Torture and Slaves in Courts of Law

[Nephele]

Yes, I think that last point is quite clear. I only wanted to point out originally that that came across much clearer in the Dutch than in the English translation. But let's forget about it. I promise I won't nit pick anymore.

By the way : I didn't know you had the word '' merciless '' in Hebrew.

 

F

 

You nit picking again of course the word "merciless" doesn't exist in Hebrew but if I would write "חסרי רחמים" which is it's Hebrew equivalent nobody on this board would understand.

 

My childhood Hebrew is poor, but I certainly recognize "rachamim" ("mercy, compassion") in that second word (right to left).

 

-- Nephele

[Kosmo]

In the Late Empire not only slaves but anyone who did not had 50 gold coins had his testimony taken under torture.

[Formosus Viriustus]

Well, we could go back to Tacitus to find some examples of this evidence you requested.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a02030.htm

When the accused denied this, it was decided that his slaves who recognised the writing should be examined by torture. (2.30)

 

-- Nephele

 

"Caesarum aut senatorum additas atrocis vel occultas notas accusator arguebat. negante reo adgnoscentis servos per tormenta interrogari placuit. et quia vetere senatus consulto quaestio in caput domini prohibebatur, callidus et novi iuris repertor Tiberius mancipari singulos actori publico iubet, scilicet ut in Libonem ex servis salvo senatus consulto quaereretur."

 

"When the accused denied this, it was decided that his slaves who recognised the writing should be examined by torture. As an ancient statute of the Senate forbade such inquiry in a case affecting a master's life, Tiberius, with his cleverness in devising new law, ordered Libo's slaves to be sold singly to the State-agent, so that, forsooth, without an infringement of the Senate's decree, Libo might be tried on their evidence."

 

Tacitus, Annals, II, 30,3

 

Well this certainly proves that the ability to make the law say whatever one wants it to say, is not a recent acquirement.

This, in my view makes 'what the law said', pretty irrelevant : Tiberius could have anyone tortured whom he wanted to be tortured. And so could the Senate, unless the Princeps objected, I suspect : if the law stood in their way, they simply changed it. I don't think this was a unique incident. I rather have the impression that the Romans were pretty adept at making impromptu changes to the laws, in order to suit specific cases.

 

But alas, I must say that again I find a discrepancy between the English and the Dutch translations.

And this time I think the difference is quite significant.

 

Here's what it says in Dutch.

 

''... bevel de slaven stuk voor stuk van overheidswege vrij te kopen ...''

 

Edited June 1, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Nephele]

But I'm beginning to suspect that one's views on the subject might, at least to some degree, be influenced by the translations one reads. (To the slaves or ex-slaves in question, it would have made no difference, of course.)

 

Yes, either way, it went badly for the slaves -- regardless of whether they were compulsorily sold to the State so that they could be tortured into denouncing their former masters, or whether they were made freedmen for the specific purpose of having their testimony tortured out of them. And, by the time of the Empire, freedmen were being legally tortured.

 

I wasn't aware of what Kosmo wrote above: "In the Late Empire not only slaves but anyone who did not have 50 gold coins had his testimony taken under torture." I'm pretty certain, though, that during the time of the Republic no Roman citizen could be legally tortured. One sees how the civil rights that came with highly coveted Roman citizenship were chipped away after the fall of the Republic.

 

-- Nephele

[Formosus Viriustus]

Yet another passage from Tacitus' Annals, book III, 23, 2 dealing with the trial of Aemilia Lepida.

 

This one really leaves no doubt whatsoever.

 

''Then, by the torture of the slaves, her infamies were brought to light, and a motion of Rubellius Blandus was carried which outlawed her. Drusus supported him, though others had proposed a milder sentence. Subsequently, Scaurus, who had had daughter by her, obtained as a concession that her property should not be confiscated. Then at last Tiberius declared that he had himself too ascertained from the slaves of Publius Quirinus that Lepida had attempted their master's life by poison.''

 

I think that from this and the other passages from the same book, it can safely be concluded that the torture of slaves was indeed pretty common in high profile court cases at the time. The matter of fact way in which it is stated here makes it even clearer.

(And this time no discrepancies between the English and the Dutch translations )

 

I must say that I've never found Tacitus the easiest of authors to read. He gives a lot of information but he is sometimes quite ambiguous and hard to understand. I'm beginning to suspect that has more to do with the kind of Latin he wrote than with the abilities of his translators.

 

Now, my next question is : 'How much better were freedmen and 'capite censi' protected by the law in reality ?'

Amongst a company of just slaves, freedmen and freedwomen and lowly free citizens, their respective legal status would have made all the difference in the world to them. I'm sure that in his heart, even the poorest free citizen felt himself to be far superior to even the best off slave, but I have the impression that the ruling senatorial class in practice didn't make all that much distinction between these people. If you walk amongst a crowd you can easily see who are the taller and who are the shorter people. But looking down from a tower everybody looks equally small.

 

As Kosmo remarked earlier, it probably wasn't a good idea for a lowly free citizen, living with his family of eight or ten in a single room in a cheap insula or so, to offend one of the more prominent slaves of the imperial household or of a senator. The slave himself and his master were likely to take that as a personal insult and I doubt that his free citizenship would have been all that much use to the culprit if the other party decided to take things seriously. His free status might have made it less likely that he could be subjected to torture, but for the rest, I wouldn't give that man much chance of getting away with it.

 

Formosus

[Formosus Viriustus]

Yet another curious passage from Tacitus' Annals, concerning slaves. Annals, III, 36, 1

 

 

''Next was exposed an abuse, hitherto the subject of many a whispered complaint. The vilest wretches used a growing freedom in exciting insult and obloquy against respectable citizens, and escaped punishment by clasping some statue of the emperor. The very freedman or slave was often an actual terror to his patron or master whom he would menace by word and gesture.''

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a03030.htm

 

Can I conclude that at least Tacitus paints a very confusing and contradictory picture of slaves ? On the one hand they could be tortured just for being witnesses in a court case, on the other hand they were able to terrorize their masters witn impunity ?

 

Formosus

[Formosus Viriustus]

This discussion seems to be split up a bit between this thread and the 'master

Edited June 8, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Formosus Viriustus]

About the application of laws, the counterproductive effect of introducing new legislation when the existing laws are clearly not being applied and are disregarded by the population, see once more Tacitus : Tiberius' letter to the Senate on the proposal of new laws against excessive displays of luxury.

 

''Of the many laws devised by our ancestors, of the many passed by the Divine Augustus, the first have been forgotten, while his (all the more to our disgrace) have become obsolete through contempt, and this has made luxury bolder than ever. The truth is, that when one craves something not yet forbidden, there is a fear that it may be forbidden; but when people once transgress prohibitions with impunity, there is no longer any fear or any shame.''

Tacitus - Annals III, 53

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a03050.htm

 

Formosus