This is a very stimulating, well researched book which is based on a clear premise: municipal freedmen and their descendants were less successful than their private counterparts because they lacked patronal backing. I have said “premise” and not “hypothesis” because Easton does not even tentatively explore any other likely explanations, which, as I will argue later, could and should have been considered. While he dedicates great effort and ingenuity to prove that the protagonists of his research lagged behind those belonging to elite circles, he does not discuss the reasons for this but assumes that his explanation is self-evident.
The foundations of this book can be found in two of its three appendixes, which extend for just over a hundred pages. The first lists all of the municipal freedmen and (very few) freedwomen in Italy by region and city: 115 secure and 142 probable cases, making a total 257 (it is a pity that this distinction between “secure” and “probable” is not maintained in the rest of the book where the figures given usually conflate both); the second one comprises all their descendants also arranged by region and city (613 cases). A comparison with Luciani’s appendixes is inevitable[1]. There are some obvious differences. Luciani has included in his catalogue the public slaves (not just freedmen) and his scope comprises both Italy and the provinces, while Easton has added a list of descendants in appendix 3. Their objectives were different, for Luciani’s scope is broader than Easton’s, but there is some juxtaposition between the two; it seems that a great deal of time could have been saved by simply making these databases public when they were completed. The criteria used to compile these names are thoroughly explained in the first chapter: apart from “libertination”, all “toponymic gentilicia” (i.e. deriving from the name of an Italian town) plus all those with a nomen Publicius are to be considered as either municipal freedpeople or a descendant. Other less numerically important instances, based on contextual evidence or by other means, are also taken into account. Alternative possibilities pointing towards a freeborn origin (such as foreigners adopting the name of the municipium which brought them Roman citizenship) probably did not add in significant numbers. While all this is clear and one can easily agree, the difference between “probable” freedmen and descendants is obviously difficult to establish. The main criterion is the presence of a Greek or “servile” cognomen (p.60), but this is slippery ground for it may also indicate servile descent. Even accepting it, it is not clear, for instance, why Ostiensis Chrysus (CIL VI 23591 = D79) is included among the descendants despite his Greek cognomen, while the brothers Ostiensis Marullus and Ostiensis Primus are “probable” freedmen (CIL XIV 1431 = L123, L124).
These minor considerations aside, it can be seen that with this extensive evidence (“over eight hundred individuals who bear eighty-three different gentilicia and come from 106 different towns in Italy”, p.214) Easton has managed to establish a solid bedrock upon which to develop his research over three chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the forms and patterns of manumission. Easton is primarily concerned with the manumission rate, which he believes was low because natural reproduction was the principal source of recruitment for municipal slaves, but also because getting the money necessary to buy their freedom would take a long time (p.102). In a somewhat contradictory way, he claims that the Senatus Consultum Claudianum does not seem to have been generally enforced because “some town councils … were not always overly concerned about replacing the familia’s population through natural reproduction” (p.94). This is difficult to believe if home-born (as opposed to bought) slaves were the main source of recruitment for familiae publicae. In any case, this concern would have only affected the manumission expectations of female slaves, but not those of their male counterparts. However, there is another reason for this low rate. Easton believes that there was a minimum legal age of thirty years (p.102 and 103), which meant that all slaves had to wait until reaching this age to have the chance of being freed. Logically, having to survive until that age, their chances were slight, but the truth is that this minimum never existed. Slaves of all ages could be manumitted, even though those below the age of thirty became Junian Latins, not Roman citizens (Gai Inst. 1.17). It is difficult to ascertain why this “thirty years myth” has gained so much popularity among historians, impairing their ability to grasp the social fabric of Imperial Rome.
Chapters 3 and 4 are the core of the book. The first deals with the social mobility of the freedmen themselves, measured through the proportion of them becoming augustales; the second one scrutinizes the evidence left by their successful descendants, those who could rise into the municipal, equestrian or even senatorial aristocracies. Also, their (scarce) presence in the army and the collegia is carefully analyzed. As previously mentioned, this is a book with a thesis, repeated several times for clarity (and from the very beginning, see p.12-13). We can cite, for instance, this formulation: “Unlike their well-placed private counterparts whose chances for advancement benefitted from the economic and legal support of a rich personal patron, these former slaves struggled to lay down roots” (p.107). Historiography has usually seen this differently, speculating that municipal freedmen had better chances of advancement because they enjoyed a better status and could forge connections with the local elite while still in slavery. A quick review of the main authors in this line is provided on p.17-18, where it is observed that the recent monograph by Luciani also disagrees with the established view[2]. Easton and Luciani’s revisionist views were already advanced by the former’s doctoral advisor, Christer Bruun (whose contribution is properly credited in the acknowledgements). It is important to notice that Bruun’s suggestion was limited to the Ostian case[3]. Therefore, the book works as a long demonstration of Bruun’s first intuition on a grand scale. The problem is that, as the evidence compiled here clearly shows, in this regard, Ostia is an exception. As shown in figure 3.3 (p.124), the familia publica of Italian cities on average managed to get 15% of all their members into the augustalitas. This is more or less the same success ratio the “aristocratic families” in four selected cities (Ostia, Aquileia, Brixia and Mediolanum) had when getting their own freedmen elected to this body. The exception is Ostia, where only 3 augustales bearing the nomen Ostiensis are known to us out of 59 municipal freedmen, a meagre 5% (figure 3.4 and appendices 2 and 3). The reason for this discrepancy lays on the chance survival of one inscription, the album of the familia publica (CIL XIV, 255), with at least 39 names. If these are eliminated, the 3 augustales bearing the name Ostiensis represent 15% of the total (20 cases).
Easton claims that municipal freedmen were less successful than well connected private ex-slaves. His figures are only half-consistent with this claim. On the one hand, descendants clearly do not have a poor record: quite a few of them are found in the local curiae, even taking possession of high-level magistracies, a fact which led Easton to this very interesting reflection: “this level of success by the descendants of ex-slaves challenges recent models suggesting that the traditional aristocracy of Roman towns frequently maintained a tight grip on the senior offices, while constraining most newcomers in the lower-level offices” (p.188). While Easton had compared the success of public freedmen with that of private ex-slaves from aristocratic families, in the case of their descendants he has not provided us with any means of comparison, so we do not know if they fared better or worse than others in this intergenerational race for honor and fortune. On the other hand, in the case of public freedmen themselves, their success ratio seems to have been considerable, not inferior to that of private freedmen from aristocratic circles. It may be accepted that their success was not spectacular but, even if we concede this, there is a problem with the explanation. Easton assumes that their relative failure was due to their lack of a personal patron. He clearly believes this to be a foregone conclusion, with no need for proof. Therefore, he fails to explore other possibilities. For instance, one may suspect that the impossibility of a manumission by will in their case could be a valid reason. In contrast with private slaves, municipal slaves could never become liberti orcini who were better positioned than other freedmen. We are particularly poorly informed about the hereditary rights of municipia over their own freedmen (chapter 72 of the Lex Irnitana is clearly insufficient on this point). Other factors may also have had an impact. Public freedmen appear to have no connection with the city life, for only 3 out of 209 municipal freedmen “demonstrate any participation in a professional or voluntary association” (p.129), a crucial point when dealing with intergenerational mobility. A similar pattern is found among descendants, which points to “poor integration into the social and economic milieu” (p.213). In fact, the way public freedmen earned money for a living is a mystery. Following Luciani, Easton (p.134-135) believes that they kept working for their cities, but there is insufficient evidence, and it is not easy to see how they could. Operae were ill suited for this purpose. It is in any case relevant that the Lex Irnitana stays mute on this subject. No regulation is provided about how this collaboration of the public freedmen, if existed, would have been carried out.
Easton adheres to the historiographical consensus which, since Fabre’s monograph at least, sees freedmen as subordinates of their patrons and therefore tends to explain the paradoxical success of some of these ex-slaves as a consequence of patronal support[4]. No alternative explanation is conceivable. Neither the freedmen’s own agency nor even that of their descendants is considered. This is not meant as a criticism but as a discrepancy. All in all, the treatment of the evidence is excellent, and the book reads very well: the argumentation is very clear.[5] Translated and commented inscriptions are often included to illustrate the argument. This is a good thing because they help the reader to better understand the reasoning and contribute to a greater enjoyment, in the midst of so many cold figures. The book also opens up new lines of research (such as the use of toponymic gentilicia to trace migrations to different, larger cities, p.160). We can only warmly welcome it at a time of resurgence in the study of ancient slavery.
Notes
[1] F. Luciani, Slaves of the People. A Political and Social History of Roman Public Slavery, Stuttgart, 2022.
[2] Luciani, cit. p.265-266 very briefly but and more extensively in “Public Slaves in Rome; ‘privileged’ or not?” CQ 70 (2020), 368-384, not included in Easton’s bibliography.
[3] C. Bruun, “La familia publica di Ostia antica”, in M. L. Caldelli, G. L. Gregori, S. Orlandi (eds.). Epigrafia 2006. Roma 2008, 537–556.
[4] G. Fabre, Libertus. Recherches sur les rapports patron-affranchi à la fin de la République romaine, Roma, 1981.
[5] I could not find all of the references in the bibliography: Manuwald 2011 (p.2 n.4); Bodel 2017 (p.7 n. 24); Maroto Rodriguez 2018 (p.142 n.144); Grignon 2001 (p.146 n.155) Potter 2004 (p.173 n.64); Ogilvie 2019 (p. 210 n.177). I presume that there will be a few more missing. Also, in figure 3.4, “Ostiensis” has been unduly repeated which has altered the position of the rest of the names in the chart.