The Freedman in Roman Society

1. The Freedman in Roman Society

2. After Manumission • Freed still carried many moral and mental deficiencies associated with slave • Even if adopted by a freeborn, legally had to remain a freedman • freedman could never become equal to an ingenuus - idea was that he continued to need help and supervision by his former master • Manumission did not terminate relationship between ex-slave and former master • Slave became libertus/liberta • Owner became patronus/patrona • Associated freedman with social institution of clientela and the familia (Roman household) • Patronus – from pater, denotes both someone who freed a slave and the senior • Freedman expected to behave like a son, although not related by blood • Received pseudo-filiation (libertination), i.e. Gaiifilius • Received gentilicialnomen of patron; in Republic also common the same praenomen of patron; perpetuated patron’s name – may have been as important as actual blood-line (if family was prominent) • Tomb inscription of A. PlautiusEuhodus: “access to this tomb is restricted to my children and freedmen and their descendants who are called Plautius.”

3. The patron-freed bond • Protected in Roman law: lexPompeia(55/52 BC) made a libertus who had killed his patronus liable for parricide; • Lexcoloniagenitivae: no one could be forced to give evidence against: son-in-law, father-in-law, stepfather, stepson, patron or freedman, or cousin; • Lex Iulia de vi – listed all those who could not give evidence in court against each other in criminal proceedings – including patrons and freedmen • Both parties (patron and freed) obliged in law to assist the other in times of need, including providing economic support. • LexAeliaSentia: requires patrons to support freedmen in need – if they fail to do so, could lose right to services and share of freedman’s estate. • Pseudo-filial position of freedman allowed patron claims on his estate • XII Tables: if freedman died intestate with no heirs, patron or his descendants inherited (represented the agnates of the libertus since ex-slaves had no legal ancestors of his own). • More demands developed 118 BC – 74 BC praetorian rule entitled patron to half of freedman’s property if he had a will but no natural heirs; receive all if he had no will. • Augustan period: lexPapiaPoppeia (AD 9): gave patron share of freedman’s property even if he had natural heirs. • 3 children would eliminate the patron’s claim to property. • Quasi-son position created asymmetric claim: patron was statutory heir of freedman, but not the other way around. • Patron’s claim was protected by law even if freedman received freeborn legal status through the iusanulorum -

4. The Paradox • Despite humble status of freedman - fully integrated in social environment where stigma of servility did not count. • Shame associated with close contact with social inferiors did not exist between patron and his own freedmen; different rules in familia; • Illustrated by sexual relations between patron and freedwomen: no legal attempt to limit patron’s intimacy with own libertae; marriage acceptable (except in senatorial order). • Law permitted early legal manumission of a man’s own female slave for the purpose of marriage; • (Augustan period – Lex Iulia et Papia); freedwoman could not refuse marriage to her patronus; • In contrast – patronae marrying their own freedmen was frowned upon – and regarded as adulterous. • In late antiquity such unions were outlawed and punished. • Women in unions with someone else’s slaves – could lose their free or freed status • Note: Fundamental difference between one’s own slaves and ex-slaves and those of others • Within familia, freedmen are deeply involved in all aspects of patron’s affairs. • Elite invested much trust and confidence in their freedmen: appear as advisors and confidants of senators and emperors; appears patrons were expected to have no secrets from their freedmen; conversely – freedmen always expected to act with knowledge and permission of their patrons • In Conclusion: freedman is completely integrated into familia of his patron – in this environment stigma of servitude unimportant - • Freedmen had important position within elite network - go-betweens, passed on news and information to third parties • Model of freed as pseudo-son answers practical and ideological problems raised by integration of former slaves into society. He was member of patron’s familia, carried his name, tied by life-long bond, rooted in patron’s role as pseudo father, benefactor, giver of life.

5. Controlling Freedmen • Ideal versus reality • The ideal patron - the paternal figure: many did not conform to ideal: female patrons, freedmen as patrons, etc., • Not every freedman respected patronus/patrona - system needed legal control • Focus on controlling behaviour of ex-slave, not on patron (no law every limited male or female owners’ right to manumit their slaves – all patrons had equal rights) • Freedmen/women freed by testament represented a separate category: orcini = their patron resided in the underworld and could not provide the paternal guidance of a patron; if no other heirs around, if household sold, etc., might be on his own.

6. Formal patronal rightsand punishments of libertus • Patron had no defined powers over his freedmen • Had rights and privileges: freedman prohibited from damaging patron or his reputation in any way; not use abusive language, no physical violence, could not sue patron or his children; had duty to support their patrons, especially in illness (all these were duties of reciprocal bonds – same as between parent and children) • Patron entitled to obsequium (dutiful respect from his freedman); • Freedmen who failed: libertiingrati had to go before a court which considered each case • Augustus – lexAeliaSentia- accusatiolibertiingrati – only patron or his son could bring charge; • Patrons could also sue for iniuria(damages); insolence • Official punishments: reprimands, flogging; if he conspired against patron could be sent to the mines; sent into exile for a period • SocietasRutiliana – entitled patron to half of the freedman’s income as punishment in addition to operae (services) • Difficult, however, for patron to reverse manumission – only applied to most severe crimes – even under bad emperors • Note: Patrons had access to court procedures - but few statutory rights over their freedmen; had few means to coerce their freedmen; duties vague - as obsequium, reverentia, and pietas = respectful duties, familial love, etc.,

7. Cicero and Hilarus • Hilarus, freedman of Cicero • accused him of undermining Cicero’s reputation in Asia. Freedman had joined the governor of Macedonia, levying funds among the provincials, claiming part was for Cicero. Governor of Macedonia was Antonius Hybrida – Cicero asked his friend Atticus to investigate and get Hilarus out of Macedonia. • Point is – Cicero had little legal support to do something about the activities of his own freedman.