My dissertation begins looking at Roman manumission in 323 BCE. However in my introduction I will have to examine manumission in both Greece and Rome prior to 323 in order to explain a bit about why manumission in this time period is different. During my time period the Greeks and Romans saw different changes in manumission. From 323 to 221 the Greeks pretty much continued to practice manumission as they had in the Classical Period: namely, it remained important to the Greeks that slaves could not become citizens because Greek citizenship was conceived of as lineal. This becomes problematic for the Greeks once the Romans gain political control over Greece and adopt much of Greek culture.
For the Romans manumission changes in the 3rd century because it is in this time that the Romans begin to develop their own literature. Former slaves participate in this the creation of Roman literature. Furthermore, the development of this cultural sphere creates new positions of influence whose personages demand remembrance. What I mean by this is that prior to the creation of Roman literature, the people who deserved to be remembered where Roman politicians, aristocrats and military leaders (although in Rome these three identities tended to go together). Because freedmen were prohibited from high office, even though they were allowed to vote, Romans had no reason to commemorate or remember freedmen until the creation of Roman literature. Literary artists have biographies and those biographies tend to be of interests to other artists and also cultural historians.
As a result, while we do have some information about manumission in Rome prior to 323, it is mainly about anonymous manumissions. That is, the descriptions of the laws or customs around manumission but nothing of the actual freedmen. An example of these anonymous manumissions is the following description from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian of Rome from the 1st century BCE:
And not even at this point did the Roman lawgiver stop in giving the father power over the son, but he even allowed him to sell his son, without concerning himself whether this permission might be regarded as cruel and harsher than was compatible with a natural affection. And, — a thing which anyone who has been educated in the lax manners of the Greeks may wonder at above all things and look upon as harsh and tyrannical, — he even gave leave to the father to make a profit by selling his son as often as three times, thereby giving greater power to the father over his son than to the master over his slaves. For a slave who has once been sold and has later obtained his liberty is his own master ever after, but a son who had once been sold by his father, if he became free, came again under his father's power, and if he was a second time sold and a second time freed, he was still, as at first, his father's slave; but after the third sale he was freed from his father. (27.1-3, trans. E. Carey).
For the Romans manumission changes in the 3rd century because it is in this time that the Romans begin to develop their own literature. Former slaves participate in this the creation of Roman literature. Furthermore, the development of this cultural sphere creates new positions of influence whose personages demand remembrance. What I mean by this is that prior to the creation of Roman literature, the people who deserved to be remembered where Roman politicians, aristocrats and military leaders (although in Rome these three identities tended to go together). Because freedmen were prohibited from high office, even though they were allowed to vote, Romans had no reason to commemorate or remember freedmen until the creation of Roman literature. Literary artists have biographies and those biographies tend to be of interests to other artists and also cultural historians.
As a result, while we do have some information about manumission in Rome prior to 323, it is mainly about anonymous manumissions. That is, the descriptions of the laws or customs around manumission but nothing of the actual freedmen. An example of these anonymous manumissions is the following description from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian of Rome from the 1st century BCE:
And not even at this point did the Roman lawgiver stop in giving the father power over the son, but he even allowed him to sell his son, without concerning himself whether this permission might be regarded as cruel and harsher than was compatible with a natural affection. And, — a thing which anyone who has been educated in the lax manners of the Greeks may wonder at above all things and look upon as harsh and tyrannical, — he even gave leave to the father to make a profit by selling his son as often as three times, thereby giving greater power to the father over his son than to the master over his slaves. For a slave who has once been sold and has later obtained his liberty is his own master ever after, but a son who had once been sold by his father, if he became free, came again under his father's power, and if he was a second time sold and a second time freed, he was still, as at first, his father's slave; but after the third sale he was freed from his father. (27.1-3, trans. E. Carey).