Freedmen in the Late Roman World

[Nathan Ross]

Under the principiate, freed slaves were quite a visible part of Roman society. Many of these freedmen became very wealthy (like Trimalchio), or rose to high positions in the imperial bureaucracy. Some attained the very highest positions - Cleander became Praetorian Praefect under Commodus, for example.

After the Severan period, though, freedmen seem to disappear from prominence. Ammianus barely mentions them, I think, and very few if any later Roman functionaries seem to be freedmen. The only possible freed person I can think of is the rumoured father of Diocletian, and even then the future emperor was born poor and rose through the army.

So was this really the case? And if so, why? Was it, perhaps:

a) less slaves were manumitted under the later empire, for some reason.

b) the social stigma of slave birth had worn off, so nobody bothered to mention that someone was of freed status.

c) the emperors preferred to rely on actual slaves, or eunuchs, or on the other hand the equestrian class, and freedmen sunk from their position of potential power.

d) the social stigma of slave birth was increased, and freedmen were no longer welcome in polite society.

e) they are still there, but I've just not noticed them! :unsure:


Any ideas?

[Marja]

b) is probably not it, and d) is possible. I've read late Roman sources condemning people for being born poor, let alone being born into slavery. I can't recall the details off the top of my head.

a) might follow if there were fewer slaves, or if there were fewer new slaves being captured. I would suggest looking at some of Scheidel's work:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/papers/a...eidel.html