Condition of slaves in Roman society

[wryobserver]

Slavery has got a bad name. But its been around for a long time. I have always been intrigued by the attitude to slaves and slavery in that Roman text called the New Testament, written by a Roman citizen by birth, Paul.

 

In the NT slaves were encouraged to serve their masters faithfully, and not to rebel. Indeed Paul sends one slave who converted back to his christian master with a letter recommending that he look after his new slave brother as becomes a christian. So it wasn't just a mark of pagans to own slaves in 1st century roman society. Christians did it too, and there was no expectation that one would necessarily set one's slave free! Paul did however urge slaves to obtain their freedom if they could.

 

All this clashes brusquely today with our modern perspective, where we have grown up with a strong value for equality, freedom and inate human rights, and where our last great historical example of slave trading involved horrific brutality and racism which we rightly find repugnant. We can ask ourselves how could christian thinkers have ever been tolerant of slavery?

 

So I'm intrigued by the Roman idea of the slave and whether this was any different to the status and treatment that was meted out to black African slaves by white Europeans in the 18th century and beyond.

 

What was the social institution of slavery like under Roman rule and what would life have been like as a slave? Were there any redeeming features that made slavery less morally reprehensible than we assume it be today?

Edited May 21, 2012 by wryobserver

[Centurion-Macro]

I've recently been reading a pamplet by Joseph McCabe, who throws some interesting thoughts on the subject. His argument is that Romans did care more for their slaves than is often assumed, and that had the Roman Empire continued slavery would have been abolished.

 

Eg. many Romans such as Juvenal, Dion Chrysostom (a Romanised Greek), Seneca, Pliny, the jurors Florenius & Ulpian, and Plutarch (admittedly another Greek) all condemned slavery and believed it to be a vile institution.

 

Many laws were created to protect slaves: the Cornelian Law (82BC), Petronian Law (32BC), Hadrian's abolishing of old subterrian dungeons, Nero gave slaves the right of appeal if they felt themselves badly treated, Antonius Pius said a slave who sought refuge from a cruel or hard master should be resold, Caracalla forbade parents to sell children as slaves, Diocletian forbade creditors to fell debtors into slavery.

 

I haven't verified whether McCade is correct yet, but certainly it offers an interesting viewpoint.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Centurion-Macro

[caldrail]

A phrase used to describe a slave in Roman times was 'talking tool'. Does that illustrate the point?

 

Much depended on circumstance. The Romans themselves were well aware that their kitchen slaves ate the same food as they did on the quiet. Some were allowed to run businesses or informal families (though legally the children were the property of the slave-owner). Cicero often mentions slaves being used as oral or written postmen (and tears his hair out at the clumsiness of some of them - note that slaves used as messengers in this way are not described as travelling alone). We even have instances of slaves becoming close friends of their masters or after manumission, marital partners.

 

That however disguises some very harsh treatment. Claudius brought in some laws relating to slave ownership (not for slave rights I should add) when he observed several unwell slaves having been abandoned to die. Jealous wives might well give attractive female slaves a hard time, as a man was free to use a slave as he wished, but a woman was not supposed to have sex with hers.

 

Bear in mind that as a slave, you were not considered a human being under Roman law. Whilst it was sometimes a good idea to show humanity toward your slaves in order to impress society with your good character and generosity, this was often on face value only. Many of the trades given to slaves were obviously onerous, and what choice did they have?

 

In terms of gladiators much the same applies. The star athletes were treated very well - taken to the best social functions and sometimes made the subject of errant womens desires, and so forth, but they were still slaves nonetheless. Most were confined to barracks (since many had gotten themselves into a gladiator barracks to escape hard labour in rural industries, arguably professions with shorter life expectancy, and escape from the barracks was always possible).

 

Therefore the treatment of a slave depended on what function the slave was suppopsed to perform, who required those services, and the character of that person. There seems to have been something of a love/hate relationship in general. The Romans were very concious of their proximity to people who may well have reason to bear a grudge against them.

[wryobserver]

Thanks for those two interesting perspectives.

 

 

I find Paul's position pretty curious.

 

Does anyone have a good insight into the rights of women in Roman times?

 

Thanks

[caldrail]

Strictly speaking a woman was the possession of either her father, guardian, or husband. Traditionally women were supposed to be the maternal pillar of the family, the organiser of the household. It was however a very typical role in a male dominated world although the Romans had an uncharacteristic respect generally for their womenfolk, so to compare them to modern day middle eastern values, they didn't hide them. Women were not educated apart from perhaps music to entertain her partner, though in reality many did learn how to read and write.

 

There were changes in this gender relationship. During the late republic for instance, which was the old austere style of society now coming into wealth and prosperity by virtue of their conquests and dominant trading position, I note that men and women sat together in public entertainment (Life of Sulla - Plutarch) whereas when larger formal stadiums were built, women were restricted to the upper levels of seating.

 

There is a curiosity then about imperial women. On the one hand they had a lot of free time (or at least the wealthier ones did) which allowed them to get up to all sorts of activities. The sort of lustful behaviour that Sempronia shocked the republican world with was no more than gossip in imperial times. Yet at the same time, despite this apparent freedom, there does seem to be an increasing formality about gender relations, and we see Augustus passing laws with the intention of spporting traditional family life.

Edited May 25, 2012 by caldrail

[Maty]

Then there was a guy called Cornutus in the early 80s BC. When Marius was chopping the heads off everyone he disliked, Cornutus made the hit list.

 

His slaves picked up a random corpse (plenty to choose, Marius did not like a lot of people at this point), pretended it was their master and cremated it. They then smuggled Cornutus out of the house in a blanket and got him to safety in Gaul. given that they would have been freed by Marius if they had turned him in, this suggests that at least some slaves did not think that had it too bad.

[caldrail]

I was amused also by the weariness Cicero displays when he mentions the various excuses put forward by small groups of slaves entrusted with messages both near and far.

[XIIII]

It is hard to say, in general, slaves were in one condition or another. I believe this rings true in most slave owning societies: Some slave owners treated their slaves like family, others abused, tortured, and killed them.

[Divus Iulius]

Well St-Paul [Joseph Flavius] was a Corrupt-Pharisee and a Criminal, He is not the best source for History...

 

When it comes to Slavery, it really depends on Who the Slave-Master is.. Marcus Mettius Epaphroditus, was also a slave, whom eventually became a freedman.. went to Rome and collected a library of 30,000 Books, as well as being a Sponsor of St-Paul [Joseph Flavius] whom Josephus devotes his works too..and likely to have had a hand in the Gospel Authorship [st Mark , St Matthew (Mettius)]

Edited August 3, 2012 by Divus Iulius

[caldrail]

To some extent the personality of the slave-owner was important in considering the condition of a slave, but relaise that there restraining factors. The law for instance, which increasingly restricted what owners could do (slaves had no rights). Public perception - were you a good man who treated his slaves well, or a bad man who bullied and tortured tham? Would you want a bad reputation? Loyalty - Do you want to sleep safe at night? Do you want your slave to stay silent when snoopers enquire about your business? Do you want your slaves to inform you of everything going on? Do you want your slaves to steal from you?

[Melvadius]

.. The law for instance, which increasingly restricted what owners could do (slaves had no rights). ...

 

I wouldn't say that they had no rights as such but rather the law increasingly restricted how they could be given rights. For instance there were restrictions impossed on how old a slave owner could be before they could manumit their slaves and I believe the age of the slaves involved, similarly laws were brought in regarding how many slaves could be freed under a will. I believe another law was brought in regarding the timing of remarriage for an ex-female slave who had initally been freed so they could marry their owner and subsequently divorced.

 

To quote from Dixon The Roman Family (pg 91) 'The Augustan Lex Aelia Sentia placed limitations on the number and type of slaves who could be manumitted by an owner. Slaves manumitted in contravention of the rules were deemed Junian Latins, whose free status ended with their death. Junian Latins could, however gain Roman citizenship by producing a child and presenting the child at the end of its first year for official registration as Roman.'

[caldrail]

However, recognition of a child was not a right. Romans did not have to recignise the birthright of children and indeed the source of some slaves was abandonment by their families. A father could claim or deny a child was his - thus in terms of Roman praxctice, there was no guarantee that freedom would be handed out. It was a matter of consideration and in all probability the circumstances would be taken into account, such as what sort of man our Junian Latins happens to be. A man proved worthy? Or a wastrel? Rom,ans usually considered children to be chips off the old block after all (unless they were born in slavery, of course)

 

Roman law is very specific. Slaves are not, by definition, human beings and therefore have no rights. Humane intiatives were aimed at restricting the abuses of owners however. If a slave is manumitted he is given a measure of humanity, but not a clean slate, because legally a former slave could not rise to public office afterward.

 

Our modern views toward human rights aren't universal. The Romans were far more class concious and far more willing to punish transgressions, sometimes with considerabl;e brutality. For example sitting down beside a patrician at a public event could get a common man jailed. Status was signified by rings and the style of toga a man wore - there was once a call to have slaves wear some identifying feature but that was dismissed on the grounds that slaves would then realise how numerous they were.

Edited August 6, 2012 by caldrail

[Novosedoff]

Well, if we are to compare the status of slaves in ancient Rome VS the status of slaves in the US of 19th century, then I am afraid to say that, but Roman slaves would be better off. Just let me give you a few examples. Teaching Roman slaves to read was very common, whereas in the US of 19th century this would be penalized.  The chances of manumitting Roman slaves before they reached the age of 30 are estimated between 10% to 50%, once they had reached the age of 30 the chances of getting freedom would be 50% to 90%. In the US only 0.04% of slaves would be manumitted every year. The maximum of slaves  in the US seemingly reached 30% of total workforce in 1820s (see Labor Force and Employment, 1800 - 1960 by Stanley Lebergott), but in ancient Roman this would barely reach 20% (with the exception of Rome itself, where the number of slaves reached up to 40% of population within a period)

[guy]

Interesting points of view.

I am sure we can all agree about the evils of slavery: the arbitrary use of forced labor, sexual exploitation, torture and mutilation, murder, etc. 

The universality of this evil throughout history, however, cannot be underestimated. A distinguishing factor of slavery in the  New World (North and South America, as well as the Caribbean) was that it was based on race. 

In the ancient world, the modern beliefs of racial superiority didn’t exist. Ethnic and cultural differences with its prejudices did, of course. One could not, however, easily distinguish the physical traits of a Greek or Spanish slave from those of a Roman citizen from Rome or Northern Africa. (The slave collar seems like a rare occurrence.)

Greek slaves spoke a language educated Romans could understand. Many of these Greek slaves were better educated (in medicine or other sciences, for example) than any Roman. Greece was also a culture that many Romans admired and even emulated. Many of these Greek slaves were used to teach Roman children, for example. These factors resulted in a different experience for Greek slaves from other slaves.

I imagine that most non-Greek slaves in Ancient Rome would have a more difficult time. They could potentially end up in nightmarish settings like the mines, stone quarries, farms, brothels, gladiatorial fights, etc. They had little chance, of course, in improving of their social status. 

In contrast, because of cultural and language barriers, even the most educated African slave stood little chance of social acceptance in the more modern racist slave states of the Americas and the Caribbean. Of course, the invidious modern concept of racism would have prevented an easy transition of an African slave to freeman status, anyway. Many of these challenges didn’t exist for the Greek slave in ancient Rome.

 

On 6/21/2021 at 7:02 AM, Novosedoff said:

The chances of manumitting Roman slaves before they reached the age of 30 are estimated between 10% to 50%, once they had reached the age of 30 the chances of getting freedom would be 50% to 90%. 

I find this statement difficult to believe.

So, up to 90% of the Gauls captured and enslaved by Caesar (maybe more than 250,000) were freed?

Slaves from Italy may have been treated more as indentured servants than slaves. Horace, the great Roman poet, was the son of a freedman of Italian descent who had been captured during either the Social or Samnite Wars.

As I previously mentioned, Greek slaves would have done better in Ancient Rome than most other slaves.

Marcus Antonius Pallus was a Greek freedman who was able to rise in the Roman hierarchy to become the influential secretary of Claudius and Nero.

The Greek stoic philosopher Epictetus was born a slave, gaining his freedom at the age of eighteen.

The Greek and Italian slaves in Ancient Rome certainly suffered a different fate than slaves from Germania or Gaul.

Here’s a good video review about what the Romans thought of race:

Here’s a good article that puts American slavery in context:

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-american-slavery-comparative-perspective

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, however.

Edited December 17, 2021 by guy

[Novosedoff]

1 hour ago, guy said:

 

I find this statement difficult to believe.

 

 

Well, I ain't the one to blame, I just quoted a few facts from the latter book by Andrew Movchan (the original page in Russian is attached in case there are readers proficient in Russian here). Movchan referred to a few works to support his statements, including

[21] William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, 1875
[22] https://ancientimes.blogspot.com/2016/03/roman-slavery-and-rate-of-manumission.html
[23] Thmas Wiedemann. The Regularity of Manumission at Rome / The Classical Quaterly, 35 (1), 1985
[24] F.Cowell, Life in Ancient Rome, Russian edition, 2006, p. 255

Hope this helps :)