Slaves Buying their own Freedom

[AthenaK]

Hi!

I have seen this depicted in many films and novels; a slave saving up and buying his/her own freedom.

How common was this? Was there some law protecting the slaves from their masters simply confiscating the money? What kept the masters from doing so? Were slaves allowed to have money and spend it as they pleased?

Athena

[Felix Canus]

I'm afraid that recording the exploits of slave life wasn't a very popular topic, and we don't know very much about the nuts and bolts of Roman slavery. But there was a steady increase in slave-related laws from Augustus onward that dealt with legal protections, standards of treatment, and so on.

Certainly there'd be many opportunities for slaves in high-ranking houses to squirrel away a few coins and start saving up, and a house slave certainly knew the nooks and crannies of the home better than the master and would be able to hide away a tidy sum. A farm slave would likely not have so many opportunities. But I'm of the understanding that (at least in the Republic) a slave was pure property and therefore could not posess anything. He'd likely be accused of theft if the master found his stash of cash. And then the master is a few coins richer and less one slave.

[sulla felix]

Hi Athena,

I think it is more likely that more slaves were granted their freedom by their owners after lengthy service or as part of the owners last wishes/will, then those who were able to buy their freedom. Certainy from the early Imperial period onwards the amount of freedmen does increase, to the point where these men have become wealthy in their own right, and even become very influential (the freedmen during Claudius's reign for example).

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Buying your freedom was possible, but it would most likely occur only under very unique and specific circumstances.

With regard to how the slave could buy his/her freedom, specifically with what he could but his freedom, a slave could posess peculium which could consist of money or other things of value. However, the slave only possesed peculium by the grace of the master. Technically the peculium belonged to the master, so if he was unwilling to allow the slave to have peculium, then there would be no chance at buying your freedom.

It was also required that there be an agreement between the master and slave that the slave could buy his/her freedeom with the peculium. This would most likely only occur when the peculium outvalued the worth of the slave, thereby being more profitable for the master to "sell" the slave his/her freedom than to keep him/her.

It is quite unlkikely that a slave could "nickel and dime" his/her way to freedom by squirreling away a sestertius here and there. The most likely avenue for gathering enough peculium to buy your freedom would be by slaves who acted as an agent for their master through trade or other profitable means and the slave being alowed by the master to keep some of the profits. When enough was attained and the master agreed to it the slave could buy his/her freedom.

One question that came up while I was looking into this was if allowing the slave to possess peculium was by the grace of the master and the slave could only buy his/her freedom if the master agreed, then, why would the master agree to any of this since by law the peculium belonged to him and he did not have to sell the slave his/her freedom?
My best guess would be that if a master allowed a slave to keep a portion of the profits as his own and that one day he/she might buy her fredom that the slave would work harder and hence make more money for the master then just merely "punching in and punching out" the timeclock (please forgive the moden analogies!)

I hope that sheds a little light. If you want to look into it further check out (The) Roman Servus, an article in William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. It explains peculium in much more detail as well as many other aspects of slavery in Ancient Rome (with cites to ancient sources as well).

-Severus

[Caius Fabius]

One interesting source to read would be "Sons, Slaves and Freedmen in Roman Commerce" by A. Kirschenbaum or even"Slavery in the Roman Empire" by R.H. Barrow.

One of the reasons a master would allow a slave to buy his freedom was that the freedman then became his client, and still owed obligation to the master. Skilled slaves often decided not to buy their freedom, choosing instread to live in the style of a favored house slave, with shelter, good food and care, and the status of belonging to a household over the real chances of a lesser lifestyle as a freedman.

You may also want to look at more detailed books about Roman laws, at different time periods. The rules and regulations about slaves, and freedmen and such do change over time.

Roman of 'nobile birth' could not engage in commerce, so their freedmen and slaves did it for them.

Pecunium was not only for slaves. Sons were also granted pecunium, since they were also under the rule of their father and could not own property.

[AthenaK]

Thanks for your responses! :wink:

Yes, it is as I suspected, slaves buying their own freedom was uncommon.

Felix, you mentioned that from Augustus onward there were more laws concerning the welfare of slaves. Which laws did Augustus instate?

[hoplite14gr]

In the later Hellenistic and early to middle roman period there are inscription form Delphoi showing masters freeing their slaves.
Usually old people left childless who even adopted their slaves.
Pretty much the situation depended on what were the conditions in the household that the slave found himself.

In Roman world a slaves lot was considered harsher.
In ancient Greece a doulos (intenured servant) could own bussiness and pay tax to a free citizen and had legal representation.
From ancient orators and surviving inscriptions we know of cases where the magistrates forced unfair or cruel master to free a slave when with his work had paid a fixed sum of money.
On the other hand an andrapodon (literally walking thing) could never expect to be granted such priveledges.

Kind regards

[M. Demetrius]

Now we know they did, because we saw it in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

[Felix Canus]

Felix, you mentioned that from Augustus onward there were more laws concerning the welfare of slaves. Which laws did Augustus instate?

Augustus started the "Roman Purity" project shortly after securing his position. Two of his laws regarding slaves were to control the number of freed slaves that could become citizens, and to restrict the 'interaction' between slaves and freedmen to prevent dilution of Roman bloodlines. He also expanded on Julius Caesar's policy by requiring many businesses to employ free men as well as slaves (to control the unemployment crisis).

However, he also passed limitations to protect slaves from excessive abuses by their masters. Remember the story about how a man had a slave devoured in a pool of lamprey because the slave broke a glass cup? The man was named Pollio, and he did it to demonstrate his authority over his house to an important guest, who happened to be named Augustus. Evidently, the demonstration backfired, because Augustus passed several slave protection laws and pushed much harder through social (rather than legal) means to improve slave treatment.

He wasn't the last, either. By the end of the Empire, slaves could file grievance against their masters in court, were considered automatically freed if their masters abandoned them, and if a slave was killed without just cause, the master could be prosecuted for murder. On the other hand, a law was past in 2 bc limiting the number of slaves that could be freed in a man's will.

How many of these laws were actually obeyed is unknowable. I expect they were given "lip service" and business went on as usual with a bit more discretion.

Oddly, one of the most important slave law was enacted long before Augustus, which guaranteed a slave's right of procreation. Until then, a slave could be killed for causing or becoming pregnant.

[richsc]

In De Felice's book on the hospitality industry in Pompeii, he suggests that there was an incentive to let slaves operate businesses in that they could work towards a freedom goal. For example, since a woman citizen could not operate a store, they had to rely on someone to do it for them.

I would think too since we're not in that world, that this sort of role for a slave would be far better than working in the fields or mines, so doing a good job even without promise of freedom is definitely worth it. The negative incentive is that if you do badly, you'll get a worse slave's job.

[Tertius Mummius]

In Petronius' "Satyricon" it is hinted that there had to be a tax paid for freeing slaves, around 5% of their worth. Which indicates why there weren't any "mass events" of setting free whole households, and why the setting free of a slave was always connected to the payment of a certain sum of money.

[L C Cinna]

There was another law passed which states that it is not allowed to torture a slave in order to get information about his master. This is of course a protection for both slave and master.

[Geoffrey]

Athena,
You might want to read The Comedies, by Terence. He was a slave that was given his freedom after receiving a liberal education and entrance into the Scipionic circle. Most of his plays paint a good picture of the interaction and relationships between slaves and their masters. Suetonius also has a short biography on Terence, which may also be of help.