Poor family in one room

[The Augusta]

I remember reading once a quote (can anyone confirm it, I have lost the source) that Livia once commented that seeing a naked man should have no more impact on a woman than seeing a nude statue.

 

Phil

 

It was Dio, Phil (Book 58) Don't ask me to name the Chapter - I'd have to go to the shelves. Suffice it to say, it's Dio. Liv actually saved the lives of these men by her comment.

[caldrail]

 

The privacy you speak of is illusory. Remember that slaves were in attendance at all times so nothing was ever really private.

 

Caldrail - this fascinates me. Could you point us in the direction of the source that states this fact? It was something I had a slight issue with in the HBO/BBC Rome series.

 

If you're wealthy, you have slaves. The number of slaves you own is an outward sign of your prosperity, something you'd want to advertise in those days. The number of slaves you free is an outward sign of generosity, an advert of your superior nature. If you free slaves then you will want them replaced. Once you own slaves then they must have useful tasks alloted to them or they're just using up space and food. So once you get them employed they take over menial tasks that you'd rather not do yourself. And since you require a job done at any particular time, then you'll need slaves available to see it done when requested. Diners for instance did not request a slave fill a goblet with wine - it was an automatic process - they simply held the goblet out and carried on conversing with the person next to them. The elaborate hairstyles of women in the imperial period are possible because of slave attendants. A person might require something moved from here to there, to collect goods from traders, to cook, to clean, to teach, to protect, to assist the household in any way. In that enviroment you become dependent on their presence as much as they are dependent on your goodwill. Therefore you want slaves in attendance at all times to take care of any business without fuss. Why labour yourself when you paid for those slaves at an auction?

 

To be fair, I can't point at a single source and say there you are, told you so. There are however clues in roman writings that put this in perspective. When you read about the lives of romans take notice what the authors say about slave behaviour. For the most part they don't because slaves are not worthy of note - the are 'cattle', or 'talking tools', and that in itself shows how slaves were valued.

 

Now take this example (I don't remember the source but its a true story). A young roman enters the house of another man to carry on an affair with his wife. He is discovered in her bedroom, but claims to enamoured of her female slave. By that ruse he saves himself from a possible death sentence (and the wifes too I might add) and is merely punished for misuse of another mans slave. The slave was present along with the wife and interloper. Although he seeks romantic adventure at the risk of scandal and even possible death, he sees nothing unusual about the presence of a female slave in the bedroom. In fact, he uses this to his advantage with some quick thinking. A private meeting without privacy - he does not fear the presence of a slave.

[M. Porcius Cato]

To be fair, I can't point at a single source and say there you are, told you so. There are however clues in roman writings that put this in perspective. When you read about the lives of romans take notice what the authors say about slave behaviour. For the most part they don't because slaves are not worthy of note - the are 'cattle', or 'talking tools', and that in itself shows how slaves were valued.

 

The Romans don't talk about slave behaviour? What on earth are you reading these days, caldrail? Pick up some Plautus! No one who reads Plautus can continue to think the Romans regarded slaves as mere cattle.

 

The Roman treatment of slaves was far more complex than you make out.

[caldrail]

The Romans don't talk about slave behaviour? What on earth are you reading these days, caldrail? Pick up some Plautus! No one who reads Plautus can continue to think the Romans regarded slaves as mere cattle.

 

The Roman treatment of slaves was far more complex than you make out.

 

That wasn't what I meant. I'm well aware of the complexity of slavery in roman times, and I hope you realise that I was using a single example rather than an entire treatise. Some romans did treat their slaves as cattle - your namesake was known for his lack of concern for their sensibilities. There's an enormous range of possibilities for slaves under roman rule. An industrial or rural slave isn't likely to be well-treated and usually got worked to death in poor conditions. Urban slaves did better, and some cases found very cosy existenses. Take the case of Pallas. Now there's a guy who sells himself in slavery and winds up becoming minister of finance under Claudius. For most though their lives weren't going to be much fun.

 

Lets say a soldier requires a slave. For him the cost of purchase and keep is considerable, so the quality of the slave might not be what he desires - he must choose carefully. Later on his relationship with the slave might develop into something more casual and open simply because the two live so closely.

 

On the other hand, an emperor may have four or five hundred slaves. For him they're simply... there. He isn't the least concerned with who they are or what they might think, they all have duties and they'd better perform them well or else. Someone else takes care of them.

 

PS - I'm reading posts on this forum a lot these days but thanks for the tip about Plautus, I'll certainly read it if I come across anything

[The Augusta]

Thanks for your replies Caldrail and Cato. Just to lighten it up, I now have a lovely image in my mind of armies of slaves sneaking out to sell their stories to Suetonius!

[M. Porcius Cato]

That's a good point--farm slaves (such as those on the farm of my namesake's great-grandfather) were treated like cattle. I don't want to whitewash the Roman practice of slavery; I just want to point out that some slaves were treated better than cattle (e.g., my namesake--presumably unlike his great-grandfather--freed his slaves upon his death, but he probably wouldn't have let any cattle he had roam the countryside in freedom).

Edited November 14, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[P.Clodius]

(e.g., my namesake--presumably unlike his great-grandfather--freed his slaves upon his death, but he probably wouldn't have let any cattle he had roam the countryside in freedom).

He also injured his hand punching one of em in the face causing him to botch his suicide.

[M. Porcius Cato]

(e.g., my namesake--presumably unlike his great-grandfather--freed his slaves upon his death, but he probably wouldn't have let any cattle he had roam the countryside in freedom).

He also injured his hand punching one of em in the face causing him to botch his suicide.

 

The slave stole Cato's sword when Cato was in a hurry to kill himself. Whether he'd been a slave or not is irrelevant.

[caldrail]

I notice that the ambivalent nature of roman society extends to slavery. On the one hand, they are 'talking tools', although as Seneca points out, they are often required to remain silent or risk a beating. Yet at other times, they are trusted companions who might even be allowed to run a business on their masters behalf. Not only were slaves bought and sold, they were also rented. For those unable to maintain enough slaves permanently this must have been useful - though the contract I read shows that the slave was required to work all hours to all intents and purposes. The renter certainly expected his monies worth. If your master desired something more personal, you would have no choice but to submit without complaint.

 

I do notice the ambivalence also extends to obedience. Slaves were everywhere, in all walks of life, and at times their closeness must have bred contempt. The romans had a law that condemned all slaves in a household to death if one of them kills their master. Was that effective as a deterrent? Usually yes, but I notice such deaths occurred. In one case the remaining slaves were let off - a sign of humane behaviour? Or lack of will in applying the law? Or perhaps as a safeguard against arousing neighbouring slaves to revolt? The senate once debated the motion that all slaves should have some identifier, clothing or badge. This was defeated because as one senator pointed out, they would realsie just how many of them there were! Now that suggests to me a certain level of insecurity with the slaves in their midst.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Returning to the topic at hand...

 

We know that many families in Rome lived in small apartments with no kitchens. I'm wondering: did each apartment have its own heating source?

[Nephele]

Returning to the topic at hand...

 

We know that many families in Rome lived in small apartments with no kitchens. I'm wondering: did each apartment have its own heating source?

 

I have to dig out my sources, but it's my understanding that the insulae of ancient Rome didn't have heating sources at all, because of the possibility of fire breaking out. Which is why so many of the poorer classes had to go to street vendors for cooked meals, as they were unable to cook in their apartments (no stove, so no heat).

 

I'm pretty certain that hypocausts would not have been of practical use for heating the upper floors of the insulae.

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

The Romans don't talk about slave behaviour? What on earth are you reading these days, caldrail? Pick up some Plautus! No one who reads Plautus can continue to think the Romans regarded slaves as mere cattle.

Nope, not Plautus. For that, you may read Columella.