Slavery & Cato the Elder

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks, Sullafelix, for your post. Now that this discussion in no longer "completely unhinged from the documentary evidence", could a legate move this long digression on slavery to the Humanitas sub-folder so we can continue the conversation in its proper place?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve.

 

Let's take a little more documentary evidence to hinge from;here comes the third big Roman farming Manual's author (besides Columella and Cato himself):

This is Varro

Edited August 11, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

Agricultural manuals and the like are informative about one end of the continuum of slave experiences, but some slaves were clearly treated much better. In addition to evidence from the plays of Plautus, recall Pliny's letter where he said that the floorplan to his villa was designed "so I do not disturb my slaves while they are relaxing." I doubt many architects today take that much care for the sake of their clients' children, let alone the clients themselves.

 

With respect to Cato the Elder, recall also that Cato had not only freed many of his slaves, but also was married to the daughter (Salonia) of one of his freedmen. This Salonia was the great-grandmother of Cato Uticensis.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Do you remember?

QUOTE(M. Porcius Cato @ Nov 12 2006, 10:29 AM)

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.

ASCLEPIADES Jul 17 2007, 06:00 PM Nope, not Plautus. For that, you may read Columella

 

Agricultural manuals and the like are informative about one end of the continuum of slave experiences,

... which represents the vast majority of the slave population, surely in Italy and probably in most of the Roman World.

 

... but some slaves were clearly treated much better.

... as in any Gulag or Konzentrationslager; I'm not especially impressed by Schindler's game.

 

In addition to evidence from the plays of Plautus,

... the minority case. But, if Plautus is what you want:

 

"Pseudolus, Act. I, Sc. 2.

[ballio, a captious slave owner, is giving orders to his servants.]

Ballio: Get out, come, out with you, you rascals; kept at a loss, and bought at a loss. Not one of you dreams minding your business, or being a bit of use to me, unless I carry on thus! [He strikes his whip around on all of them.] Never did I see men more like asses than you! Why, your ribs are hardened with the stripes. If one flogs you, he hurts himself the most: [Aside.] Regular whipping posts are they all, and all they do is to pilfer, purloin, prig, plunder, drink, eat, and abscond! Oh! they look decent enough; but they're cheats in their conduct.

[Addressing the slaves again.] Now, unless you're all attention, unless you get that sloth and drowsiness out of your breasts and eyes, I'll have your sides so thoroughly marked with thongs that you'll outvie those Campanian coverlets in color, or a regular Alexandrian tapestry, purple-broidered all over with beasts. Yesterday I gave each of you his special job, but you're so worthless, neglectful, stubborn, that I must remind you with a good basting. So you think, I guess, you'll get the better of this whip and of me---by your stout hides! Zounds! But your hides won't prove harder than my good cowhide. [He flourishes it.] Look at this, please! Give heed to this! [He flogs one slave] Well ? Does it hurt ? . . . Now stand all of you here, you race born to be thrashed! Turn your ears this way! Give heed to what I say. You, fellow! that's got the pitcher, fetch the water. Take care the kettle's full instanter. You who's got the ax, look after chopping the wood.

Slave: But this ax's edge is blunted.

Ballio: Well; be it so! And so are you blunted with stripes, but is that any reason why you shouldn't work for me? I order that you clean up the house. You know your business; hurry indoors. [Exit first slave]. Now you [to another slave] smooth the couches. Clean the plate and put in proper order. Take care that when I'm back from the Forum I find things done---all swept, sprinkled, scoured, smoothed, cleaned and set in order. Today's my birthday. You should all set to and celebrate it. Take care---do you hear---to lay the salted bacon, the brawn, the collared neck, and the udder in water. I want to entertain some fine gentlemen in real style, to give the idea that I'm rich. Get indoors, and get these things ready, so there's no delay when the cook comes. I'm going to market to buy what fish is to be had. Boy, you go ahead [to a special valet], I've got to take care that no one cuts off my purse."

 

Humour has always had a sadistic touch.

 

...recall Pliny's letter where he said that the floorplan to his villa was designed "so I do not disturb my slaves while they are relaxing." I doubt many architects today take that much care for the sake of their clients' children, let alone the clients themselves.

Rich men had always take care of their pets. What about Vedius Pollio's lampreys? How many of nowadays aquaria could presume to give their pets cup-bearers or any other kind of slave as diner? (Cassius Dio, Book LIV, Ch. 23)

 

With respect to Cato the Elder, recall also that Cato had not only freed many of his slaves,

... manumission was done by Cato the Elder and any other Roman Patronus for business, not for their great heart. Freedmen were the basis of the clientela (and then, of power).

 

...but also was married to the daughter (Salonia) of one of his freedmen. This Salonia was the great-grandmother of Cato Uticensis.

Even with his "slave-friendly" attitude, Plutarch (Vita Cato, Ch24) found distasteful this petty sexual domestic scandal, the same as Cato's family. Besides ...

"Well then," said Cato, "I have found a suitable son-in‑law for you, unless indeed his age should be displeasing; in other ways no fault can be found with him, but he is a very old man."

I don't think neither Salonius nor Salonia had much to say about this obvious abuse.

At least in theory, Cato the Younger and related family could have had significant legal restrictions for their antecedents.

 

Cato, Columella, Varro... It's clear to me that these people were not sadistic killers like Himmler or Streicher, applying extermination by exhaustion; they were successful scholars and entrepeneurs that wrote some nice best-sellers for the myriad people that pretended to follow their examples. They were telling their readers the best way to economical success in farming business during Roman times.

 

The quid is not that some owners could have taken good care of their slaves; the quid is that they didn't have to.

You are right, Roman slavery was very complex... But ultimately, slaves were always Res, things, and in real life their owners could do with them as and whatever they pleased, being their imagination literally their only limit. That is under the legal status of today's pets in most countries and far beyond the most detrimental working conditions in today's world.

Edited August 12, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

You are right, Roman slavery was very complex... But ultimately, slaves were always Res, things, and in real life their owners could do with them as and whatever they pleased, being their imagination literally their only limit. That is under the legal status of today's pets in most countries and far beyond the most detrimental working conditions in today's world.

 

I agree that this is the right way to depict the legal status of slaves. Legally, slaves were treated as if they had no more rights than domestic animals. Indeed, today's animals enjoy greater legal protection than did Roman slaves, who could be beaten, raped, and tortured with impunity.

 

That said, the analogy does break down. Unlike slaves, domestic animals couldn't be "freed" from their state and thereupon enjoy the full legal rights of any human. The fact that a very large proportion of the Roman citizenship had been brought to Rome as slaves MUST say something about Roman attitudes toward slaves in general and at least their potential for enjoying full human rights. In fact, in this respect, Roman slaves were accommodated more freely than were freeborn foreigners, who could never be admitted into the citizen body without first passing through slavery.

[ASCLEPIADES]

That said, the analogy does break down. Unlike slaves, domestic animals couldn't be "freed" from their state and thereupon enjoy the full legal rights of any human.

Roman slaves were considered as animals, ruled as animals, traded as animals, treated as animals (OK, sometimes worse), studied as animals and even defended by animal defenders (vg, Plutarch). That said, the analogy does break down. Unlike modern domestic animals, the vast majority of Roman slaves never enjoyed any legal right.

The fact that a very large proportion of the Roman citizenship had been brought to Rome as slaves MUST say something about Roman attitudes toward slaves in general and at least their potential for enjoying full human rights. In fact, in this respect, Roman slaves were accommodated more freely than were freeborn foreigners, who could never be admitted into the citizen body without first passing through slavery.

Ergo, the delights of the slavery experience of millions during centuries were rewarded when the minority of survivors was freed for becoming exploited as half-free coloni and urban clients in the vast majority of cases (Chrysogonus and Pallas were clearly the exception, not the rule).

BTW, the Romans were far from being the sole manumitters of Antiquity; the peculiarity was that the Romans had several well-attested legal restrictions for freedmen.

I must admit your optimism is unbeatable.

It's like saying that the destruction of the second city of Hellas was a little price for the joy of being ruled by Rome.

Oh, wait... you have said that.

Edited August 15, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

Ergo, the delights of the slavery experience of millions during centuries were rewarded when the minority of survivors was freed for becoming exploited as half-free coloni and urban clients in the vast majority of cases (Chrysogonus and Pallas were clearly the exception, not the rule).

What a stunning misrepresentation of my view and dazzling evasion of my point!

 

First, as an historical matter, the number of freed slaves who became citizens was not a small number, but huge. (Recall Scipio's harangue to the citizen's assembly, I brought you all here in chains!) This frequency is germane because it demonstrates conclusively that the Romans did not literally think slaves to be animals. Treatment of slaves and animals was similar in some respects, but certainly not all.

 

As morally reprehensible as is slavery, its most horrific aspect may be that slave drivers really do know that they are dealing with human beings. Let's not whitewash slavery by pretending that the ancients were unaware that slaves were humans.

 

With respect to manumission, Romans certainly were not 'peculiar' in having legal restrictions for freedmen. The apeleutheroi and metics of ancient Greece faced many more legal restrictions than did freedmen in Rome, who (unlike the Greeks) could vote in the assembly. In fact, enlightened Greek rulers commented on the wisdom of the Roman practice of admitting freedmen as citizens and in opening the cursus honorum to their sons.

 

I must admit your optimism is unbeatable.

It's like saying that the destruction of the second city of Hellas was a little price for the joy of being ruled by Rome.

Oh, wait... you have said that.

No, I didn't say that. And my original claim--that by suppressing the rebellion of Corinth, Mummius saved Sparta and other cities of Greece from Corinthian aggression--isn't germane to this discussion, except as another example of your misrepresenting my views. You seem smart enough that you needn't distort my views to address them (but I could be wrong).

[caldrail]

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!

The treatment of slaves varied according to circumstance. Many were regarded as 'talking tools', just means to an end. Industrial and rural slaves were the worst treated overall, and conditions in mines and quarries did not endear themselves to long term survival. Nor did gladiatorial combat apart from those with talent for fighting. Yet some of these hard-worked slaves did have pride in their efforts - gladiators being the prime example, though it must be said the opportunity to become wealthy and succesful via their trade was well beyond that of most slaves.

 

Household slaves are a little different, since the personal interaction within the house and its family meant that relationships varied from little more than a 'tool' to something approaching a friend. A pater might take a shine to a comely female slave. He had the right to bed her at will, and if so tempted, I would expect in many cases he had a sort of relationship with her even if in private only. The other slaves might not be so friendly to her though, and its a fair bet the mans wife will have her revenge at every step. Kitchen slaves might easily take advantage of the good food being prepared, and educated slaves might find an easy living as tutors.

 

The reason that a slave would be tortured before his testimony was accepted in court was to ensure he wasn't lying. His owner may have ordered him to relate a certain tale and a slave would be duty bound to obey.

 

Much depends on the personality of the owner. Some romans were crueller and less inclined to humanitarian thoughts than others. It remains a fact though that manumission was popular, so much so that it became limited by law, although I accept some of this was the desire to appear a generous man both in life and death.

[ASCLEPIADES]

What a stunning misrepresentation of my view and dazzling evasion of my point!

First, as an historical matter, the number of freed slaves who became citizens was not a small number, but huge. (Recall Scipio's harangue to the citizen's assembly, I brought you all here in chains!) This frequency is germane because it demonstrates conclusively that the Romans did not literally think slaves to be animals. Treatment of slaves and animals was similar in some respects, but certainly not all.

If you check out, my point has always been that slaves were human treated in many ways as animals; that's where the analogy works and what I find interesting. If they were treated as animals because they were effectively animals, it would hardly had any interest (at least for me). If I gave you that idea , you would have been right to worried about my intelligence level. Believe me, that's a stunning misrepresentation.

I never said the freed slaves in Rome were few; I said they were minority (against the majority of Roman slaves who died unfree). What that frequency of freed slaves demonstrates is that the Romans had a lot of slaves to begin with, whatever they thought about them. And once again, that manumissions were good business; more clients for each patronus, more Salonius for each Cato. That is one of the reasons why the Roman goverment had to regulate manumissions.

As morally reprehensible as is slavery, its most horrific aspect may be that slave drivers really do know that they are dealing with human beings. Let's not whitewash slavery by pretending that the ancients were unaware that slaves were humans.

I'm certainly amazed if you ever think I'm trying to whitewash slavery.

And yes, you are getting now to the real point; slavery is morally reprehensible for us, not for the Romans (or BTW, for any other people of their time). Even rebel slaves from the Servile Wars were fighting to freed themselves, not to abolish slavery. Even them accepted slavery as a fact of life. This is certainly a huge difference between them and us that requires a good explanation. Any ideas?

With respect to manumission, Romans certainly were not 'peculiar' in having legal restrictions for freedmen. The apeleutheroi and metics of ancient Greece faced many more legal restrictions than did freedmen in Rome, who (unlike the Greeks) could vote in the assembly. In fact, enlightened Greek rulers commented on the wisdom of the Roman practice of admitting freedmen as citizens and in opening the cursus honorum to their sons.

Being slave legal status such a complex matter, Romans were not the only peculiar people about handling of slaves and freedmen; vg, any of the hundreds of Hellenic polis had its own peculiarities evolving through the centuries. For example, Cleisthenes incorporated some freedmen to the citizen body even from the VIth Century BC.(this was probably full citizenship).

A cpuple of Roman peculiarities: Augustus expressly prohibited freedmen from office-holding with his lex Malacitana. Even worse, while freedmen were allowed to vote just like other Roman citizens, they were almost always confined to the urban tribes and they were not eligible for equestrian rank no matter how wealthy they might be. This effectively, though not explicitly, prevented them from holding political office. I expect to not have avoided your point.

No, I didn't say that. And my original claim--that by suppressing the rebellion of Corinth, Mummius saved Sparta and other cities of Greece from Corinthian aggression--isn't germane to this discussion, except as another example of your misrepresenting my views.

Some of your original quotes are "Weep for Corinth if you'd like, but praise Mummius that the remaining glory of Greece was saved." and "...their success--expulsion of the Romans--would have removed Greece from Roman protection, and left it (at best) vulnerable to invasion from the very same enemies that Greece had always faced (including other Greeks!). "

And let's see my distorted view: "It's like saying that the destruction of the second city of Hellas was a little price for the joy of being ruled by Rome." Certainly, the original statements spoke loudly.

I think it was germane to this discussion as another example of what I called "unbeatable optimism"; I think you almost always try to see first (if not exclusively) the bright moral side of any Roman Republic's action, even when we talk about slavery or polis anihilation. It's not like if I thought that you have to made an appology for that. It's simply your opinion. It's certainly not mine, and I also expect not to be required to apologize for that.

BTW, I don't think it's useful for the analysis of social phenomena to make any kind of moral qualifications about them..

You seem smart enough that you needn't distort my views to address them (but I could be wrong).

Maybe. Well, let's try to live up to the expectations..

Edited August 15, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

What that frequency of freed slaves demonstrates is that the Romans had a lot of slaves to begin with, whatever they thought about them. And once again, that manumissions were good business; more clients for each patronus, more Salonius for each Cato. That is one of the reasons why the Roman goverment had to regulate manumissions.[...]

 

Even rebel slaves from the Servile Wars were fighting to freed themselves, not to abolish slavery. Even the[y] accepted slavery as a fact of life. This is certainly a huge difference between them and us that requires a good explanation. Any ideas?

 

These are two excellent observations--one about the prevalence of slavery and the second about the apparently universal acceptance of slavery as an institution. I wonder if they're connected?

 

Here's my working theory. First, it appears that the rise and fall of slavery is tightly connected with its profitability, which is tied to the appearance and disappearance of particular labor conditions. Chiefly, the situation is one where the availability of potentially profitable land is much greater than the availability of free (non-slave) labor--a situation which leads to a demand for labor that can't be met by free economic agents. Such a condition clearly existed, for example, in the New World: after the indigenous inhabitants had been wiped out by European diseases (etc) and when land capable of producing cash-crops was almost free for the taking, the importation of slaves was practiced widely. As immigration to the New World also increased dramatically (particularly in the northeast US), slavery itself became more rare and opposition to the institution grew (again, particularly in the northeast US). A similar change in conditions also appeared in Italy as the population plummeted during the middle republic, new lands were acquired, and prisoners of war were increasingly kept as slaves rather than executed or ransomed. As these conditions changed, the profitability of slavery declined, manumissions increased, and as the demand for land grew greater than the demand for labor, the institution of slavery died out.

 

If the foregoing analysis is right and slavers recognize that slaves are not animals (even if they are treated that way), then slavers will have to rationalize the situation somehow. In the pre-industrial world, rationalizations for slavery were chiefly racial (see esp Jefferson on this). In the ancient world, slavery was seen as part of a larger natural order (see Aristotle), one in which the vanquished lost their natural rights.

 

That's my working theory, one that should apply to all societies--ancient and modern, Greek and barbarian alike. Differences between slave-holding societies certainly exist, but I expect them to largely rest in how different societies rationalize slavery (which has consequences for how slaves are treated once freed).

 

(BTW, let's return the conversation about Corinth to the thread about Mummius.)

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve.

 

These are the introductory words of Dr Simon Corcoran to his course about Slavery in the Classical World at University College London:

"Slavery is a feature common to most ancient societies, being in general a normal, unexceptional and unchallenged institution. In the modern world, however, it is regarded as contravening the most basic concepts of human rights, and attempts continue to be made to eliminate it, where it survives, and to address its legacy, even where it has been abolished".

 

Your observation about the relationship of prevalence and acceptance of slavery is relevant; the main problem I see with your working theory is that other societies with few slaves had apparently also a high acceptance. Within the Empire, Egypt would be an example.

 

It's striking for me that even those who wrote on the moral issues of slavery, such as Plutarch, Cicero and Seneca, did not claim that the institution should be abolished. Instead, they merely commented on the proper way to treat slaves. You could say the same about diverse religions, and not only Christianity; mithraism, stoicism and the cult of Isis were also examples.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes, I freely grant that slavery was universally accepted--not only in the ancient world, but right up until the English abolitionists of the 19th century.

 

The question I want to address is: Why did anyone practice slavery at all? Aside from any moral issues, where was the profit in it? It shouldn't be obvious that slavery is economically viable--in many, many cases it most patently is not. The costs include guarding slaves, feeding them, sheltering them, clothing them, training them, finding them when they run away, rearing or disposing of any of their progeny--why anyone would want a slave is beyond me: it's sounds worse than having a teenager! No wonder that slaves today go for only $40. It's amazing to me that anyone would pay anything at all.

 

Now, if you have a huge farm and no one is around who can work it, then it might be profitable to pay the costs of owning a slave. And if you can really get your slave-run farm humming along, then you might even pick up a few extra slaves to tend house too. But barring this situation, it simply doesn't pay to keep slaves--however much philosophers (or mother-in-laws) do or don't approve of slavery.

[ASCLEPIADES]

No wonder that slaves today go for only $40. It's amazing to me that anyone would pay anything at all.

Nice link. The article talks about African countries, especially Sahel countries, all of them extremely poor. One of them (Niger) is currently the last on the United Nations Development Fund index of human development (ie, the poorest country in the world) (Here). Contrary to the US, in those countries $40 is a little fortune.

 

Here is another related link of amodern anti-slavery movement. Their work is extremely important for the prevention and control of human abuse and trafficking, especially sexual trade affecting children and women, frequently disguised as pseudo-cultural local manifestations. Maybe you remember in the US a more conventional non-sexual episode of working abuse over some Mexican illegal deaf-mute immigrants in 1997 (Here).

The labour of these groups merits more diffusion and international support.

 

But we must remember that these nowadays criminal activities are classified as slavery using a very broad sociological definition; most of them wouldn't be considered as such by the much more stringent ancient Roman law. In fact, in Ancient Rome their condition would be closer to the supposedly free coloni ("serfs" in medieval slang).

[ASCLEPIADES]

The question I want to address is: Why did anyone practice slavery at all? Aside from any moral issues, where was the profit in it? It shouldn't be obvious that slavery is economically viable--in many, many cases it most patently is not.

This is a very good question that had troubled scholars for decades. I can only give you a short answer now and here, but it will probably require more commentary.

Finley made the quite cleaver remark that the slave-owners of XVIIth Century Haiti, a tiny colony which produced more than 25% of the income of Le Roi Soleil, would have been surprised by the XXth Century economist assertion that they should have been loosing money.

Slave trade has been one of the main forces of Capitalism development and as such, its abolition had commonly required the use of plenty of force. Immediately before the Civil War in the US, less than 25% of the population of the Confederate states were slaves; but that was enough reason for fighting four years with more than half a million casualties.

In modern terms, your addressed question is something like asking: "Is the drug trade profitable at all?".

At Augustean Rome, MT Varro was very well aware of the hidden costs of slaves and gave his own advice about when to use slaves or freemen in specific situations:

 

(Rerum Rusticarum Book I, Chapter XVII, sec. 73-74):

"The freemen who cultivate the land do so either on their own account, as do many poor people with the aid of their own children, or for wages, as when the heaviest farm operations, like the vintage and the harvest, are accomplished with the aid of hired freemen: ...With respect to the use of freemen in agriculture, my own opinion is that it is more profitable to use hired hands than one's own slaves in cultivating unhealthy lands, and, even where the country is salubrious, they are to be preferred for the heaviest kind of farm work, such as harvesting and storing grapes and corn."

 

Having said that, slave trade was, like any other trade, ruled by the old market laws of supply and demand. The huge supply at the end of the Republican era made slave labour extremely cheap and profitable, and was surely one of the main mechanisms for the success of the Empire. As far as I know, a mixture of low supply and high demand is probably the best and more parsimonious explanation for the end of massive chattel slavery at the Late Empire and its substitution by coloni/serf labour.

Edited August 16, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[sullafelix]

(Rerum Rusticarum Book I, Chapter XVII, sec. 73-74):

"The freemen who cultivate the land do so either on their own account, as do many poor people with the aid of their own children, or for wages, as when the heaviest farm operations, like the vintage and the harvest, are accomplished with the aid of hired freemen: ...With respect to the use of freemen in agriculture, my own opinion is that it is more profitable to use hired hands than one's own slaves in cultivating unhealthy lands, and, even where the country is salubrious, they are to be preferred for the heaviest kind of farm work, such as harvesting and storing grapes and corn."

 

Having said that, slave trade was, like any other trade, ruled by the old market laws of supply and demand. The huge supply at the end of the Republican era made slave labour extremely cheap and profitable, and was surely one of the main mechanisms for the success of the Empire. As far as I know, a mixture of low supply and high demand is probably the best and more parsimonious explanation for the end of massive chattel slavery at the Late Empire and its substitution by coloni/serf labour.

 

Very true, another big player in the slavery of Ancient Rome was the impact of military service. The military levy required large quantities of men, this removed them from society and the economy. As many as 25% of the male population between the ages of 17 and 30 were in the army on campaign at any time. This meant that for large landowners ( the ancient world was an overwhelmingly agricultural economy) free labour always carried with it the risk of losing men to the draft. Slaves were not drafted. Men were willing to go into the army for the spoils of war during the Republic and the early part of the Imperial period. However, as time wore on, and especially after the Third Century Anarchy (a period of some fifty years and utter turmoil) men became less willing to join up as the length of service grew and the opportunities for getting rich dwindled. In fact at this point serfdom started to take hold as people looked to local landowners to protect them from military service. It also has to be remembered that the majority of slaves were male. This means in practice that whereas a free man may have a large family to support a slave did not and this did help to make them cheaper. A lot of our assumptions about the economic viability of slave labour have been based on erroneous assumptions about the high cost of slaves. I would dispute that most unskilled manual slave labour was expensive. I would say more but I have yet to publish this...when I do I will provide full backing for my argument (don't hold your breath though - we tweed wearers are notoriously slow!)

 

SF