Slavery & Cato the Elder

[sullafelix]

His niggardly treatment of his older slaves in particular is troublesome for one who is purported to have been so noteworthy. In this aspect, I understand I'm viewing things from a 21st century perspective, and that in general Romans of that day viewed slaves in a much different light, but to cast them aside when they were 'worn out' appears to show a lack of compassion.

 

Hmm this is a question I have been forced to ponder myself in the course of work on the grat sourpuss, and this one question keeps coming to mind: Sell his old broken down slaves to whom exactly? One wonders what the price for a broken ancient and or disease raddled slave might be and in what market place? I tend to wonder whether this was not more theory than practice. He does not talk of turning them out, but of selling them. I think that there is perhaps some typical Plutarch hyperbole in this aspect of Cato's life. What do you guys reckon?

[L. Quintus Sertorius]

I think that it must be remembered that even the poorest Roman families owned at least one slave - it wouldn't be improbable for a plebeian family to buy the old, worn out slaves of a landowner to serve as household help.

 

As far as Plutarchan hyperbole about Cato's treatment of slaves goes, I don't really see it. The quote about selling old slaves comes straight from the pages (or papyri, rather) of Cato's De Agricultura.

 

Auctionem uti faciat: vendat oleum, si pretium habeat, vinum, frumentum quod supersit vendat; boves vetulos, armenta delicula, oves deliculas, lanam, pelles, plostrum vetus, ferramenta vetera, servum senem, servum morbosum, et siquid aliut supersit, vendat. Patrem familias vendacem, non emacem esse oportet.

 

 

Sell worn-out oxen, blemished cattle, blemished sheep, wool, hides, an old wagon, old tools, an old slave, a sickly slave, and whatever else is superfluous. The master should have the selling habit, not the buying habit.

Edited August 6, 2007 by L. Quintus Sertorius

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, LQS!

 

Cato Majorius was advising you to promote a Roman-way garage sale to make some profit.

 

I don't think most of the Classical World would have considered that hyperbolic.

 

Think about it the next time you sell or buy pets, especially dogs.

Edited August 6, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[sullafelix]

Salve, LQS!

 

Cato Majorius was advising you to promote a Roman-way garage sale to make some profit.

 

I don't think most of the Classical World would have considered that hyperbolic.

 

Think about it the next time you sell or buy pets, especially dogs.

 

Indeed point taken, but a slave is not a pet, re-homing old dogs is difficult because they cost money. A worn out slave was likely to be false economy is what I'm saying here I guess. Also a slave's progression through work and age was likely to take him to some very menial and light duties job. For instance opening the door is an attested one. This can be done by a pretty decrepit old soul. In an urban setting this was in fact pretty normal. In a rural setting an old or sick slave is little or no use. A poor family could not have taken the risk of an unproductive mouth to feed. On the latifundia old age was not likely to be reached anyway, they were often like forced labour camps.

[sullafelix]

Oops my bad about the Plutarch, although it is in there too. There is case to say that the De Ag is ore theory than practice in some areas, this would be one of them I suspect.

Edited August 6, 2007 by sullafelix

[ASCLEPIADES]

Indeed point taken, but a slave is not a pet.

Salve, SF!

 

If you are talking about domestic slaves (and if they were lucky), we (and maybe their owners) may considere them as pets.

 

But as it seems that Cato was talking about rustical slaves, then you're right indeed; they weren't pets.

 

They were cattle.

[sullafelix]

Indeed point taken, but a slave is not a pet.

Salve, SF!

 

If you are talking about domestic slaves (and if they were lucky), we (and maybe their owners) may considere them as pets.

 

But as it seems that Cato was talking about rustical slaves, then you're right indeed; they weren't pets.

 

They were cattle.

 

 

Never been convinced about this urban slave/pet thing myself. OK there were some faitful old retainer types but in general although the duties were lighter the legal position remained the same, as did the attiutude. Classical, especially Roman slavery was absolutely brutal. I personally think far too many modern classicists have tried to put a decent gloss on it. You only have to look at things like the fact that no slave's evidence in court was admissable unless they had previously been tortured. Varro's description of rural slaves as tools with voice pretty much covers the country slave poor sods!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Indeed point taken, but a slave is not a pet.

Salve, SF!

 

If you are talking about domestic slaves (and if they were lucky), we (and maybe their owners) may considere them as pets.

 

But as it seems that Cato was talking about rustical slaves, then you're right indeed; they weren't pets.

 

They were cattle.

 

 

Never been convinced about this urban slave/pet thing myself. OK there were some faitful old retainer types but in general although the duties were lighter the legal position remained the same, as did the attiutude. Classical, especially Roman slavery was absolutely brutal. I personally think far too many modern classicists have tried to put a decent gloss on it. You only have to look at things like the fact that no slave's evidence in court was admissable unless they had previously been tortured. Varro's description of rural slaves as tools with voice pretty much covers the country slave poor sods!

Salve, SF!

We couldn't agree more.

That's why I was talking about domestic, not urban slaves; and that's also why I noted "and if they were lucky".

[M. Porcius Cato]

This discussion has become completely unhinged from the documentary evidence about the lives of slaves. Although the legal status of slaves made no distinction between urban and rural slavery, the experience of slavery varied tremendously. Indeed, even in the countryside, free workers (including Cato himself!) shared in the toil of slaves, who were valuable to their masters and often worked side-by-side with free citizens. The notion that rural slaves, mining slaves, and urban slaves were all equally downtrodden by free citizens is simply not supported by the evidence.

[ASCLEPIADES]

MPC, an experiment.

Change the word "slave" for the word "cattle" and related terms whenever you read Cato or Columella (or for "pet" if you read Plautus).

For example, we can try with your last post:

 

"This discussion has become completely unhinged from the documentary evidence about the lives of cattle. Although the legal status made no distinction between urban and rural cattle, the experience of being cattle varied tremendously. Indeed, even in the countryside, free workers (including Cato himself!) shared in the toil of beasts of burden, who were valuable to their masters and often worked side-by-side with free citizens. The notion that rural cattle, mining cattle, and urban cattle were all equally downtrodden by free citizens is simply not supported by the evidence."

 

Sounds pretty modern, doesn't it?

 

BTW:

Slaves and cattle of any time and place haven't been downtrodden by free citizens; it is only their owners who have had that chance at will.

I don't think all slave and cattle categories were equally downtrodden. I would think that the evidence would suggest some ranking like:

Mining > rural > urban.

But that's only an educated guess; to state that firmly, I will have to look in the sources.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Here comes a pretty pearl from Columella to begin with:

 

(De Re Rustica, Book I, Ch.6):

 

"It will be best that cubicles for unfettered slaves be built to admit the midday sun at the equinox; for those who are in chains there should be an underground prison, as wholesome as possible, receiving light through a number of narrow windows built so high from the ground that they cannot be reached with the hand."

 

Emphasis is mine.

 

This treatise is like a manual. Here, the author is advising us about the disposition of our farm.

Edited August 8, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

"This discussion has become completely unhinged from the documentary evidence about the lives of cattle. Although the legal status made no distinction between urban and rural cattle, the experience of being cattle varied tremendously. Indeed, even in the countryside, free workers (including Cato himself!) shared in the toil of beasts of burden, who were valuable to their masters and often worked side-by-side with free citizens. The notion that rural cattle, mining cattle, and urban cattle were all equally downtrodden by free citizens is simply not supported by the evidence."

 

Sounds pretty modern, doesn't it?

 

No, it sounds totally absurd. Urban cattle are not treated better than rural cattle--if anything, the reverse would be true. Also, why a free person submit to being milked along with his cattle (or being similarly used as cattle)? It makes no sense. Yet the reality was that--unlike humans and cattle--free labor and slave labor typically shared the same tasks. Yes, there is an analogy to be made between slavery and animal husbandry, but an analogy is not an identity

[ASCLEPIADES]

"This discussion has become completely unhinged from the documentary evidence about the lives of cattle. Although the legal status made no distinction between urban and rural cattle, the experience of being cattle varied tremendously. Indeed, even in the countryside, free workers (including Cato himself!) shared in the toil of beasts of burden, who were valuable to their masters and often worked side-by-side with free citizens. The notion that rural cattle, mining cattle, and urban cattle were all equally downtrodden by free citizens is simply not supported by the evidence."

 

Sounds pretty modern, doesn't it?

 

No, it sounds totally absurd. Urban cattle are not treated better than rural cattle--if anything, the reverse would be true. Also, why a free person submit to being milked along with his cattle (or being similarly used as cattle)? It makes no sense. Yet the reality was that--unlike humans and cattle--free labor and slave labor typically shared the same tasks. Yes, there is an analogy to be made between slavery and animal husbandry, but an analogy is not an identity

OK, let's see. Instead of "Urban cattle" try related terms as "Urban pets" (maybe a house piggy; they are cute). Believe me, life is better for them than for their relatives..

If you have been recently in any 3rd World country (and not only there) you could see a lot of people working literally side-by-side with beasts of burden on a daily basis. It makes all the sense of the world for them.

As slaves and free men are both humans, it's no surprise they can do the same tasks.

I think Columella was considered a respected authority on his area of expertise. He clearly saw an strong analogy between slaves and cattle as he put both in the same chapters of De Re Rustica, but certainly not identical, as he never advised to chain cattle in underground prisons, as far as I have read him.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Let see now a new advice from the prudent Columella for the right care of your vineyard:

( "De Re Rustica", Book I, Ch. 9):

 

"Vineyards require not so much tall men as those who are broad-shouldered and brawny, for this type is better suited to digging and pruning other forms of viticulture. In this department husbandry is less exacting in the matter of honesty than in the others, for the reason that the vine-dresser should do his work in company with others and under supervision, and because the unruly are for the most part possessed of quicker understanding, which is what the nature of the work requires. For it demands of the helper that he be not merely strong but also quick-witted; and on this account vineyards are commonly tended by slaves in fetters."

 

Emphasis is mine.

 

Nuff' said.

[sullafelix]

Let see now a new advice from the prudent Columella for the right care of your vineyard:

( "De Re Rustica", Book I, Ch. 9):

 

"Vineyards require not so much tall men as those who are broad-shouldered and brawny, for this type is better suited to digging and pruning other forms of viticulture. In this department husbandry is less exacting in the matter of honesty than in the others, for the reason that the vine-dresser should do his work in company with others and under supervision, and because the unruly are for the most part possessed of quicker understanding, which is what the nature of the work requires. For it demands of the helper that he be not merely strong but also quick-witted; and on this account vineyards are commonly tended by slaves in fetters."

 

Emphasis is mine.

 

Nuff' said.

 

Good point here! These slaves were often also kept in Ergastula (rural slave prisons) not nice places.

 

 

Yes it is said that Cato worked alongside his slaves, but there is also an argument to say that this is mainly a literary/cultural device. If we look back at the story of Cincinnatus Livy iii.26 (ish off the top of my head) there is a strong literary tradition of great Romans working their own fields. I daresay they did, however, there is a strong case for saying that Cato was merely harking back here to those days, with the great roman tradition of nostalgia, and also in the same vein that if he did work his own fields it was mainly for show to exactly the same end. Cato's famous austerity and "roman-ness" in these ways helped to make him a great Roman legend that represented what it was to be a true Roman within a few years of his death. I think Cato was well aware that he was trying to present an ideal.

 

This discussion has become completely unhinged from the documentary evidence about the lives of slaves. Although the legal status of slaves made no distinction between urban and rural slavery, the experience of slavery varied tremendously. Indeed, even in the countryside, free workers (including Cato himself!) shared in the toil of slaves, who were valuable to their masters and often worked side-by-side with free citizens. The notion that rural slaves, mining slaves, and urban slaves were all equally downtrodden by free citizens is simply not supported by the evidence.

 

As to the lack of evidence that slaves were brutally treated I disagree. Often if we try to say that slavery was brutal, and that life was often short and violent for slaves then we are told that we are looking at slavery through the eyes of modern morality. That is not what I am trying to do here, however, there has been too much of a swing to justify slavery by those of us who are Romanophiles. Roman slavery was among the most brutal the world has ever seen. Mention in the sources is rare, but much can be inferred from the structure of Roman slavery and the slave trade itself.

 

There is some mention in the sources that I can think of though. Here is a bit from Plautus' Asinaria (545-56)

 

LEONIDA Great praise and thanks we give deservedly to perfidy, when relying upon our tricks, our stratagems, and our devices, upon our confidence in our shoulder-blades and the hardihood resulting from the elm-twigs so oft applied, against the whips, the searing-irons, the crosses, and the fetters, the cords, the chains, the prisons, the stocks, the shackles, the collars, and taskmasters most cruel and well acquainted with our backs, who many a time before have imprinted(556) scars upon our shoulder-blades

 

Then there is this from Diodorus Siculus about the reasons for the Sicilian slave revolts (34/5 2.1-2)

 

 

1. When Sicily, after the Carthaginian collapse, had enjoyed sixty years of good fortune in all respects, the Servile War broke out for the following reason. The Sicilians, having shot up in prosperity and acquired great wealth, began to purchase a vast number of slaves, to whose bodies, as they were brought in droves from the slave markets, they at once applied marks and brands.

 

2. The young men they used as cowherds, the others in such ways as they happened to be useful. But they treated them with a heavy hand in their service, and granted them the most meagre care, the bare minimum for food and clothing. As a result most of them made their livelihood by brigandage, and there was bloodshed everywhere, since the brigands were like scattered bands of soldiers

 

and again this: (34/5 2.10)

 

10. There was a certain Damophilus of Enna, a man of great wealth but insolent of manner; he had abused his slaves to excess, and his wife Megallis vied even with her husband in punishing the slaves and in her general inhumanity towards them. The slaves, reduced by this degrading treatment to the level of brutes, conspired to revolt and to murder their masters. Going to Eunus they asked him whether their resolve had the favour of the gods. He, resorting to his usual mummery, promised them the favour of the gods, and soon persuaded them to act at once.

 

Then of course there are the repeated slave revolts, Spartacus et al. I fail to see how there is a lack of source material for this. The slaves were discontent, and for good reason, they were often mistreated. If we go back to the animal analogy the treatment of animals depends entirely on the humanity of the owner. What would be wrong would be to impose a motivation of a desire for freedom for freedom's sake on revolting slaves, that would be a modern construct. Which makes it all the more likely that the sources are entirely correct when they give mistreatment as the main reason for the slaves' actions. I have limited the sources used to those covering the Republican era out of respect for the main subject of this thread but there are others too.

Edited August 9, 2007 by sullafelix