Confusion re the naming of Roman freedman

Upvote:-1

"I do not understand how Cicero could give his freedman the nomen of another" - perhaps because Cicero was the master and so could do what he liked?

If Tiro objected to the name Cicero proposed to give him on freeing him from slavery, Cicero might have said "Well how's that for ingratitude! If you are going to be like that when I offer to free you, on second thoughts you can remain a slave!"

Tiro might also have been sufficiently grateful to be freed and glad to have any non-slave name that he may have been happy to adopt whatever name Cicero suggested.

In Roman society even free men tended to be bound to more powerful men by client/ patron relationships which imposed mutual obligations to help each other to the extent that their different status allowed. An ex-slave might still want to remain on good terms with his former master who would become his patron.

Tiro might e.g. want Cicero's recommendation, advice or help in establishing himself in a career, or if Tiro ever needed a good lawyer for any reason Cicero was reputed one of the best.

In return Tiro would show respect for Cicero and help him to the extent he was able.

Upvote:3

The Roman tradition of granting the nomen to a newly freed slave was not so much to maintain a subservience over the former slave, but primarily to vouch for the good repute of the person. Like a letter of reference, the new freeman had the blessing of the family, whether or not still a patron.

As to the nomen of an acquaintance, there is no evidence that Pomponeous (the family friend) was unfamiliar with the character of the slave, nor that he objected to vouch for his loyalty to Cicero (the slave owner).

This tradition is explained and analyzed in detail in chapter 4 of Mary Beard's non-fiction SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (2005).

More post

Search Posts

Related post