La rappresentazione letteraria dei liberti negli autori latini. Un'analisi delle fonti da Cicerone a Plinio il Giovane

The analysis of the literary representations of freedmen, and in particular of the lexicon, reveals a contrast between the positive portrayals, often influenced by contingent benefits for the authors, and negative ones, which probably likely reflect the genuine attitudes of upper-class members toward these social subordinates. Positive representations of freedmen, frequently found in epistles of recommendation and encomiums praising powerful freedmen or in commissioned texts, are circumscribed to their qualities as servants. The lexicon used aligns with ideals of fides, probitas, and obsequium, and these representations largely deny freedmen the essential characteristic of the vir bonus: the possession of virtus. Except in rare cases, the freedman appear to exist solely in their subordinate relationship with his patron. In contrast, negative representations of freedmen are far more prevalent. Unfaithful freedmen are blamed, but above all certain types such as rich and powerful freedmen, not only the famous ones from the imperial age but also from Cicero's time. Authors express indignation towards ostentation and excessive power by harshly emphasizing their enslaved past, often using a lexicon that highlights the brutal realities of servitude, such as chains and scars. In summary, just beyond the narrow confines of patronage, the freedman faces the macula servitutis, an indelible stain from a life spent in slavery. The Horatian fortuna non mutat genus aptly captures the elite’s conviction: the role of a freed slave is inescapably that of continuing to serve their patron, devoid of ambitions for power or wealth, and without the right to individual identity.