmen’s rights as citizens in his textbook, Institutes (161 A.D.), Gaius once stated that all people were either free or slaves; however, freedmen were not free or enslaved [2]. Rather, although freedmen were legally disassociated from slavery, the hierarchical structure of Roman society coupled with cultural prejudices against them  systematically limited their labor, political, and marital rights as Roman citizens.

The Obsequium - What After Freedom?

Manumission was the process of granting freedom to a Roman slave; however, after this process, the dynamics between the freedman and his former master were influenced by legal and social expectations. Publilius Syrus (85-43 B.C.E.), a renowned writer and freedman himself during the Roman Republic, articulated: “Probus libertus sine natura est filius …” (A successful and good freedman is one acquired without nature, i.e. one that follows the obsequium) [3]. A certain familial and financial relationship was expected under the obsequium–a socially constructed term–so that freedmen were dependent in some ways on their former master. More specifically, the familial relationship centered around the freedman becoming a symbolic member of the family (familia) while the financial relationship obliged the freedman to secure his former master’s financial stability. For example, during the Roman Republic, freedmen assumed the patron’s name (nomen) through the obsequium after manumission and believed respect would ensue now that freedmen presented the name and bloodline of their former master [4]. However, becoming a “symbolic” member of the familia left freedmen with the duty of protecting his master’s welfare as well. In fact, the obsequium required the freedman to work for his former master several days per year by supporting his business and financial progress. In times of need for patrons, freedmen were required to provide financial assistance and serve as guardians for a patron’s children [5]. The social expectations surrounding the obsequium became an implicit requirement to limit freedmen from advancing in the Roman Republic. The broader implications of the obsequium on holding freedmen back from progress can be best described by Ulpian who said: “liberto et filio semper honesta et sancta persona patris ac patroni videri debet (The person of a father and a patron always ought to appear honorable and sacrosanct from the perspective of a son and freedman).” [6]. The obsequium imposed consequences and restrictions on freedmen in relation to their former master and, if they violated the obsequium, freedmen could receive penalties that included restrictions on legal and commercial activities, forfeiture of property, beating, exile, and even re-enslavement. A passage of Modest in The Digest offers insight into the obsequium and the punishments freedmen faced: 

Mandatis imperatorum cavetur, ut etiam in provinciis praesides de 

querellis patronorum ius dicentes secundum delictum admissum libertis 

poenas irrogent. Interdum illae poenae a liberto ingrato exiguntur: vel 

pars bonorum eius aufertur et patrono datur; vel fustibus caeditur et ita 

absolvitur…

It is provided by the decrees of emperors that even governors 

in the provinces, those who render judgments concerning the complaints 

of patrons, should impose punishments on freed persons in proportion to 

the infraction committed. Sometimes these penalties are required in the 

case of an ungrateful freedman: either some of his property is confiscated 

and given to the patron; or he is beaten with clubs and discharged in such 

a way… [7].

This passage clarifies how exactly the obligations of the obsequium held freedmen back from progress in Roman society in that freedmen were required to follow the regulations of the obsequium in order to protect their freedom after manumission. Freedmen were unable to prosper with the same freedoms as free-born Roman citizens because they were inhibited by punishments for violating the rules of the obsequium.

The Macula Servitutis - A Limited Political Participation

Many freedmen faced the stigma that any formerly enslaved individual was inherently politically disabled. After manumission, Roman freedmen entered the plebeian socio-economic class, known as the hereditary class of commoners of ancient Rome. Patricians, who claimed throughout Roman history to be the descendants of the first senators of Rome, excluded freedmen’s and plebeians’ political power as they were viewed as unworthy of Roman political duties [8]. This argument by the patricians centered around the difference between an ingenuus and libertinus. An ingenuus was a “natural” or “free-born” Roman, while a libertinus was a former slave [9]. These opposing words were used with regularity in Roman law and furthered the power of the macula servitutis by forcing degrading traits of deceitfulness, subservience, and intractability onto freedmen. Literature in Rome reinforced these stereotypes, particularly in the satirical work Cena Trimalchionis (“Dinner Party of Trimalchio”) by Gaius Petronius Arbiter. In Chapter 38, a discussion takes place between two characters on money, business affairs, and a freedman. Upon recognizing the freedman, one character yells about the “liberti sceleraati, qui omnia ad se fecerunt (But the criminal freedmen, who cheated him out of everything)” [10]. Accusing the freedmen of being a criminal in this story only served to greatly reinforce the ways in which Roman citizens and society viewed freedmen as inferior to other cives (free-born citizens). With laws supporting the influence of the macula servitutis, Roman citizens were deterred from supporting any potential future political opportunities for freedmen. Thus, Roman laws increased the power of the macula servitutis by ensuring freedmen experienced limited political autonomy.

The Act of Marriage - The Right to Choose?

Social and legal prejudices against freedmen limited their autonomy to marry into different social classes. While marriage was one of the most important duties of a Roman citizen in that individuals and families alike aimed at securing economic and political benefits, freedmen faced legal and social obstacles that prevented them from securing the same, or similar, outcomes as cives (free citizens) through marriage. For many years in Roman history, plebeians, including freedmen, were not allowed to marry patricians by further limiting their social and political opportunities [11]. In 445 B.C.E., however, the lex Canulia legalized marriage between the plebeians and patricians to encourage equality between the two classes [12]. Yet, again, Roman freedmen fell victims to social discrimination.  Although they were legally allowed to marry outside of the plebeian social class, marriage to a freedman was seen as shameful because the macula servitutis permanently marked the freedmen of their past. Seneca articulates the prevalence of this prejudice in Roman culture in his book, Controversia, in which he refers to marriage to a freedman by writing, “matrimonium omni adulterio turpius (Marriage [to a freedman] is more shameful than adultery)!” [13]. The stain of slavery alienated freedmen from any potential socially mobile marriage opportunities since most freedmen of the plebeian class could not provide social or political power that many families sought. Thus, while legally free of any form of marriage restrictions, freedmen were limited under socially constructed regulations for marriage by the macula servitutis.

Student-Composed Legislation - Would It Have Worked?

In light of the social limitations Roman freedmen faced after manumission, I composed legislation to combat the restrictions of a freedman’s life in Roman society for a project in my Advanced Topics Latin course at The Derryfield School in the spring of 2023. This proposed legislation includes an introduction and a conclusion in the imagined voice of a Roman citizen–or, perhaps, more citizens–who supports the causes of freedmen and true freedom. The introduction and conclusion might have appeared as graffiti on the walls of Rome or passionately spoken by an individual in the Roman forum. The three proposed laws aim to target a specific area that furthered the social disabilities of freedmen. Each law prohibits a legal or social limitation against freedmen and then clarifies the new right for freedmen. More specifically, Law 1 prohibits the obsequium–and the duties it requires of freedmen–by having the former master become the advisor of wealth. Law 2 bans regulations that prevent freedmen from holding official posts by legalizing freedmen to run for and hold office besides consulship. Finally, Law 3 overturns marriage restrictions that prevent freedmen from marrying into various socio-economic classes. For these laws, the Latin text is provided below, followed by my English translation:

Latin Legislation

Romani, corruptione dominante, nobis neglectum libertorum subsistere necesse est. Hi pares in aestimationibus et in honore nobis sunt. Hi aequalitatem merent, qua omnes fruimur. Ergo haec iura Romae propono:

I. Hoc ius obsequium vetat ut priscus dominus patronus non sit, sed concilior pecuniae sit.

II. Libertus ad omnia officia aspirare potest, extra consulem, in eodem modo sicut alii Romani, priore statu famaque dimissis. 

III. Ullae finitiones contra libertinorum matrimonium erunt remota. Libertus nunc matrimonio se coniungere libere potest, civitate statuque dimissis. 

Liberti in civitate nostra aequalitatem et libertatem merentur, quibus ceteri libere fruuntur. His legibus positis, Roma iustior et verior erit libertis qui saepe neglecti sunt. Ergo vos has leges adiuvare spero.

English Translation

Romans, with the corruption of individuals dominating today, it is necessary for us to end the neglect of freedpeople.  These men are equal in value and in honor to us.  These men deserve the equality, which we all enjoy today.  Therefore, I propose these laws for Rome:

1. This law prohibits the “obsequium” so that the former owner will not become the “patronus,” rather he will be the advisor of wealth.

2. A former slave is able to strive for official posts, besides the consulship, in the same manner as other Romans, without these having been considered: former status and reputation in society. 

3. Any restrictions against the marriage of freedpeople will be removed. A freed slave is now allowed to marry whoever they wish, with their status and citizenship having been neglected. 

The freedpeople in our society deserve equality and liberty, which the rest of us so freely enjoy. With these laws (having been put) in place, Rome will become a more equitable and fair society towards freedpeople, who have long been neglected. Therefore, I hope that you all will support these laws.

It is important to recognize that this legislation and speech are bold in combatting a very complex social and legal situation. Nevertheless, I believe that, if passed during the Roman Republic, these laws would have been successful because this composition is rooted in changes that Romans did, in fact, make many years later in the Roman Empire. For example, in relation to Law 2, laws passed from 49 to 44 B.C. under the dictatorship of Julius Caesar during the Roman Empire extended the political rights of freedmen by allowing them to be magistrates and decurions in Rome and in other colonies [14]. Strabo’s Geography confirms the preponderance of freedmen in Corinth and Carthage in Book XVII, where inscriptions attest to the liberties of freedmen and their duties to affairs of importance [15]. It appears that freedmen were able to minimize the macula servitutis when abroad in other colonies. Another example, in relation to Law 3, includes the lex Canuleia which was passed during the Roman Empire to combat marriage limitations. In 445 B.C.E., the lex Canuleia was passed to establish the conubium (“right to marry”) between the plebeian and patrician classes, which was previously banned during the Roman Republic. This law proved to be very important during the Roman Empire because it allowed for social mobility and political power for the plebeian class, including freedmen. Overall, these examples demonstrate progress towards a more equitable Roman society that happened towards the end of and after the Roman Republic. 

Perhaps, if politicians and free-born Roman citizens had embraced a more equitable mindset for freedmen, the masses might have followed in support with a convincing speech and appealing laws for equality. Nevertheless, the mere fact that support for a more equitable Roman society for freedmen occurred during the Roman Empire shows that achieving the same goals and disregarding the macula servitutis during the Roman Republic was not unattainable. Rather, it was quite possible and successful. An analysis of freedmen’s epitaphs reveals how law reforms during the Roman Empire positively impacted their freedom. Despite the macula servitutis, freedmen constructed a great number of epitaphs because they desired to openly commemorate their citizen status and economic success after slavery. These epitaphs indicated how freedmen were grateful for being active and valuable Roman citizens. For example, A. Ritius A.1 Tertius left 300,000 sesterces for the paving of local roads. Another inscription from M. Lucinius Privatus conveys that he donated 50,000 sesterces to his municipal treasury [16]. These epitaphs reveal law reforms during the Roman Empire were successful as freedmen were certainly capable of gaining status (and wealth) because there were opportunities provided by law reforms that allowed them to do so. Since the macula servitutis maintained less influence over freedmen, many freedmen, who did and did not construct these epitaphs, acquired respectable roles in society due to laws that proclaimed freedmen as equal to freedborn citizens during the Roman Empire.

Conclusion

During the Roman Republic, it is evident that freedmen had a polarizing experience after manumission in Roman society. Freedmen suffered from social prejudices and the macula servitutis associated with their former experiences with slavery. The macula servitutis–along with countervailing tensions from freedborn Roman citizens–compelled three factors that contributed to the freedman’s social and legal limitations after manumission from slavery: labor requirements to a freedman’s former master after manumission, limitations centering around holding office and voting, and marriage restrictions in and between social classes left freedmen as inferior to other free-born Roman citizens. However, many years later, Romans began to fuel change to combat the limitations of freedmen. The social and legal changes to support a more equitable society during the Roman Empire suggests similar changes during the Roman Republic were quite possible as well. 

As imagined above, my legislation attempts to ameliorate the root of the social and political limitations that freedmen faced in the Republic by explicitly addressing the macula servitutis in the Roman psyche and calling Romans to consider the libertini equal in value and honor. As history showed, after all, mere legislation alone was not sufficient to positively and advantageously impact the lived experience of freedmen after manumission; changes in public perception would require intentional messaging and a culture shift in mindset—or, as the later changes in the Empire suggested, it would take that and time. Nevertheless, slavery in Roman society–and, really, in any society—is the cancer of prejudice, racism, and discrimination. The vestiges of slavery are a greater challenge to end than the institution of slavery itself in that unconscious and conscious discrimination will be the limiting factor for any society, or any individual, from continuing on the path to greater successes and prosperity. Incessant and intentional reflection on the past and present is required for individuals to grapple with the complexities of how thousands of years of slavery in various cultures has left us today engaging with the meaning of equality and how we can ensure equality for all citizens.

Notes

[1] DiBacco, Cory R., “The Position of Freedmen in Roman Society” (2017). MAD-RUSH Undergraduate Research Conference. http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/madrush/2017/romanfreedmen/1.

[2] Gaius, 130-180 A.D., was a prominent Roman Jurist and famously wrote the Institutes about leading legal institutions in 161 A.D.

[3] The term, “obsequium,” directly translates to compliance, specifically from a freedman to his former master; DiBacco, Cory R., “The Position of Freedmen in Roman Society” (2017). MAD-RUSH Undergraduate Research Conference. http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/madrush/2017/romanfreedmen/1.

[4]  MacLean, Rose. 2018. “Review Of: Freed Slaves and Roman Imperial Culture: Social Integration and the Transformation of Values.” Bryn Mawr Classical Review. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2019/2019.01.27/.

[5] Perry, Matthew. 2013. “The Patron-Freedwoman Relationship in Roman Law.” Edited by Matthew J. Perry. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/gender-manumission-and-the-roman-freedwoman/patronfreedwoman-relationship-in-roman-law/990CF87CB4523C0BAD6B8E38DBFBA02C.

[6] Ulp. Dig. XXXVII, 15, 9.

[7] Modest. Dig. XXXVII, 14, 7, 1.

[8] Wasson, Donald L.. “Plebeians.” World History Encyclopedia. Last modified March 08, 2022. https://www.worldhistory.org/Plebeians/.

[9] Schmitz, Leonhard. 1875. “LacusCurtius — Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.” Penelope.uchicago.edu. 1875. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA.

[10] Steadman, Geoffrey. “Petronius’ Cena Trimalchionis Latin Text with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary,” 2018. https://geoffreysteadman.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/petronius-1june18w.pdf.

[11] Rose, H. J. 1922. “Patricians and Plebeians at Rome.” JSTOR 12 (1): 106–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/296175.

[12]  Biagini, Emilio. 1994. “Roman Law and Political Control -from a Primitive Society to the Dawn of the Modern World.” GeoJournal 33 (4): 331–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41146231?searchText=lex+canuleia&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlex%2Bcanuleia&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A9ecf3ee496f54fa1b9005a59636990ee.

[13] Seneca. “The Controversiae: Book 7: Controversia 6.” Loeb Classical Library. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/seneca_elder-controversiae/1974/pb_LCL464.123.xml.

[14] Coles, Amanda. 2017. “Between Patronage and Prejudice: Freedman Magistrates in the Late Roman Republic and Empire.” TAPA 147 (1): 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1353/apa.2017.a655772.

[15] Strabo. “Strabo’s Geography Book XVII,” n.d. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/17A2*.html.

[16] DiBacco, Cory R., “The Position of Freedmen in Roman Society” (2017). MAD-RUSH Undergraduate Research Conference. http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/madrush/2017/romanfreedmen/1.