In previous chapters dealing with the ideology and practice of manumission the freedman was – inevitably – approached as an object of ridicule, concern, trust, or promotion, which naturally brings us to the question of the freedman's own subjective experience, his views and outlook. However, any attempt to approach what might tentatively be called the ‘identity’ of freedmen faces a number of obstacles, the most obvious being the fact that the literary sources at our disposal operate with a set of simple but evocative stereotypes, which have had a strong impact on the image of the freedman right up until the present day. The ancient stereotypes came in a positive as well as a negative version, but the latter – more colourful and engaging – has been the more influential. Thus, most scholars addressing the issue of the ‘freedman identity’ have relied heavily on ancient complaints about ‘bad’ freedmen, which is ironic, since the ‘good’ ones in reality must have been the more common; otherwise the practice of manumission would presumably have declined.

The end result has been a Roman libertus barely distinguishable from the literary caricature, whose vulgarity and obsession with status have been readily accepted as typically freed characteristics. The image has been further entrenched by the common identification of the freedman with the archetypal figure of the social climber, which has been important in familiarising the ancient concept of the ex-slave to a modern audience.