One of the frequently used plot devices in Roman comedy is that a man or a woman was born a free citizen, but then is kidnapped and sold into slavery. Years later, that man or woman produces a certain token, usually a ring, that another character recognizes as belonging to his or her family. The enslaved man or woman is then freed. In my dissertation I argue that these recognition scenes proceed with a logic that is completely different from the logic that motivates the manumission of slaves in Roman comedy. While these lost men and women are freed because of their lineage, slaves in Roman comedy gain their freedom because of loyal service.
In fact, the two types of situations are so different that the comedians have a smaller choice of vocabulary for the recognition scenes than for actual manumissions. What I mean by this “smaller choice” is that Plautus and Terence can use the Latin adjective liber or the verb libero to describe the result of either a recognition scene or a regular manumission. However the phrase emitto manu (literally ‘to send away by hand’) is only ever used to describe the manumission of characters who were enslaved “properly”.
For example, in Plautus’ play Rudens, there is a woman Palaestra who was born an Athenian citizen but was captured when she was a child and sold into slavery. A number of characters know her background and set about getting her free. They never say that they are going to manumit her, instead they are going to free her:
Trachalio: si tuas esse oportet nive eas esse oportet liberas 713
Trachalio: qui minus hasce esse oportet liberas? 736
Trachalio is himself a slave and by the end of the play, he is freed by his master Daemones. Note how Trachalio initially uses the liber to describe the process and then uses the more techincal term:
Trachalio: sed scin quid est quod te volo?
quod permisisti ut memineris, hodie ut liber sim. Daemones: licet.
Trachalio: fac ut exores Plesidippum ut me {manu} emitta. (1216-8)
A less noble and significantly grouchier slave named Gripus does the same. When he stumbles upon a chest on the sea shore, he immediately begins fantasizing about how he will use the money to buy his freedom:
Gripus: iam ubi liber ero 930
When the trunk turns out to be empty, Gripus has to come up with another plan to achieve his freedom. He does so, relying on the kindness of Daemones. Gripus first asks Daemones to free him:
Gripus: id ego continuo huic dabo adeo me ut hic emittat manu. 1388
And then Daemones does, as part of a larger deal to quiet Labrax, a pimp who has been harassing Daemones since Labrax had bought Palaestra thinking that she was a true slave.
Daemones: ego Gripum emittam manu, (1410)
So both Trachalio and Gripus use both liber and emitto manu to describe their manumissions, but Palaestra’s freedom is only ever called freedom.
Is this because the Greeks did not have a technical, legal phrase for the freeing of slaves but the Romans did? Or does the difference here suggest that people like Palaestra were not “real” slaves during their enslavement?
In fact, the two types of situations are so different that the comedians have a smaller choice of vocabulary for the recognition scenes than for actual manumissions. What I mean by this “smaller choice” is that Plautus and Terence can use the Latin adjective liber or the verb libero to describe the result of either a recognition scene or a regular manumission. However the phrase emitto manu (literally ‘to send away by hand’) is only ever used to describe the manumission of characters who were enslaved “properly”.
For example, in Plautus’ play Rudens, there is a woman Palaestra who was born an Athenian citizen but was captured when she was a child and sold into slavery. A number of characters know her background and set about getting her free. They never say that they are going to manumit her, instead they are going to free her:
Trachalio: si tuas esse oportet nive eas esse oportet liberas 713
Trachalio: qui minus hasce esse oportet liberas? 736
Trachalio is himself a slave and by the end of the play, he is freed by his master Daemones. Note how Trachalio initially uses the liber to describe the process and then uses the more techincal term:
Trachalio: sed scin quid est quod te volo?
quod permisisti ut memineris, hodie ut liber sim. Daemones: licet.
Trachalio: fac ut exores Plesidippum ut me {manu} emitta. (1216-8)
A less noble and significantly grouchier slave named Gripus does the same. When he stumbles upon a chest on the sea shore, he immediately begins fantasizing about how he will use the money to buy his freedom:
Gripus: iam ubi liber ero 930
When the trunk turns out to be empty, Gripus has to come up with another plan to achieve his freedom. He does so, relying on the kindness of Daemones. Gripus first asks Daemones to free him:
Gripus: id ego continuo huic dabo adeo me ut hic emittat manu. 1388
And then Daemones does, as part of a larger deal to quiet Labrax, a pimp who has been harassing Daemones since Labrax had bought Palaestra thinking that she was a true slave.
Daemones: ego Gripum emittam manu, (1410)
So both Trachalio and Gripus use both liber and emitto manu to describe their manumissions, but Palaestra’s freedom is only ever called freedom.
Is this because the Greeks did not have a technical, legal phrase for the freeing of slaves but the Romans did? Or does the difference here suggest that people like Palaestra were not “real” slaves during their enslavement?