One of the things that makes studying ancient slavery difficult is that ancient authors frequently use slavery as a metaphor to explain other kinds of relationships. One of the most basic examples the comparison of rule by a foreigner to slavery. Hence Herodotus describes the Persian control over Western Turkey as a form of slavery. The ancients also used the metaphor of slavery in religious contexts, and then not always negatively. For example, Paul describes himself as the slave of Christ, a comparison that presumably not only emphasizes his close relationship to Jesus, but also his loyalty to this divinity.
It is therefore not surprising that the ancients also used manumission as a metaphor. What perhaps demands a bit more explanation is why the Romans used it as a metaphor much more frequently than the Greeks. In Greek, while there was some technical and legal vocabulary to describe manumission, for the most part this vocabulary overlapped completely with other vocabulary of freedom. In contrast, the Romans had a specific word, manumissio, which meant the freeing of slaves. But notably, the Romans don’t appear to have used manumission much as a metaphor. Instead, they used as metaphors the visual elements of manumission, most especially the pilleus, the hat of the freedman.
The pilleus was a felt, conical hat. It is clear from a number of references that the Romans associated it with freedmen and the moment of manumission specifically. Indeed, Livy uses the phrase “servos ad pilleum vocare” (call the slaves to the pilleus 24.32) as an elaborate description of manumission. Such phrases make it seem likely that this hat was part of the ritualized movements and instruments at the moment of manumission. Unfortunately, I’ve never come across any account that explains how this hat was part of that moment, so any reconstruction is rather tentative.
What is clear from the sources is that the Romans used the pilleus as a way to reference what I will call political freedom. The most famous example is a series of coins that Brutus, the murderer of Julius Caesar, minted when he briefly held power prior to the rise of Octavian (the future Augustus). Brutus’ coin displayed the pilleus, his way of communicating that Rome was now manumitted from Caesar’s enslavement.
Livy describes another episode in which Italians used the pilleus as a metaphor. According to the historian, in 196 BCE the people of Cremona and Placentia, two towns in northern Italy, were freed from the Gauls through the military maneuvers of Gaius Cornelius. Livy writes that men from Cremona and Placentia marched in Cornelius’ triumph:
“He [Gaius Cornelius] had many military standards put on display, large quantities of Gallic spoils transported on captured wagons, and many Gallic noblemen led before his chariot, amongst them, some say, the Carthaginian general Hamilcar. But what attracted most attention was the troop of colonists from Cremona and Placentia who followed the chariot with freedmen caps on their heads.”
Livy 33.23, trans. J.C. Yardley
Through wearing these hats, the colonists are signaling that under the Gauls they were slaves, but that Gaius Cornelius metaphorically manumitted them into a state of freedom.
This episode is interesting to me because of the early date. The early date should make us wonder how Livy came across this information and whether or not it is reliable: is the political metaphor a later reading? Perhaps there were many freedmen among Cornelius’ retinue. Notably, Philip the Fifth asserts that Roman colonists were entirely freedmen. Perhaps his confusion on this point is related to stories like this one?
On the one hand, this fashion statement by the colonists clearly indicates their close alliance with Rome, since they are willing to don a hat closely associated with freedmen, a class of people without much love in the Roman political arena. On the other hand, by wearing the pilleus, these men did not so much indicate their towns’ freedom as their thanks, obligation and loyalty to Gaius Cornelius.
It is therefore not surprising that the ancients also used manumission as a metaphor. What perhaps demands a bit more explanation is why the Romans used it as a metaphor much more frequently than the Greeks. In Greek, while there was some technical and legal vocabulary to describe manumission, for the most part this vocabulary overlapped completely with other vocabulary of freedom. In contrast, the Romans had a specific word, manumissio, which meant the freeing of slaves. But notably, the Romans don’t appear to have used manumission much as a metaphor. Instead, they used as metaphors the visual elements of manumission, most especially the pilleus, the hat of the freedman.
The pilleus was a felt, conical hat. It is clear from a number of references that the Romans associated it with freedmen and the moment of manumission specifically. Indeed, Livy uses the phrase “servos ad pilleum vocare” (call the slaves to the pilleus 24.32) as an elaborate description of manumission. Such phrases make it seem likely that this hat was part of the ritualized movements and instruments at the moment of manumission. Unfortunately, I’ve never come across any account that explains how this hat was part of that moment, so any reconstruction is rather tentative.
What is clear from the sources is that the Romans used the pilleus as a way to reference what I will call political freedom. The most famous example is a series of coins that Brutus, the murderer of Julius Caesar, minted when he briefly held power prior to the rise of Octavian (the future Augustus). Brutus’ coin displayed the pilleus, his way of communicating that Rome was now manumitted from Caesar’s enslavement.
Livy describes another episode in which Italians used the pilleus as a metaphor. According to the historian, in 196 BCE the people of Cremona and Placentia, two towns in northern Italy, were freed from the Gauls through the military maneuvers of Gaius Cornelius. Livy writes that men from Cremona and Placentia marched in Cornelius’ triumph:
“He [Gaius Cornelius] had many military standards put on display, large quantities of Gallic spoils transported on captured wagons, and many Gallic noblemen led before his chariot, amongst them, some say, the Carthaginian general Hamilcar. But what attracted most attention was the troop of colonists from Cremona and Placentia who followed the chariot with freedmen caps on their heads.”
Livy 33.23, trans. J.C. Yardley
Through wearing these hats, the colonists are signaling that under the Gauls they were slaves, but that Gaius Cornelius metaphorically manumitted them into a state of freedom.
This episode is interesting to me because of the early date. The early date should make us wonder how Livy came across this information and whether or not it is reliable: is the political metaphor a later reading? Perhaps there were many freedmen among Cornelius’ retinue. Notably, Philip the Fifth asserts that Roman colonists were entirely freedmen. Perhaps his confusion on this point is related to stories like this one?
On the one hand, this fashion statement by the colonists clearly indicates their close alliance with Rome, since they are willing to don a hat closely associated with freedmen, a class of people without much love in the Roman political arena. On the other hand, by wearing the pilleus, these men did not so much indicate their towns’ freedom as their thanks, obligation and loyalty to Gaius Cornelius.