How Could a Slave Be Freed?

One of the most common topics I am asked questions about when it comes to Roman history regards the lives of slaves, and today is no different. Today, the question is about manumission. How could a slave be freed?

There's an understandable tendency today to refer to people affected by slavery as 'enslaved people' rather than 'slaves'. It better reflects who they are as people rather than as the commodity they were once treated as. In this article, however, because I'm using the term in a historical context, I am going to refer to them as 'slaves' simply so we don't have to flip back and forth between the two terms and because the sources use the term.

The slave population of Rome was huge and very visible. In law, they were the property of their owners, but they were still recognised as human beings, even if only because their value as property required them to be seen as such. As such, they could have certain 'rights', especially in circumstances that were confined to relationships between them, such as disputes or, of course, physical relationships. There was a state of marriage between slaves called contubernium which allowed them to live as man and wife, but without any of the normal benefits of doing so. Any property they owned still belonged to the master, and neither could inherit. Any children the marriage produced belonged to the owner as well. The same owner could annul the marriage at will. Far from being something that an owner would disapprove of, these relationships were seen as easy ways of generating more slaves and such marriages were sometimes encouraged more than discouraged for precisely that outcome. Women slaves who produced enough children could be 'rewarded' with reduced duties or even a form of retirement from work entirely.

The brutality of slavery was always there, and attempts at 'sweetening' the relationship seem, through a modern prism, to be just another form of cruelty. But attempts at offering a slave something other than brutality followed by death resulted in attempts to make life for them better, if only because slaves would sometimes move into managerial positions in the household, which held great responsibility.

Slaves might be rewarded for their work by a peculium, money given by the master. This money, which gained legal status in the late Republican period, came in a wide variety of forms, from a weekly stipend to regular bonuses to lavish gifts. Slaves with enough freedom could go out and spend it on what they wanted. There are instances of slaves drinking in bars in Pompeii, for example. Some of them might expect to save their peculium for long enough to buy their own freedom. We often say that anything has its price and, as a slave, was, at the end of the day, a commodity with a financial value, then once that value was met, it didn't really matter who it was met by. If it was met by the slaves themselves, then so be it.

The most common of the various forms of manumission (lit. 'from the hand' - de manu missio) was the granting of freedom in the master's will. However, the master could liberate a slave in their lifetime (or after death through his heirs) at any time, primarily through a ceremony in which he would apply the vindicta (rod). This ceremony was a mock lawsuit held before one of the higher magistrates, who would confirm the slave's freedom. The master confirmed the freedom by giving the slave a symbolic slap. Quite why isn't entirely clear, although it probably symbolised one final indignity as a slave (and therefore emphasised their new free status) and also indicated their immunity from such treatment in the future. This ceremony is perhaps the origin of being 'touched' with a sword when receiving a medieval knighthood.

But there were also informal methods of manumission, which were popular because of how easy they were. A master could simply write a letter granting his slaves freedom. He could have them sit at the table with him for a meal, or he could announce the slave's freedom in the presence of friends (inter amico) as witnesses.

There are many extant examples of wills that grant freedom and the inter amico method, the latter of which might also include the exchange of money. A master may well be willing to grant freedom, but they'd also like some of their money back. The freedom of a slave could, therefore, be bought at the will of the master, either by themself or by another, and the slave released as part of the exchange. Once the slave was freed, their legal status depended on certain factors, but they couldn't be returned to slavery just because the former master or another wanted to. The legal status of freed slaves is really another question altogether, so I'll skip over it for another time.

The following text comes from a wooden diptych found in Egypt. It's written in Latin, although the signatures are in Greek. It dates from AD 221 and illustrates how the practice worked across the empire.

Marcus Aurelius Ammonio son of Lupercus (son of Sarapio) and Terheuta, of the ancient and illustrious [city of] Hermopolis Major, manumitted in the presence of friends his house-born female slave Helene, about thirty-four years old, and ordered her to be free, and received for her freedom from Aurelius Ales son of Inarous, of the village of Tisichis in the Hermopolite nome, 2,200 drachmas which the said Ales son of Inarous made a present of to the aforementioned freedwoman Helene.

Done at Hermopolis Major ancient and illustrious, July 25, in the consulship of Gratus and Seleucus, year 4 of the Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [Elagabalus] Pius Felix Augustus, month of Mesore, 1st day.

[signatures] I, Marcus Aurelius Ammonio, son of Lupercus son of Sarapio, freed in the presence of friends my house-born female slave Helene, about thirty-four years old, and I received for her ransom 2,200 drachmas from Aurelius Ales son of Inarous, as stated above.

I, Aurelius Ales son of Inarous, paid in full the 2,200 drachmas and I will make no claim on the aforementioned freedwoman Helene. I, Aurelius Ammonius son of Herminus, wrote for him because he is illiterate.

(Mitteis no.362)

There are a few interesting things about this document. Firstly, Aurelius Ales gives Helene money (making a gift) to buy her own freedom. Secondly, 2,200 drachmas is a lot of money for an illiterate village boy to come up with to give to a slave girl for her freedom, particularly as he is not buying her as a slave. That's four years pay for a Roman soldier at the time. He must have really wanted her to be free.

We can't say why Aurelius Ales really wanted Helene to be free to the extent that an illiterate Egyptian village boy would get his hands on so much money and buy her freedom, but it would be nice to speculate that they lived happily ever after.

Thanks for reading! If you’re stuck for a gift for a lost loved one, or for someone you hate, or if you have a table with a wonky leg that would benefit from the support of 341 pages of Roman History, my new book “The Compendium of Roman History” is available on Amazon or direct from IngramSpark. Please check it out by clicking the link below!