Gayatri Gogoi

Can we identify a distinct freedperson perspective in these

texts and images?
In the first and second centuries AD, to be a liberated slave offered a wealth of
opportunity, or indeed, wealth itself.

Using representations of freedmen, both by

themselves and by people of other classes in Roman society, an idea of a freedperson

perspective emerges, in architecture and literature. We might define a freedperson
perspective as the point of view and attitudes of ex-slaves, which seems to centre on
what we might call social mobility, a change in social status, in terms of freedom, riches
and class. It is important to note that these points of view which we are able to examine
mainly relate to the nouveaux riches freedmen who became immensely wealthy
through trade and commerce. This is because we have more evidence about these
freedmen, who either had the money to build lasting commemorative tombs or
because, as extremely affluent social-climbers, they were more likely attract the
attention of writers than the many freedmen who lived unnoticed among the plebeian
classes. It is also important to keep in mind that we do not have written records from
these sorts of freedmen themselves, but the lasting record of what freedmen choose to
include on their tombs indicate what they might have found important in life. We must
also consider to what extent a freedperson perspective might actually be a view
which is not strictly limited to freedmen but to all classes in society, or if similarities in
perspectives between classes in fact stem from the freedman desire to imitate the
upper classes.
Some aspects of this freedperson perspective seems to be motivated by the idea of
the change in a freedmans social status, one rung up the class ladder from slave to
citizen, and all that this move entails. For ex-slaves it seems an important part of their
attitudes to characterise oneself as free. The freedman Trimalchio, the stereotypical
extravagantly wealthy freedman in Petronius Satyricon wishes to show off his liberated
state on his tomb, by depicting himself wearing a toga (71), the mark of a Roman
citizen. Similarly, tombs of freedmen, such as that of Vesonius Phileros often included
l(ibertus), as part of the inscription to mark them out as liberated citizens. This is not
the case however with all tombs of freedmen. For example, the Tomb of Eurysaces
makes no mention of him being a libertus in the inscription, although we can infer from
his Greek cognomen and his profession as a baker that he was a freedman. Does this
mean that he was not concerned with expressing his freedom? On the contrary, in my
opinion, the very fact he chooses not to include his social status of freedman shows
Eurysaces wanted people after his death to remember him as a free citizen who

Gayatri Gogoi
obviously had the means to create a massive lasting monument without noticeably
drawing attention to his servile background. Therefore, somewhat paradoxically, by not
mentioning that he was a freedman, Eurysaces in fact makes a stronger statement
about his freedom.
Defining oneself by freedom is not the only attitude of the freedman perspective
concerning social mobility. Wealth allowed the social status of a freedman to be
elevated to a certain extent, and so is an important aspect of the freedman
perspective, not only in terms of representing how much was accumulated, but also in
what way it was accumulated, i.e. ones occupation. For example, Trimalcho states that
he wants ships in full sail on his tomb (71), showing his business in trading, and the
self-made man delights in telling his rags to riches story (75-76). Similarly, on the Tomb
of the gens Haterii, Kleiner speculates that the relief of the crane together with the
relief of Flavian buildings on the Via Sacra could indicate the involvement of a member
of the Haterii in the construction business. [1]. The lasting nature of marble reliefs show
that this possible line of work was important enough to the family to commemorate it
on a tomb permanently.
The Tomb of Eurysaces is also concerned with his occupation, and the inscription gives
the means by which he acquired his wealth as pistoris, redemptoris apparet,

baker

and contractor, and what might be public servant, (although the usual word is
apparitor). The design of the tomb itself is eccentric to say the least.The frieze running
round the entire tomb shows the process of breadmaking, complementing the design of
circular portholes which could represent apparatus either for kneading dough or for
measuring out corn [2]. This could represent a pride in how he has made his fortune
and the importance of his employment to him.
However, a comparison of the different level emphasis on occupation in each of the two
tombs might reveal distinctions within the more general freedman perspective. The
tomb of the Haterii also has reliefs of a deceased woman lying in state, as well as busts
of the underworld gods, and together with the relief of the crane making an elaborate
temple-style tomb. These decorative details have much less emphasis on profession,
and rather indicate an interest in the funerary element, which is similarly seen on
various occasions in the Satyricon, with Trimalchios obsession with death. However,
rather than being part of the freedman perspective, it is more likely that as a tomb
the symbolism of death is fitting decoration. Images of death metaphor are found on
other tombs such as the ship on that of Naevoleia Tyche, which may indicate a work in

Gayatri Gogoi
trade, but could also represent the journey of life, metaphorically arriving at the shores
of death.
However, it could be that Eurysaces chooses to base his tomb around his occupation as
baker, not simply to emphasise how he accumulated his wealth, but to create personal
tomb in a striking manner, in a time when more and more elaborate tombs competed
to attract the attention of passers-by. The prominent location at the junction of two
roads leading into Rome and the size of the tomb (33ft), in addition to the peculiar
design would certainly have attracted the attention of travellers. In fact the desire to
show off ones tomb is not limited to those of freedmen. Tomb of the aedile C. Vestorius
Priscus is an example of a freeborn Roman (as we can tell from his Roman name and his
magisterial office, a scene of which is depicted on a painting within the tomb) whose
tomb is made to be seen. Priscus mother who the commissioned the tomb did not have
the means for the more expensive reliefs or carvings for a more permanent and lasting
death monument, Nevertheless fresco and stucco scenes were painted to add
ornamentation and to give details about Priscus life. The tomb is built into the slope of
Mt. Vesuvius in a prominent position, competing for visibility with several other tombs.
In addition, to say that freedmen were the only ones to build eye-catching and peculiar
tombs. For example the tomb of Cestius, whom the inscription tells us was a praetor
and septemvir of Epulones, a college of priests, and therefore a freeborn Roman, is in
the odd and striking shape of a pyramid. [3]. It seems that Romans of all classes, be
they wealthy or otherwise, used whatever resources they possessed for their tombs to
be noticeable. This shows an apparent similarity of perspective between classes, not
limited to freedmen alone.
The show of wealth itself in a freedman perspective has already been touched upon,
and given that the freedmen tombs we have already seen use materials such as
marble, and reliefs which required costly workmanship. It could be that in the
freedman perspective wealth is linked with importance, and indeed even in Juvenals
negative view, wealth is seen as important, as Umbricius, raised on Sabine air and
Aventine berry, i.e. is a freeborn Roman citizen notes everyones primary concern is
how much a man is worth rather than personal integrity (3.139-142). The rich freedman
is shown to be arrogant (1. 103), and Pliny too expresses disgust at the riches of the
freedman Pallas, the negativity indicating a difference from the freedman perspective
of wealth being positive.
Trimalchios luxurious way of living, described all the way through the Cena, epitomises
the idea of vulgar tastelessness which came with his new money, in one way in terms

Gayatri Gogoi
of his gross overindulgence. If we take the view that the Petronius described by Tacitus,
the so-called arbiter elegantiae, is the author of the Satyricon, then we can assume
that, although judgement of taste is personal matter, as the apparent Gok Wan of the
Roman

world,

Petronius

judgements

on

taste

and

tastelessness

are

fairly

representative of Romes fashionable (and probably elite). The tomb of Eurysaces has
been similarly criticised for its vulgarity of style [4]. The House of the Vettii in Pompeii is
also considered over-the-top, with regards to the large numbers of paintings and
statues, often with bawdy subject matter [5]. This might indicate an unintentional
aspect of the freedman perspective; that the focus on the importance of wealth,
freedmen unintentionally make themselves appear tasteless, when their display of
wealth goes too far.
Wealth, while allowing tasteless frivolities to be realised, also allowed a enhanced form
of social mobility to take place, which in the freedman perspective was not merely
concerned with shows of wealth. This aspect of the freedman perspective concerns
the significance of holding a political office. The symbolism of holding a political office
alludes to the status of the higher classes of society, who, unlike freedmen , could hold
magistracies on the cursus honorum

[6]. Therefore Trimalchio wants his position of

priest of Augustus to be on his tomb (71), to show not only his freedom but the
political and religious influence his freedom-found wealth has given him. Similarly the
Tomb of Lucius Storax also shows that he was one of the Augustales, as sevir, a position
which it seems was held by wealthy freedmen, who might perform services for the
state, such as financing games. Storax shows reliefs of his games, and his position of
importance in one of them is evident from the hierarchy of scale, with him being the
largest and most central figure.
However, it is not only freedmen in whose attitudes the importance of religious and
political office is found. Cestius for example included on his tomb the details that he
was a praetor and septemvir priest. Like Storax, on Priscus tomb there is a political
scene, with Priscus with an audience sits on a curule chair on a raised platform. The fact
that the exact details of the scene are ambiguous shows that it was the symbolism of
Priscus in his role as an aedile which was more important. Again, it seems freedmen in
this respect have a similar point of view to other classes, in their pride in their political
office.
However, partly why Trimalchio is such a ridiculous character is that, in the eyes of
Petronius, he is boorish for overstepping the bounds of social status. He does not just
wish to be shown wearing a toga on his tomb (71); he wants it to have a purple stripe,

Gayatri Gogoi
inappropriately endowing himself with the authority of a curule magistrate (Even his
napkins have a purple stripe! (32)). He does not simply wish to be seen as an
Augustalis; he has rods and axes, symbols of consulship, and the bronze prows of ships,
symbols of victorious naval generals. Throughout the

Cena there are subtle

comparisons of Trimalchio to Roman emperors, especially Nero, e.g. they both are said
to have golden containers for their first shaving hairs (29). In this respect, Trimalchio
corresponds to the Juvenals idea of the patron and host as rex, (5.14, 130, 137-8 ,
161) whose pretentions and delusions of supremacy are the cause of his ill manners.
Just as we have seen before, there is again an unintended

aspect of freedman

perspective as freedmen inadvertently make themselves seem vulgar in their clumsy

attempts to be like the upper class (e.g. Trimalchios failed attempts at learnedness
(50,55) and uncouth indiscriminate mingling of Homeric myth with recent gladiatorial
fights (29)).
These aspirations to be like the upper classes of society also call into question whether
the previously discussed similarities between the perspectives of classes are in fact
attempts by freedmen to copy aristocracy. Aristocrats like Priscus and Cestius
prominently display their offices on their tombs, offices which symbolise social status
and class. Could this not mean that freedmen display their offices not only to show their
pride in their own social status but to enhance theses statuses by emulating the actions
of the elite?
From the images and the texts, what emerge are apparent contradictions in the
freedman perspective which centres on social mobility. For freedmen to represent
themselves as free, to name themselves as liberti is to draw attention to their servile
origin. Their wealth enhances their social standing, as it allows them to hold political
office which would otherwise be denied to them, yet too extravagant a display of this
wealth leads to an involuntary vulgarity on their part. To depict themselves as wealthy
and showing the means by which they became so is to deny themselves the distinctions
and dignities of the Old Money aristocratic class which they seek to emulate, instead
unintentionally becoming boorish nouveaux riches, like Trimalchio. There is therefore a
distinct freedman perspective, albeit one which contains unintentional elements of
vulgarity, stemming from a freedman focus of social mobility, and the wealth and
power, such a change in status can bring.
References
1. P86, F. Kleiner, A History of Roman Art: Enhanced Edition Wadsworth, 2010
2. P86, F. Kleiner, A History of Roman Art: Enhanced Edition Wadsworth, 2010

Gayatri Gogoi
3. P127. J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1996.
4. P128. J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1996.
5. P5 L. Peterson, The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
6. P1 L. Peterson, The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Texts & Contexts, Topic 4: Class Lectures 1 and 2