slave-master relations in Rome

[sylla]

If we are judging from the moral point of view of modernity we can issue a general condemnation of slavery. If we are trying to understand the past (and the present) then we must look at that almost infinite diversity of this social issue.

Actually, at the beginning slavery was the moral option for the war captives; the alternative was anihilation.

 

Even so, when you look closely, you can almost always find some kind of social awareness from the masters about the moral complexity of slavery; this was especially confusing for the Romans, given the relatively high expectation for the average slave of being freed some day. It was an eternal nightmare for the Roman legislators.

 

Where you can find an universal agreement is in the moral condemnation of the own slavery; no population was ever proud of being slaves.

 

Even if it usually had the upper hand, the Roman army was in no way invincible; unsurprisingly, Roman captives were regularly enslaved by their enemies if they didn't get a ransom first; as it may have been expected, the enslavement of Roman citizens was particularly prevalent across the first and second Punic Wars.

 

We certainly live in an atypical era; slavery was still an almost universal option two centuries ago.

The change was not physiological; our ancestors were not born to be slaves.

The change was cultural, and it's easy to forget that it was not spontaneous or gratuitous; or that no social phenomenom has ever caused so much pain and suffering to so many of our ancestors.

 

It

Edited May 19, 2009 by sylla

[Aurelia]

Ludovicus,

 

I found an interesting link that deals with the status of slave women in ancient Rome and, I think, addresses your question. Don't know how reliable it is though.

[caldrail]

The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.

[Ludovicus]

The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.

 

 

Yes, this is interesting, answers my questions. "The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point." Slavery in the US and in much of the Western Hemisphere was founded on race. This is a major difference from the Roman institution. Thanks for your response to my questions!

[sylla]

The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.

 

 

Yes, this is interesting, answers my questions. "The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point." Slavery in the US and in much of the Western Hemisphere was founded on race. This is a major difference from the Roman institution. Thanks for your response to my questions!

Veyne was misquoted out of context above: the actual phrase (pg. 52) is "Today's closest psychological analogy to ancient slavery is racism".

Some lines below, Veyne adds "Their ethnic origin was of no significance".

As a whole, this chapter is a nice introduction to our topic.

 

At least for the first couple of centuries, Western Hemisphere's slaveowners had obvious physical traits that allowed an easy visual disticntion between slaves and non-slaves in their geographical context.

The Romans and their neighbors never had such advantage; Verres could explain the crucifixion of some Roman citizens by pretending that he believed they were runaway slaves.

Edited May 20, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

I came across this episode from Tacitus Annals II 39 & 40

 

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.2.ii.html

 

That same year the daring of a single slave, had it not been promptly checked, would have ruined the State by discord and civil war. A servant of Postumus Agrippa, Clemens by name, having ascertained that Augustus was dead, formed a design beyond a slave's conception, of going to the island of Planasia and seizing Agrippa by craft or force and bringing him to the armies of Germany. The slowness of a merchant vessel thwarted his bold venture. Meanwhile the murder of Agrippa had been perpetrated, and then turning his thoughts to a greater and more hazardous enterprise, he stole the ashes of the deceased, sailed to Cosa, a promontory of Etruria, and there hid himself in obscure places till his hair and beard were long. In age and figure he was not unlike his master. Then through suitable emissaries who shared his secret, it was rumoured that Agrippa was alive, first in whispered gossip, soon, as is usual with forbidden topics, in vague talk which found its way to the credulous ears of the most ignorant people or of restless and revolutionary schemers. He himself went to the towns, as the day grew dark, without letting himself be seen publicly or remaining long in the same places, but, as he knew that truth gains strength by notoriety and time, falsehood by precipitancy and vagueness, he would either withdraw himself from publicity or else forestall it.

 

It was rumoured meanwhile throughout Italy, and was believed at Rome, that Agrippa had been saved by the blessing of Heaven. Already at Ostia, where he had arrived, he was the centre of interest to a vast concourse as well as to secret gatherings in the capital, while Tiberius was distracted by the doubt whether he should crush this slave of his by military force or allow time to dissipate a silly credulity. Sometimes he thought that he must overlook nothing, sometimes that he need not be afraid of everything, his mind fluctuating between shame and terror. At last he entrusted the affair to Sallustius Crispus, who chose two of his dependants (some say they were soldiers) and urged them to go to him as pretended accomplices, offering money and promising faithful companionship in danger. They did as they were bidden; then, waiting for an unguarded hour of night, they took with them a sufficient force, and having bound and gagged him, dragged him to the palace. When Tiberius asked him how he had become Agrippa, he is said to have replied, "As you became Caesar." He could not be forced to divulge his accomplices. Tiberius did not venture on a public execution, but ordered him to be slain in a private part of the palace and his body to be secretly removed. And although many of the emperor's household and knights and senators were said to have supported him with their wealth and helped him with their counsels, no inquiry was made.

 

 

Formosus

[Formosus Viriustus]

Here's what I wrote in the Crucifixion thread a few days ago ( May, 16th ).

 

'' I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. Children who were told to do what they were told to do, or else ... ''

 

Maybe this sheds some more light on the question :

 

NAMES OF SLAVES - Officially slaves did not have their own names; but used their owner's praenomen with the suffix "por" from "puer" or boy. For example, Gallipor, adopted from owner's praenomen of Gallio, Cassipor / Cassius, Flavipor / Flavius, Marcipor / Marcus, etc. Later it became fashionable to give them Greek names, often followed by a form of the owner's name. A freed slave generally assumed his former master's praenomen and nomen, with his original or personal name as a cognomen, but some chose their own praenomen.

http://www.legionxxiv.org/nomens/

Formosus

Edited May 20, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Nephele]

Here's what I wrote in the Crucifixion thread a few days ago ( May, 16th ).

 

'' I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. Children who were told to do what they were told to do, or else ... ''

 

Maybe this sheds some more light on the question :

 

NAMES OF SLAVES - Officially slaves did not have their own names; but used their owner's praenomen with the suffix "por" from "puer" or boy. For example, Gallipor, adopted from owner's praenomen of Gallio, Cassipor / Cassius, Flavipor / Flavius, Marcipor / Marcus, etc. Later it became fashionable to give them Greek names, often followed by a form of the owner's name. A freed slave generally assumed his former master's praenomen and nomen, with his original or personal name as a cognomen, but some chose their own praenomen.

http://www.legionxxiv.org/nomens/

Formosus

 

A good point, Formosus.

 

Additionally, the Romans also gave their slaves names such as Avitus ("Grandfatherly") and Paternus ("Fatherly"), perhaps in a condescending manner much like the "Uncles" and "Mammies" of America's antebellum South. (And there I go, drawing a despised parallel between ancient Rome and latter-day America. Live with it, y'all. )

 

An exposed child rescued and brought up as a slave might be named (perhaps in an affectionate way) Inventus (meaning "discovered").

 

Pejorative cognomina were not found among freedmen as much as among their former masters. The noblest Roman was proud of his name indicating his lisp, or baldness, or bow-leggedness -- whether he actually bore those attributes or not. Slaves, on the other hand -- particularly decorative house slaves -- were more often given attractive names.

 

-- Nephele

[Ludovicus]

Here's what I wrote in the Crucifixion thread a few days ago ( May, 16th ).

 

'' I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. Children who were told to do what they were told to do, or else ... ''

 

Maybe this sheds some more light on the question :

 

NAMES OF SLAVES - Officially slaves did not have their own names; but used their owner's praenomen with the suffix "por" from "puer" or boy. For example, Gallipor, adopted from owner's praenomen of Gallio, Cassipor / Cassius, Flavipor / Flavius, Marcipor / Marcus, etc. Later it became fashionable to give them Greek names, often followed by a form of the owner's name. A freed slave generally assumed his former master's praenomen and nomen, with his original or personal name as a cognomen, but some chose their own praenomen.

http://www.legionxxiv.org/nomens/

Formosus

 

 

Extremely interesting! And "por" for "puer." And I thought I knew a thing about Roman cultural history. "What else don't I know?" I ask myself in my bathroom mirror.

[sylla]

Here's what I wrote in the Crucifixion thread a few days ago ( May, 16th ).

 

'' I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. Children who were told to do what they were told to do, or else ... ''

 

Maybe this sheds some more light on the question :

 

NAMES OF SLAVES - Officially slaves did not have their own names; but used their owner's praenomen with the suffix "por" from "puer" or boy. For example, Gallipor, adopted from owner's praenomen of Gallio, Cassipor / Cassius, Flavipor / Flavius, Marcipor / Marcus, etc. Later it became fashionable to give them Greek names, often followed by a form of the owner's name. A freed slave generally assumed his former master's praenomen and nomen, with his original or personal name as a cognomen, but some chose their own praenomen.

http://www.legionxxiv.org/nomens/

Formosus

 

A good point, Formosus.

 

Additionally, the Romans also gave their slaves names such as Avitus ("Grandfatherly") and Paternus ("Fatherly"), perhaps in a condescending manner much like the "Uncles" and "Mammies" of America's antebellum South. (And there I go, drawing a despised parallel between ancient Rome and latter-day America. Live with it, y'all. )

 

An exposed child rescued and brought up as a slave might be named (perhaps in an affectionate way) Inventus (meaning "discovered").

 

Pejorative cognomina were not found among freedmen as much as among their former masters. The noblest Roman was proud of his name indicating his lisp, or baldness, or bow-leggedness -- whether he actually bore those attributes or not. Slaves, on the other hand -- particularly decorative house slaves -- were more often given attractive names.

 

-- Nephele

We better hold our horses for a moment.

It's an unsourced statement from a reenactment group.

Does anyone know a primary source for this?

Edited May 20, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.

 

 

Yes, this is interesting, answers my questions. "The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point." Slavery in the US and in much of the Western Hemisphere was founded on race. This is a major difference from the Roman institution. Thanks for your response to my questions!

Veyne was misquoted out of context above: the actual phrase (pg. 52) is "Today's closest psychological analogy to ancient slavery is racism".

No, it wasn't out of context. You've merely repeated my point.

[Nephele]

Here's what I wrote in the Crucifixion thread a few days ago ( May, 16th ).

 

'' I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. Children who were told to do what they were told to do, or else ... ''

 

Maybe this sheds some more light on the question :

 

NAMES OF SLAVES - Officially slaves did not have their own names; but used their owner's praenomen with the suffix "por" from "puer" or boy. For example, Gallipor, adopted from owner's praenomen of Gallio, Cassipor / Cassius, Flavipor / Flavius, Marcipor / Marcus, etc. Later it became fashionable to give them Greek names, often followed by a form of the owner's name. A freed slave generally assumed his former master's praenomen and nomen, with his original or personal name as a cognomen, but some chose their own praenomen.

http://www.legionxxiv.org/nomens/

Formosus

 

A good point, Formosus.

 

Additionally, the Romans also gave their slaves names such as Avitus ("Grandfatherly") and Paternus ("Fatherly"), perhaps in a condescending manner much like the "Uncles" and "Mammies" of America's antebellum South. (And there I go, drawing a despised parallel between ancient Rome and latter-day America. Live with it, y'all. )

 

An exposed child rescued and brought up as a slave might be named (perhaps in an affectionate way) Inventus (meaning "discovered").

 

Pejorative cognomina were not found among freedmen as much as among their former masters. The noblest Roman was proud of his name indicating his lisp, or baldness, or bow-leggedness -- whether he actually bore those attributes or not. Slaves, on the other hand -- particularly decorative house slaves -- were more often given attractive names.

 

-- Nephele

We better hold our horses for a moment.

It's an unsourced statement from a reenactment group.

Does anyone know a primary source for this?

 

 

I can cite several scholarly sources for the information I provided here regarding slave names in ancient Rome, one of which being Iiro Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina.

 

Examples of the "-por" ending on Roman slave names can be found in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. The custom of calling slaves "Marpor" or "Marcipor" (from Marcus), "Gaipor" (from Gaius), "Naepor" (from Gnaeus), "Olipor" (from Aulus), "Publipor" (from Publius), and so on, pretty much died out by the end of the Republic.

 

-- Nephele

[sylla]

I can cite several scholarly sources for the information I provided here regarding slave names in ancient Rome, one of which being Iiro Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina.

 

Examples of the "-por" ending on Roman slave names can be found in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. The custom of calling slaves "Marpor" or "Marcipor" (from Marcus), "Gaipor" (from Gaius), "Naepor" (from Gnaeus), "Olipor" (from Aulus), "Publipor" (from Publius), and so on, pretty much died out by the end of the Republic.

 

-- Nephele

Thanks, Nephele.

The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity by WL Westermann also mentioned it, even if briefly (ie, CIL VI, 30914 for "Gaipor" & 9430 for "Naepor").

Edited May 20, 2009 by sylla

[Klingan]

I'm afraid that I have fallen behind in the discussion the last two days and will not be able to re-read it all. Sylla would you still like my WWII argument in a Pm?

[sylla]

I'm afraid that I have fallen behind in the discussion the last two days and will not be able to re-read it all. Sylla would you still like my WWII argument in a Pm?

Of course, my horse.