Transition To Manumission: The Master More Than The Slave

Decent Essays
Transitioning to manumission itself, the process concerned the master more so than the slave. In Ancient Rome, a slave was freed in a public event, where the master renounces the claim over the slave and actually acts as a sponsor, as though the slave has finally overcome some vice that was plaguing his well being. Of course though, it was through the master that the slave was guided out of his vice of slavery and became a freedman. This formal ceremony of manumission is partially why manumission became more popular; it put the master in a positive light as though he is doing a great deed that should be witnessed and recognized by as many as possible. From a Hegelian perspective, this idea of recognition is exactly what and individual desires.…show more content…
The Lex Fufia Caninia stated that, “an owner of two slaves could free both, an owner of three to ten slaves half the number, and so on until a man who owned 100 to 500 could free only one fifth, and one over 100” (Jones, 133). These limitation seem quite odd in sense of the more slaves a master had, a smaller percentage of them he could free. This was to prohibit masters from becoming too generous perhaps in their death and freeing all of their slaves. This law most likely came about concerning masters like Trimalchio, a wealthy freedman who lived the life of a slave and knows the taste of freedom. Someone of the position who was perhaps anti slavery could create a rather large population in Rome quickly that would want to bring down the slave-society. Furthermore, according to Mouritsen, “if [a slave] was adopted by a freeborn, the jurists insisted that legally he remained a freedman, a condition regarded as innate to his person”(Mouritsen, 35). Here again slaves were not considered freemen in the same sense of the freeborn. In Rome adoption made it as so the person was of the equivalent of the same blood as the family, commonly used to jump the plebeian and patricians barrier usually for the sake of political gain. Since adoption was so binding, it is strange that freedmen can not be fully adopted, in the sense that they maintain their…show more content…
Laws that were made in order that they could not progress in the world and that they could never become the equivalent of freeborn Romans. Rather these freedmen were subject to either stay in the same positon that they had as a slave when they were honing their skills at the job or they moved up in the world and became successful in which they would perpetuate slavery by having slaves of their own. The system itself prevented abolition in that only so many slaves could be freed at by a master, ensuring that slavery continued and that Rome would never lack a cheap work force to run their economy. In all, Rome shows that freedom does not mean
Get Access