SERVUS
SERVUS
1. Greek.
The Greek
δοῦλος, like the Latin
servus, corresponds to the usual
meaning of our word “slave.” Slavery existed almost
throughout the whole of Greece; and Aristotle (
Aristot. Pol. 1.3=p. 1253 b, 4)
says that a complete household is that which consists of slaves and
freemen (
οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκ δούλων καὶ
ἐλευθέρων), and he defines a slave to be a living
instrument, a living chattel (
ὁ δοῦλος ἔμψυχον
ὄργανον,
Eth. Nic. 8.13=p. 1161 b, 4;
ὁ
δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον,
Pol. 1.4=p. 1253 b, 32). None of the Greek
philosophers ever seem to have objected to slavery as a thing morally
wrong: Plato in his perfect State only desires that no Greeks should be
made slaves by Greeks (
de Rep. v. p. 469 C), and
Aristotle defends the justice of the institution on the ground of a
diversity of race, and divides mankind into the free (
ἐλεύθεροι) and those who are slaves by
nature (
οἱ θύσει δοῦλοι): under the
latter description he appears to have regarded all barbarians in the
Greek sense of the word, and therefore considers their slavery
justifiable.
There was a tradition that in the most ancient times there had been no
domestic slaves in Greece, but that the women in all ranks did the
house-work themselves (
Hdt. 6.137;
Pherecrat. ap. Ath. vi. p. 263 b=
fr. 5, M.). We
find them, however, in the Homeric poems, our earliest evidence for
social conditions in Greece: usually prisoners taken in war (
δοριάλωτοι), but also kidnapped, and freely
bought and sold (
Od. 15.483). They
were, however, at that time mostly confined to the houses of the
wealthy. As on the one hand there were then none of the scruples of
later times about enslaving Greeks, so on the other the condition of
slavery brought no disgrace with it. The fortune of war levelled all
distinctions; men and women of good and even princely birth accepted
slavery as part of the chances of life; there are indications, however,
as Prof. Mahaffy has pointed out, that such a well-born slave might be
treated as “socially his master's equal . . . a member of the same
caste society” (
Social Life in Greece, ed. 3,
p. 57). Eumaeus the swineherd and Eurycleia the nurse of Ulysses, with
their loyal adhesion to the cause of their absent master, are among the
most charming figures in the Odyssey; at the same time they enjoy, as
confidential upper servants, all the comforts of life: the inevitable
dark side of the institution is shown in the fate of Melanthius and the
erring handmaids (
Od. 22.433-
477).
Predial slavery does not seem to have existed in the Homeric age; the
θὴς was in all probability a free
man, though a poor and despised one (
HELOTES Vol. I. p. 940
a;
THETES). But not long
afterwards we find serfs
ascripti glebae,
mostly, as in mediaeval times, the result of conquest and migration.
Such were the Helots of Sparta [
HELOTES], the Penestae of Thessaly [
PENESTAE], the Aphamiotae or Clarotae of Crete
(Callistr. ap.
Ath. 6.263 f;
COSMI). To these may be added,
although they are little more than names to us, the Bithynians at
Byzantium (Phylarch. ap.
Ath. 6.271 b;
called
προύνικοι, Poll. 7.132), the
Mariandyni at Heraclea in Pontus (Posidon. ap.
Ath.
6.263 d;
Strabo xii.
p.542), and the Cyllyrii at Syracuse (
Κυλλύριοι,
Hdt. 7.155;
Καλλικύριοι, Suid. s.v. Zenob.
Cent.
4.54;
Κιλλικύριοι, Phot. s. v.).
Domestic slaves acquired by purchase (
ἀργυρώνητοι or
χρυσώνητοι, cf. Isocr.
Plataic. §
18; Callistr. ap.
Ath. 6.263 e) were
entirely the property of their masters, and could be disposed of like
any other goods and chattels: these were the
δοῦλοι properly so called, and were the kind of slaves
that existed at Athens and Corinth. In commercial cities slaves were
very numerous, as they performed the work of the artisans and
manufacturers of modern towns. In poorer republics which had little or
no capital, and which subsisted wholly by agriculture, they would be
few: thus in Phocis and Locris there are said to have been originally no
domestic slaves. (Timae. ap. Ath. vi. p. 264 c; Clinton,
F.
H. vol. ii. pp. 411, 412.) The majority of slaves were
purchased; few comparatively were born in the family of the master,
partly because the number of female slaves was very small in comparison
with the male, and partly because the cohabitation of slaves was
discouraged, as it was considered cheaper to purchase than to rear
slaves. A slave born in the house of a master was called
οἰκότριψ, in contradistinction to one
purchased, who was called
οἰκέτης.
([Dem.]
de Synt. p. 173.24; Ammon. and Suid. s. v.) If
both the father and mother were slaves, the offspring was called
ἀμφίδουλος (Eustath.
ad
Od. 2.290): if the parents were
οἰκότριβες, the offspring was called
οἰκοτρίβαιος (Pollux, 3.76).
It was a recognised rule of Greek national law that the persons of those
who were taken prisoners in war became the property of the conqueror
(
Xen. Cyr. 7.5,
§ 73), but it was the practice for Greeks to give liberty to
those of their own nation on payment of a ransom. Consequently almost
all slaves in Greece, with the exception of the serfs above mentioned,
were barbarians. It appears to follow from a passage in Theopompus (ap.
Ath. vi. p. 265 b) that the Chians were the first who carried on the
slave trade; and there the slaves were more numerous in comparison with
the free inhabitants than in any other place except Sparta (
Thuc. 8.40). In the early ages of Greece, a
great number of slaves was obtained by pirates, who kidnapped persons on
the coasts, but the chief supply seems to have come from the Greek
colonies in Asia Minor, who had
[p. 2.657]abundant
opportunities of obtaining them from their own neighbourhood and the
interior of Asia. A considerable number of slaves also came from Thrace,
where the parents frequently sold their children (
Hdt. 5.6).
At Athens, as well as in other states, there was a regular slave market,
called the
κύκλος (Harpocrat. s. v.),
because the slaves stood round in a circle. They were also sometimes
sold by auction, and appear then to have been placed on a stone called
the
πρατὴρ λίθος (Pollux, 3.78): the
same was also the practice in Rome, whence the phrase
homo de lapide emptus. [
AUCTIO] The slave market at Athens seems to have
been held on certain fixed days, usually the first day of the month
(
νουμηνία,
Aristoph. Kn. 43, with Schol.). The
price of slaves naturally differed according to their age, strength, and
acquirements. “Some slaves,” says Xenophon (
Xen. Mem. 2.5.2), “are well worth
two minas, others hardly half a mina; some sell for five minas and
others even for ten; and Nicias the son of Niceratus is said to have
given no less than a talent for an overseer in the mines.”
Boeckh (
P. E. p. 67 ff.=
Sthh3 1.85 ff.) has collected many particulars respecting the
price of slaves; he calculates the value of a common mining slave at
from 125 to 150 drachmas. The knowledge of any art had a great influence
upon the value of a slave. Of the thirty-two or thirty-three
sword-cutlers who belonged to the father of Demosthenes, some were worth
five, some six, and the lowest more than three minas; and his twenty
couchmakers together were worth 40 minas (
in Aphob. i. p.
816.9). Considerable sums were paid for courtesans and female players on
the cithara; twenty and thirty minas were common prices for such (Ter.
Adelph. 3.1, 37, 3.2, 15, 4.7, 24;
Phorm. 3.3, 24): Neaera was sold for thirty minas
(Demosth.
c. Neaer. p. 1354.29).
The number of slaves was very great in Athens. According to the census
made when Demetrius Phalereus was archon (B.C. 309), there are said to
have been 21,000 free citizens, 10,000 metoecs, and 400,000 slaves in
Attica (Ctesicles, ap. Ath. vi. p. 272 c). This statement was formerly
criticised on account of the immense disproportion between the slave
population and the free (Hume,
Essays, 1.419, ed. Green
and Grose; Niebuhr,
Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. note 143). It
is now admitted, with Boeckh (
P. E. p. 36 =
Sthh3 1.47) and Clinton
(
F. H. ii. p. 391), that in computing the citizens
and metoecs the object was to ascertain their political and military
strength, and hence the census of only males of full age was taken;
while in enumerating slaves, which were property, it would be necessary
to compute all the individuals who composed that property. Boeckh's
estimate, of a total population of 500,000, made up of 90,000 citizens,
45,000 resident aliens, and 365,000 slaves, is regarded as approximately
correct (Büchsenschiitz, Göll, Fränkel).
During the occupation of Decelea by the Lacedaemonians more than 20,000
Athenian slaves escaped to that place (
Thuc.
7.27). From Hypereides (
fr. 33, Sauppe,
ap. Suid. s. v.
ἀπεψηφίσατο) it
appears that there were at least 150,000 adult male slaves in Attica; we
know that the numbers of females and children were relatively small (see
above); and these figures are not inconsistent with the estimate just
given for the total slave population (cf. note in Boeckh,
Sthh3 1.38). Two other statements
in the same passage of Athenaeus must be pronounced far more open to
criticism; that of Timaeus, that Corinth once had possessed 460,000, and
that of Aristotle, that Aegina had contained 470,000 slaves (
Ath. 6.272 b, d; Schol.
Pind. O. 8.30). These numbers can only be
understood, especially in relation to Aegina, of the early times before
Athens had obtained possession of the commerce of Greece. Bursian has
further pointed out that they may include the crews of an immense fleet
of ships, and the slaves belonging to merchants settled abroad
(
Geogr. von Griechenl. 2.13 and 79): nevertheless, we
hold that Boeckh, in his later editions, is right in pronouncing them
exaggerated (
Sthh3 1.51). We need not
suspect corruption in the texts of these authors; but the best minds
among the Greeks were without the evidence which statistics now afford
of the limits of population that can be supported on a given area. The
Corinthian territory was much smaller than Attica, and at least as
mountainous; while that of Aegina does not exceed 42 English square
miles, only half of which is capable of cultivation. No doubt slaves
were closely packed as regards space; but they would require their
choenix of corn a day (at Corinth,
χοινικομέτραι was a name for the slaves, Ath.
l.c.); and with the supposed numbers, Aegina
would have been dependent upon importation for almost the whole of her
food. The light soil of Attica grew about five-sevenths of the corn
required for its population [
SITOS]; and it is unlikely that the subsistence of any Greek
state was on a more artificial footing than this, or that ancient
commerce, particularly in those early times, was sufficiently organised
to be equal to the strain.
At Athens even the poorest citizen had a slave for the care of his
household (Aristoph.
Plut. init.), and in every moderate
establishment many were employed for all possible occupations, as
bakers, cooks, tailors, &c. The number possessed by one person
was never so great as at Rome during the later times of the Republic and
under the Empire, but it was still very considerable. Plato (
de
Rep. ix. p. 578 D, E) expressly remarks, that some persons
had fifty slaves and even more. This was about the number which the
father of Demosthenes possessed (
in Aphob. i. p. 823.31);
Lysias and Polemarchus had 120 (Lys.
in Eratosth.
§ 19), Philemonides had 300, Hipponicus 600, and Nicias 1000
slaves in the mines alone (
Xen. de
Vect. 4, § § 14, 15). It must be
borne in mind, when we read of one person possessing so large a number
of slaves, that they were employed in various workshops, mines, or
manufactories: the number which a person kept to attend to his own
private wants, or those of his household, was probably never very large.
And this constitutes one great distinction between Greek and Roman
slaves, that the labour of the former was regarded as the means by which
an owner might obtain profit for the outlay of his capital in the
purchase of the slaves, while the latter were chiefly employed in
ministering to the wants of their master and his family, and in
gratifying his luxury and vanity. Thus Athenaeus (vi. p. 272 e) remarks,
that many of the Romans
[p. 2.658]possess 10,000 or
20,000 slaves and even more, but not, he adds, for the sake of bringing
in a revenue, as the wealthy Nicias.
Slaves either worked on their masters' account or their own (in the
latter case they paid their masters a certain sum a day); or they were
let out by their master on hire either for the mines or any other kind
of labour, or as hired servants for wages (
ἀποφορά). The rowers on board the ships were usually
slaves (Isocr.
de Pace, § 48); it
is remarked as an unusual circumstance that the seamen of the Paralos
were freemen (
Thuc. 8.73). These slaves
either belonged to the state or to private persons, who let them out to
the state on payment of a certain sum. It appears that a considerable
number of persons kept large gangs of slaves merely for the purpose of
letting out, and found this a profitable mode of investing their
capital. Great numbers were required for the mines, and in most cases
the mine-lessees would be obliged to hire some, as they would not have
sufficient capital to purchase as many as they wanted. Generally none
but inferior slaves were confined in these mines: they worked in chains,
and numbers died from the effects of the unwholesome atmosphere (Boeckh,
On the Silver Mines of Laurion). We cannot calculate
with accuracy what was the usual rate of profit which a slave-proprietor
obtained. The thirty-two or thirty-three sword-cutlers belonging to the
father of Demosthenes produced annually a net profit of 30 minas, their
purchase value being 190 minas, and the twenty couch-makers a profit of
12 minas, their purchase value being 40 minas (Demosth.
in
Aphob. i. p. 816.9). The leather-workers of Timarchus produced
to their masters two, the overseers three, oboli a day (Aeschin.
in Tim. § 97): Nicias paid an obolus a day
for each mining slave whom he hired (
Xen.
de Vect. 4, § 14). The rate of
profit upon the purchasemoney of the slaves was naturally high, as their
value was destroyed by age, and those who died had to be replaced by
fresh purchases. The proprietor was also exposed to the great danger of
their running away, when it became necessary to pursue them and offer
rewards for their recapture (
σῶστρα,
Xen. Mem. 2.1. 0, § 1, 2;
Plat.
Protag. p. 310C). Antigenes of Rhodes was the first
who established an insurance of slaves. For a yearly contribution of
eight drachmas for each slave that was in the army, he undertook to make
good the value of the slave at the time of his running away
(Pseudo-Arist.
Oecon. 2.35). Slaves who
worked in the fields were under an overseer (
ἐπίτροπος), to whom the whole management of the estate
was frequently entrusted, while the master resided in the city; the
household slaves were under a steward (
ταμίας), the female slaves under a stewardess (
ταμία). (Xen.
Oecon. 9.11; 12.2.)
The Athenian slaves did not, like the Helots of Sparta and the Penestae
of Thessaly, serve in the armies; the battles of Marathon and Arginusae,
when the Athenians armed their slaves (
Paus.
1.32.3; Schol.
ad
Aristoph. Frogs 33), were exceptions
to the general rule.
The rights of possession with regard to slaves differed in no respect
from any other property; they could be given or taken as pledges (Dem.
c, Aph. i. p. 821.24;
c. Onet. i. p.
871.27;
c. Pantaen. p. 967.4), and in cases of distraint
were among the first “cattle” or “chattels”
seized (Dem.
c. Androt. p. 610.56;
c.
Timocr. p. 762.197). Nevertheless, Greek slavery, above all at
Athens, will compare favourably with the same institution at Rome, or as
practised by Christian nations in the New World. Plutarch thought the
Spartan slaves the most unhappy in Greece (
Lyc. 28); but
the Helots were by many degrees better off, and more humanely treated,
than the droves of slaves who tilled the
latifundia of the Romans, or pastured their flocks in
Calabria and Sicily (cf.
CRUX
Vol. I. p. 567 b). At Athens, again, they were allowed a degree of
liberty and indulgence which seemed surprising to other Greeks. There
was no slave costume regulated by law, and differing from the dress of
the citizens; the slaves were not to be distinguished externally from
the lower class of citizens, and in the richer houses were often better
clothed than these; only the wearing of long hair was not allowed them,
which, however, was only worn by a few of the citizens. They did not
make way in the street; they could not be struck, for fear of assaulting
a freeman; and they enjoyed a saucy freedom of speech (
ἰσηγορία). The writer of the tract on the
Athenian polity, in Xenophon's works, notices these points as
characteristic of a commercial state: the slaves were often employed in
making money for their masters ([Xen.]
Rep. Ath. 1,
§ § 10-12). They were excluded from the gymnasium
(Aeschin.
c. Timarch. § 138;
Plut. Sol. 34) and the ecclesia (
Aristoph. Thes. 294;
Plut. Phoc. 34); but they were not
forbidden to enter the temples and shrines, or to assist at sacred
rites, whether public or private ([Dem.]
c. Neaer. p.
1374.85). On the reception of a newly-purchased slave into a house at
Athens, it was the custom to scatter sweetmeats and nuts (
καταχύσματα) over him, to be scrambled for
by his fellow-servants; but this was rather for the sake of a good omen
than on the slave's own account (
Aristoph.
Pl. 768, with Schol.; Dem.
c. Steph. i. p.
1123.74, with Sandys' note; Hermann-Blümner,
Privatalterth. p. 82).
The denial of legal rights to a slave led to a state of things
“almost grotesque in its absurd cruelty” (Mahaffy, p.
241), which however, at least in the time of Demosthenes, was
considerably mitigated in practice; the law, namely, by which the taking
of slaves' evidence was regulated. When it is said that such evidence in
courts of justice was always taken with torture, this does not mean that
it was the rule to torture slaves who gave evidence to a fact, but only
if they denied any knowledge or appeared to suppress it in the interest
of their master. The giving of independent evidence was a personal
privilege of freemen, whether citizens or aliens, but excluding women
and
ἄτιμοι [
MARTYRIA
init.]; hence the testimony of slaves could
not be resorted to in the first instance with the honest desire of
getting at the facts of a case. What happened was this. It was assumed
that slaves through dread of their master's vengeance would always
support his view of the case, but that the truth might be elicited if
they were tortured by the other side. Hence we find that in any dispute
between two citizens about the most trifling sum of money, or if (as in
the speech of Antiphon
de Choreuta) it was
[p. 2.659]attempted from vindictive motives to import a
criminal charge into a case which was
primâ
facie accidental, either might challenge (
προκαλεῖσθαι) the other to give up his slaves for
torture, or tender his own to be similarly examined, on the mere chance
that something might be proved. To call for the production of slaves in
this way was
ἐξαιτεῖν, to comply with
the demand
ἐκδιδόναι (Dem.
c.
Onet. i. p. 874, § § 35, 36). We see this
theory in its most repulsive shape in Antiphon, the oldest of the extant
orators (cf. Antiph.
de caed. Herod. § 49,
de Choreut. § 25; Mahaffy,
l.c.); in the prosperous days of the
Peloponnesian war the Athenians seem to have been harder-hearted than
they afterwards became under the influence of misfortune; and in the
time of Aristophanes the torture was an every-day or at least frequent
incident in the law courts (
στρεβλοῦτε καὶ
δικάζετε,
Nub. 620). Afterwards, though the law remained the same,
a stronger feeling of humanity sprang up, which finds its expression in
many passages of Demosthenes (e.g.
c. Nicostr. p.
1253.22;
c. Conon. p. 1265.27); excuses were made for not
complying, though the other side made a strong point of the refusal; the
challenge was put forward as a manoeuvre to gain time, or with the hope
of scoring a point with the jury, but with no serious expectation that
it would be complied with. The Private Orations in general leave the
impression that, in this one respect, Athenian practice was more humane
than the theory. In his action against his guardian, Demosthenes himself
demands the torture of three
female slaves on
the point whether Onetor's sister has really (and not, as he contends,
collusively) been divorced by Aphobus; Onetor, who ultimately lost his
cause, has the grace to refuse the demand (Dem.
c. Onet.
l.c.; for another example, see Lysias,
Or. 4,
περὶ τοῦ τραύματος, § 12). Other
questions connected with the torture of slaves are discussed under
TORMENTUM In his relations
with his master a slave might naturally expect corporal chastisement,
which was the last mode of punishment inflicted on a freeman (Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 752.167); but in the case either of
extreme cruelty or of outrage against his chastity, he could take
sanctuary in the temple of Theseus [
ASYLUM Vol. I. p. 235
b], and there claim the privilege of being sold away from his
oppressor (
πρᾶσιν αἰτεῖν,
Plut. Thes. 36; Pollux, 7.13;
Aristoph. Kn. 1312 with Schol.;
Att. Process, p. 625 f., Lipsius). His life, unlike
that of Roman slaves in republican times, was safe even from his master;
he could not be put to death without legal sentence (
Eur. Hec. 291,
292; Antiph.
de caed. Herod. § 34). But
the barbarous rule that if a master were murdered (even, it seems, if
his life were attempted), and the perpetrator remained undetected, the
whole household should be executed, prevailed also at Athens (Antiph.
op. cit. § 69; Mahaffy, p. 243).
Against assault or outrage by any one else than his master the slave was
protected by law. (See
HYBRIS Vol. I. p. 983
b, and the
references there.)
Notwithstanding the comparatively mild treatment of slaves in Greece,
their insurrection was not unfrequent (Plat.
Legg. vi. p.
777 C): but in Attica these insurrections were mostly confined to the
mining slaves, who were treated more harshly than the others. On one
occasion they murdered their guards, took possession of the
fortifications of Sunium, and from this point ravaged the country for a
considerable time (Ath. vi. p. 272 f).
Slaves were sometimes manumitted at Athens, though not so frequently as
at Rome; but it seems doubtful whether a master was ever obliged to
liberate a slave against his will for a certain sum of money, as some
writers have concluded from a passage of Plautus (
Casin.
2.5, 7). Those who were manumitted (
ἀπελεύθεροι) did not become citizens, as they did at Rome,
but passed into the condition of metoecs. They were obliged to honour
their former master as their patron (
προστάτης), and to fulfil certain duties towards him, the
neglect of which rendered them liable to the
δίκη
ἀποστασίου, by which they might again be sold into
slavery [
LIBERTUS p. 62
a;
APOSTASIOU DIKÉ, APROSTASIOU
DIKÉ, in Vol. I.].
Respecting the public slaves at Athens, see
DEMOSII
It appears that there was a tax upon slaves at Athens (
Xen. de Vect. 4, §
25), which Boeckh (
P. E. pp. 331, 332 =
Sthh3 1.403) supposes was three
oboli a year for each slave; it is more probable, however, that this was
a tax upon the import of slaves, and their transfer by sale, not a
license duty paid annually by their owners (Fränkel, n. 546 on
Boeckh).
Authorities.--Boeckh, book i. cc. 7, 13, book 3.100.7; K.
F. Hermann,
Staatsalterth. § 114;
Hermann-Blümner,
Privatalterth. §
§ 12, 13; Schömann,
Antiq. 1.348-353,
E. T.; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. 1.163-169; Mahaffy,
Social Life in Greece, ed. 3, p. 240 ff.; and esp.
Becker-Göll,
Charikles, iii. pp. 1-47;
Büchsenschiitz,
Besitz und Erwerb, pp. 104-208.
[
W.S] [
W.W]
2. Roman
servus,
servitus. In
the writings of the Roman jurists and philosophers slavery appears as
the chief, if not the only, instance of an opposition between the
jus gentium and the
jus naturale. That it was
contra
naturam is repeatedly stated, as by Justinian, in Inst.
1.3, 2 ( “servitus . . . . qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam
subjicitur” ), following Florentinus in
Dig.
1,
5,
4 (cf.
Inst. 1.2, 2; Athen. vi. pp. 263, 267; Macrob.
Saturn. 1.7; Augustin.
de Civitate
Dei, 19.15;
Dig. 12,
6,
64; Cod. 7, 24),
though the philosophers had considered some forms at least of slavery as
natural (Aristot
Pol. 1.2, §
§ 15, 18: cf.
Cic. de
Rep. 3.25, 37). That it was due to the
jus gentium, or universal practice of mankind,
is affirmed by Gaius (1.52); Ulpian in
Dig. 1,
1,
4, pr.;
Luctatius, in Stat.
Theb. v.;
Dig.
12,
6,
64: the
notion being perhaps based on the hypothesis of a tacit compact between
the peoples of the earth, as is suggested by Aristotle--
ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὁμολογία τίς ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ τὰ
κατὰ πόλεμον κρατούμενα τῶν κρατούντων εἶναί φασιν
(
Pol. 1.2).
The relation of the master to his slave is expressed by the term
dominium, as in the passage cited above from the
Institutes: cf.
Dig. 50,
16,
215; Aristot.
Pot.
1.2, 4,
ὁ δοῦλος οὐ μόνον δεσπότου δοῦλος,
ἀλλὰ . . . . ὅλως ἐκείνου: ib. 7,
ὁ μὴ αὑτοῦ . . . . ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλου (cf.
Eth. Nicom. 4.3); Zeno in
D.
L. 12.121,
δουλεία, στέρησις
αὐτοπραγίας: Dion Chrysost.
Or. 15. The
master is
dominus of his
[p. 2.660]slave just as he is
dominus of
his horses or any other object of property, among which he is classified
as a
res mancipi by Ulpian
(
Reg. 19, 1) and Gaius (2.15): the slave is conceived not
as a
persona, but as a
res [CAPUT: cf.
Dig. 50,
17,
209, “servitutem mortalitati fere
comparamus” ], and the master may accordingly deal with him
just as he may with any other
res of which
he is owner; he may sell him, and has
jus vitae
necisque over his person (Gaius, 1.52: cf.
Dionys. A. R. 7.69; Plut.
Cato
Major, 21; Appian,
App. BC
1.98). But there are points in which the slave stands on a
different footing from other
res. The
master is said to exercise
potestas over
him, a term properly descriptive of control only over reasonable beings
( “verbum potestatis non solum ad liberos trahimus, verum etiam ad
servos,”
Dig. 24,
1,
3: cf. Inst. 1.8, 1); and between
“power” over a filiusfamilias and “power” over
a slave there was originally perhaps little difference, though in other
respects the former always occupied a very superior legal position to
the latter. It was through this
potestas
that the slave became, as it were, a member or limb of the
dominus, whereby he could act as his agent in
commerce, and acquired capacity to be heir or legatee under a will. But
a person who had a mere
nudum jus Quiritium
in a slave had no
potestas over him: he
must at least have him
in bonis (Gaius,
1.54). Again, unlike a mere animal, a slave could become free, and thus
a
persona, and his acts and dispositions
entail legal consequences as well on his master as on himself. Lastly,
the tie of kinship is recognised; the respect which a child owes to its
parents is due even between such relations who have been manumitted
(
Dig. 2,
4,
4,
3), and who are also
debarred from intermarrying if Within the degrees prohibited by law
(Inst. 1.10, 10;
Dig. 23,
2,
14,
2).
The extreme exercise of a master's strict tight to deal with the person
of his slave in any Way he pleased was in practice considerably
restrained by usage. In the older times slaves were well treated, and
ate frequently at the same table with their masters (Macrob. 1.7, 10,
11; Cato,
Cat. Agr. 5), of whose children
they were the instructors, nurses, and playmates (
Plut. Cor. 24;
Cato Major,
3, 20, 21; Macrob.
l.c.;
Plin. Nat. 33.26; Sen.
Epist. 47); and a master who starved or otherwise
illtreated his slaves was punished as a bad citizen by the censors
(Dionys.
fragm. xx. ed. Mai.). The slaves also
shared with the free in many of the privileges and offices of religion
(
Dionys. A. R. 4.14; Cato,
Cat. Agr. 57). Still, when the Roman
national habit had been corrupted by the luxury and brutality of the
Empire, it was found necessary to legislate against excessive cruelty. A
Lex Petronia, enacted perhaps as early as Augustus, and a number of
amending senatusconsulta, forbade the arbitrary sale of slaves for
combating wild beasts in the arena, even though they had done some act
deserving.punishment (
Gel. 5.14;
Dig. 48,
8,
11,
1 and 2; 18, 1, 42).
On the other hand, the old practice of putting slaves to the torture for
the purpose of discovering their master's murderer was about the same
time made a universal statutory rule by the Senatusconsultum Silanianum,
which also punished those who refused assistance to the master (
Dig. 29,
5). Claudius
bestowed freedom on slaves whom their masters exposed on account of
ill-health, and threatened penalties for killing them under such
circumstances (
Suet. Cl. 25); and Hadrian
forbade the killing of slaves in any case without judicial sanction
(Spartian.
Hadr. 18;
Dig. 1,
6,
18,
2). Antoninus Pius. enunciated as a general
principle that slaves should be entitled to make complaints to the
praefectus urbi or praetorio of ill-treatment at their masters' hands
(
Dig. 1,
12,
1,
8) and obtain
protection therefrom (
Coll. Leg. Mos. 3.2;
Dig. 1,
6,
2), the master being compelled to sell them to
some person more humane: if he caused their death, he was (apart from
certain excepted cases,
Dig. 48,
5,
24;
48,
8,
1,
4, &c.) subjected to the penalties
of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis (Gaius, 1.53; Inst. 1.8, 2). It was
also, enacted that in sales or divisions of property slaves who were
nearly related should not be separated (
Dig.
21,
1,
35; Cod.
3, 38, 11), and that praedial slaves upon whom the
tributum capitis was paid should not be removed from the
land to which they were attached (Cod. 11, 47, 7). Yet these enactments
must not be supposed to have conferred any legal rights upon the slave:
they merely limited the general rights of ownership on grounds of
expediency, and their rationale is well expressed by Gaius, who says,
“male enim nostro jure uti non debemus: qua ratione et
prodigis interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio” (1.53).
Yet in the rule stated by Ju3tinian (Inst. 4.4, 7), that the damages for
an injuria to a slave should vary according to his position and
employment, we approach very nearly to the conception of a slave as
having a
persona or
caput:
“hanc enim,” it is said, “et servum sentire palam
est.” If a slave was injured by a third person, the master
had his remedy in various civil actions (Gaius, 3.210, 217, 223; Paul.
Sent. 1.13, 6;--
Dig. 47,
10,
15,
34 and 35; 11, 3, 1), and if he was killed
wilfully could prosecute the delinquent under the Lex Cornelia de
sicariis.
Slaves were incapable of marriage (
sensu
legali) of any kind, but a permanent connexion between two
slaves, or a slave and a free person, was called
contubernium (Paul.
Sent. 2.19, 6; Cod. 5,
5, 3). Here the natural relation of parent and child was to some extent
recognised, e. g. as a
justa causa
manumissionis, Gaius, 1.19: see AELIA
SENTIA LEX. Accordingly, as has been remarked above, when
slaves had become free, and so acquired capacity of intermarriage, they
were held to be within the rules as to prohibited degrees.
A slave was as incapable of proprietary as of other rights, and
everything conveyed to him, whether by mancipatio or traditio, became
ipso facto the property of his master (
“etiam invitis nobis per servos adquiritur paene ex omnibus
causis,”
Dig. 41,
1,
32): a rule sometimes supposed to be attributed
by Gaius (1.52) and Justinian (Inst. 1.8, 1) to the Jus Gentium, but
instances to the contrary are found in the Helots (
Plut. Lyc. 24) and among the Germans (Tac.
Germ. 25). If one master had over him a
nudum jus Quiritium and he was
in bonis to another, his acquisitions belonged
to the latter only. If a man
bonâ fide
possessed another man's slave or a free person
bonâ fide serviens, he only acquired in two cases,
being
[p. 2.661]entitled to all that the other gained by
means of the possessor's property (
ex re ejus)
or by his own labour (
ex operis suis): the
law was the same with respect to a slave in whom a man had only a
usufruct. All other acquisition of such slaves or free men
bonâ fide servientes belonged,
according to their condition, to their master or to themselves. If a
slave were instituted
heres, he could only
accept the
hereditas with the consent of
his master, in whom it vested immediately on acceptance; but legacies
bequeathed to him became the master's without any necessity for
acceptance at all (Gaius, 2.87, &c.).
A master could also acquire possession through his slaves, and usucapion
would begin to run from the moment of its acquisition: but, unless the
master possessed the slave himself, the latter could not acquire
possession of other things for him; for instance, this could not be done
by a slave who was in pledge [
PIGNUS]. A
bonâ--fide
possessor, i. e. one who believed the slave to be his own, could acquire
possession through him in the same cases as those in which he could
acquire ownership, which excluded acquisition for the pledgee by a slave
in pledge: and a usufructuary acquired possession through the slave in
the same two cases as the
bonâ--fide
possessor; but, as he did not possess the slave himself, he could not
acquire him by usucapio (Gaius, 2.93; Inst. 2.9, 4: cf. Savigny,
Possession, p. 314, ed. 5).
An almost necessary modification of the above-stated principles resulted
from the common employment of slaves by their masters in every variety
of service and occupation--as mechanics, artisans, clerks, stewards,
business managers, actors, surgeons and physicians, teachers,
&c.: in which avocations they might by industry and economy
(
Dig. 15,
1,
39), and even by pecuniary advances which the
master often made them in his own interest (Plut.
Cato
Major, 21), accumulate no small wealth, which they were usually
allowed by special permission (
concessio,
Dig. 15,
1,
4, pr. and 2) to administer on their own behalf
under the name of
peculium. The
peculium technically remained part of the
master's property (
Dig. 41,
1,
37,
1), and
could be resumed or appropriated by him at pleasure (
Dig. 15,
1,
8); but this does not appear to have been commonly done, the
practice being to promise slaves their freedom if they could accumulate
a
peculium of a certain value (
Dionys. A. R. 4.24;
Tac. Ann. 14.42). Generous masters even
allowed them sometimes to dispose of it on their death-bed (
Plin. Ep. 8.16), and on manumission a
slave was by law entitled to retain his
peculium unless expressly reserved by the master
(
fragm. Vat. 261;
Dig. 15,
1,
53; Cod. 7, 23;
Inst. 2.20, 20). The institution of
peculium made it possible for contracts to be entered into
between masters and slave (
Dig. 15,
1,
49,
2), from which, it is true, no right of action arose (Gaius,
4.78; Sen.
de Benef. 3.19), but which nevertheless
created a “natural” obligation [OBLIGATIO]; so that, if after the slave's manumission the
master paid him a debt which had arisen before it, he could not redemand
the money on the ground that it was not owed (
Dig.
12,
6,
64), and
his own debts to the master were discharged by automatic reduction, so
to speak, of the
peculium. In the event of
external creditors demanding the
peculium
for distribution among themselves on the ground of the slave's
insolvency, debts owing to his master by him were first taken into
account and deducted (
Dig. 15,
1,
5,
4; ib.
9, 2); and, if a free man became surety for the debt of a slave to his
master or any one else, a right of action arose and he could be sued
(Gaius, 3.119; Inst. 3.20, 1).
Servi
publici, who belonged to the state, had the special privilege
of disposing of half their
peculium by will
(Ulp.
Reg. 20.16).
The contracts which a slave made with third persons gave rise, so far as
he himself was concerned, only to “natural” obligations,
and, though the master could sue upon them, it was a doctrine of the Jus
Civile that in no case could any liability attach to the master upon
transactions entered into between other persons and those in his power,
whether slaves or children: “melior condicio nostra per servos
fieri potest, deterior fieri non potest” (
Dig. 50,
17,
133). In this respect, however, a change was made by the
praetor, though the extent to which the master became suable varied with
the circumstances of the case. Where he had either expressly or by
implication directed or subsequently ratified the slave's contract, he
was made as fully liable in person as if he had actually been the
contracting party, the proper action being
quod
jussu [JUSSU QUOD ACTIO], EXERCITORIA,
INSTITORIA, or
quasi-institoria
(Gaius, 4.70, 71; Inst. 4.7, 1 and 2). Where the slave engaged in trade
with a
peculium with his master's
knowledge, and became so embarrassed as to be unable to satisfy his
trade creditors in full, the latter could demand a distribution of the
peculium among themselves, so far at
least as it was invested in the business (
merx
peculiaris), in the ratio of their several claims: the division
was made by the master, who was here treated as an ordinary creditor,
and consequently could not deduct in full debts owing to himself, though
he was entitled to a dividend on all his own claims whether arising out
of the business or not (
Dig. 14,
4,
5-
7); but if any creditor was dissatisfied with his conduct of the
liquidation, he could get it judicially reviewed by instituting an
actio tributoria against him (Gaius,
4.72; Inst. 4.7, 3;
Dig. 14,
4). If the slave made contracts without the master's knowledge
or against his orders, the latter might be liable to an
actio de peculio et in rem verso (Gaius, 4.73;
Inst. 4.7, 4), in which the judge had firstly to inquire whether the
master had himself derived any material advantage from the contract in
question, as. if this were the case (
in rem
versio), his own means were liable to that extent; and the benefit
which he had obtained might have been so great that the creditor might
conceivably get full payment in this manner, as e. g. if the slave had
borrowed ten sestertia and spent the whole of it in paying his master's
debts. But if the latter had derived no material advantage from the
slave's contract, or at least not enough to make him liable to the
creditor
in solidum, the judge had to
inquire into the amount of the slave's
peculium (deducting the master's own claims against it) and
to condemn the master to pay the creditor from it what was due to him,
so far at least as it extended at the date of the
[p. 2.662]condemnation (
Dig. 15,
1,
30, pr.). In deducting
the master's own claims, any debt owed by the slave to another slave of
the same master, but who was part of the debtor's own
peculium (as was the case with
servi
vicarii,
Dig. 15,
1,
17), was not considered (
Dig.
17,
1,
17).
The master's liability to the
actio de
peculio lasted for an
annus
utilis after the slave died, or was alienated or manumitted
(
Dig. 15,
2,
1).
The benefit attaching to a slave's contract belonged entirely to the
master, and he could not enforce it by action. If the slave was
bonâ fide possessed, or held in use or
usufruct by a third person, the latter derived advantage from his
contracts only so far as they involved the slave's own labour (
ex operis suis), or were made with reference to
or upon the credit of the property of the
bonâ--fide possessor, usufructuary, or usuary
(Gaius, 3.164, 165; Inst. 3.18, 1 and 2). The benefit of a contract made
by a slave belonging to two or more joint owners belonged to them
pro portione dominii, unless it was
entered into by the directions or in the name of one or some of them
only (Inst. 3.18, 3; ib. 28, 3).
For delicts committed by a slave against his master, the latter might
inflict punishment himself (
Dig. 13,
7,
24,
3;
24,
3,
24,
5; Cod. Theod. 9, 12,
1, 2), though after Hadrian he might not put him to death without
magisterial authority; but such delicts in no case gave rise to a legal
obligation (Gaius, 4.78; Inst. 4.8, 6;
Dig. 47,
2,
17, pr.; Cod. 4,
14, 6). The effect of wrongs perpetrated by slaves against third persons
is discussed under NOXALIS ACTIO: for those
pursuable by a criminal prosecution, they were subject to the ordinary
procedure, though sometimes the execution of the sentence was entrusted
to the master himself (Plut.
Cato Major, 21;
Monum. Ancyranum, tab. ii., ll. 1, 2, 3).
It was strictly forbidden to receive or harbour runaway slaves (
fugitivi,
Dig. 11,
4,
1,
1; Cod. 6, 1, 4, 7), in
the pursuit of whom the law co-operated with the master by requiring the
authorities to render him every assistance (
Dig.
11,
4,
1,
2-
8; ib. 3 and 4; Paul.
Sent. Rec. 1.6 a, 3-5; Cod. 6, 1, 2): penalties were
also imposed on their alienation and acquisition (Paul.
l.c.;
Dig. 48,
15; Cod. 9,
20, 6), and a special class of persons, called
fugitivarii, made their pursuit and recapture a regular
business (Florus,
3.19;
Dig. 19,
5,
18), which however appears later to have become the means of a
great deal of fraud (Cod. Theod. 10, 12, 1). The very running away of
the slave was regarded as a stealing of himself (
Dig.
47,
2,
60),
so that he became a
res furtiva and could
not be acquired by
USUCAPIO (Inst. 2.6, 1), and the possession of him remained in
law vested in his master (
Dig. 41,
2,
50,
1). The kidnapping or enticing away of slaves was dealt with by
a Lex Fabia de plagiariis (Inst. 4.18, 10) and, apparently at least, two
senatusconsulta (Florus,
l.c.; Varro,
R.
R. 3.14).
Men were either born slaves or made such by law (
servi
aut nascuntur aut fiunt, Inst. 1.3, 4). It was a general
rule of the Jus Gentium that children born out of lawful wedlock
followed the condition of the mother, whatever might be that of the
father (
Dig. 1,
5,
24): thus the children of a female slave
(
ancilla) were slaves themselves
(Gaius, 1.82), and if born in their-master's house were called
vernae. In one or two cases, however, the
general principle was reversed by anomalous rules of law, it being
enacted by the Senatusconsultum Claudianum (Gaius, 1.84-86) (1) that the
children of a free man by an
ancilla whom
he believed to be free, should be free if males, slaves if females; but
this exception to the rule of the Jus Gentium was repealed by Vespasian:
(2) that if a free woman cohabited with a slave with his master's
sanction, the issue should belong to the latter, though she remained
free herself; this was repealed by Hadrian (Gaius, 1.84): (3) that if a
free woman knowingly cohabited with a
servus
alienus without the consent of the latter's master, and
persisted in the intercourse after prohibition by him, after three
denunciations on his part she should be awarded to him as a slave by the
magistrate, her children, whether born before or after this award,
sharing her fate, and her property going with her person; this was not
repealed till the time of Justinian (Inst. 3.12, 1). The status of a
child was determined by that of the father at the time of conception, if
born of lawful wedlock; otherwise by that of the mother at the time of
birth (Gaius, 1.89): but the latter rule had by the time of Paulus
(
Sent. Rec. 2.24, 1-3) been altered so far as to
admit the freedom of a child born of a slave-mother who at the time of
conception had been free, or who had been free at any moment between
conception and the birth (Paulus,
l.c.; Inst.
1.4, pr.;
Dig. 1,
5,
5).
Of the modes in which free persons became slaves, one was attributed to
the Jus Gentium, the rest to the Jus Civile. The former was capture by
an enemy in war (Inst. 1.3, 4), or capture even without war by a nation
between which and the captive's people there was no friendly treaty or
intercourse (
Dig. 49,
15,
5,
2).
Prisoners taken by the Roman armies were sold as slaves by the aerarium
(
Dionys. A. R. 4.24;
Liv. 4.34,
6.4) or
retained by the state as
servi publici
(
Plb. 10.17;
Liv.
26.47): very rarely they were distributed among the soldiers
by lot (
Dionys. A. R. 4.24,
50;
Liv.
4.34). The practice of selling prisoners with a crown on their
heads is alluded to in the common expressions
sub
corona venire and
vendere
(
Gel. 7.4;
Liv.
5.22;
Caes. Gal. 3.16). Persons,
however, who had become slaves by capture in war might recover their
freedom by
POSTLIMINIUM In certain cases the law allowed a free person to be
sold as a slave: e. g. those who attempted to evade public burdens by
not having their names entered on the census (INCENSI;
Dionys. A. R. 4.15,
5.75,
11.63;
Cic. de Leg.
3.3, 7;
Tab. Heracl. ll. 142-148), or who
shirked military service (Varro, ap. Non. Marc. 1.67;
V. Max. 6.3,
4;
Cic. pro Caec. 34, 99:
but cf.
Dig. 49,
16,
4,
10), and the
insolvent debtor under the old law of execution by
MANUS INJECTIO
According to the old law, a
fur manifestus
[
FURTUM] was liable to a
capitalis poena and was adjudged
(
addictus) to the person whose property
he had stolen; but it was doubted whether the effect of the addictio was
to make him a servus or to put him in the condition of an
ad judicates (Gaius, 3.189). A free man over
twenty years of age who collusively allowed himself to be sold as a
[p. 2.663]slave in order to secretly share the
purchasemoney with the vendor, was as early as the time of Mucius
Scaevola refused his
proclamatio in libertatem
by the praetor, and so in effect adjudged a slave: a usage which was
confirmed by senatusconsulta (
Dig. 40,
13,
3; Inst. 1.3, 4; Cod.
7, 18, 1). This kind of fraud was practised even in the time of Plautus
(Pers. 1.3, 58; 3.1). The mode in which a free woman might become a
slave under the SC. Claudianum has been noticed above. By an enactment
of Claudius also (
Suet. Cl. 25), a
freedman who had misconducted himself towards his patron might be
revocatus in servitutem; but this was
not the law in the time of Nero (
Tac. Ann.
13.27): however, in the time of Commodus, and possibly
earlier, it was the rule that a freedman who had been convicted of gross
ingratitude to his patron might be sold as a slave by the latter, or
(later) subjected again to his ownership (Cod. 4, 10, 1). Under the
emperors it was established that a free man who was condemned demned to
death, to penal servitude in the mines, or to fight with gladiators or
wild beasts, became and died a slave (Inst. 1.12, 3; ib. 16, 1;--
Dig. 48,
19,
8,
11,
12), and so could not leave a valid will (
Dig. 28,
1,
8,
4;
28,
3,
6,
6,
7): he was not a slave of the state
or the emperor, but a
servus poenae, and
had no master (Dig, 34, 8, 3), so that inheritances and legacies left to
him were taken
pro non scriptis (
Dig. 29,
2,
25,
2,
3;
34,
8,
3, pr.). The condition of the children of those
condemned to the mines was ameliorated by Justinian's enactment (Nov.
22, 8), that the criminal's marriage a should not be dissolved by his
condemnation. Apart from these cases, no man could lose his freedom
either by private contract (
Cic. pro
Caec. 34, 99;
Dig. 40,
1,
2,
37; Cod. 7, 16, 10) or by usucapio (Gaius,
2.48;--Cod. 7, 14, 6; 7, 22, 3).
Of the modes in which a slave might become free, the chief were
MANUMISSIO and
POSTLIMINIUM There
were, however, a number of other ways in which liberty was bestowed by
the law, without the master's having anything to say in the matter. Thus
by the SC. Silanianum slaves were liberated who discovered their
master's murderers (
Dig. 40,
8,
5), and the same was done by later
enactments as a reward for the detection of certain other crimes, such
as abduction (Cod. 7, 13, 3) and offences against the mint (Cod. ib. 2).
The edict of Claudius giving their freedom to slaves whom their master
turned out of doors on account of illhealth (
Suet. Cl. 25;
D. C. 60.29;
Dig. 40,
8,
5; Cod. 7, 6, 3) has been already noticed. An
enactment of Vespasian did the same for
ancillae who were exposed to prostitution against the terms
of the disposition under which they were acquired (
Dig. 37,
14,
7, pr.), and by one of Marcus and Commodus slaves were declared
free who were aliened under a promise to manumit, which the alienee
failed to perform (
Dig. 40,
8,
1): thus if a slave saved enough
money to purchase his freedom through a friend, who refused to manumit
him, he became free
ipso facto (
Dig. 40,
1,
4, pr.-3). A number of senatusconsulta beginning
under Trajan (SC. Rubrianum, Dasumianum, Articuleianum, Vitrasianum,
Juncianum) provided in the same manner for the enfranchisement of slaves
to whom liberty was bequeathed under a fideicommissum. Freedom could
also be acquired by prescription (
Dig. 40,
9,
16,
3; Cod. 7, 22, 1-3; Cod. Theod. 4, 8, 3, 5), from
the time of Leo, by the slaves attaining certain high offices at court
(e. g. becoming a
cubicularius, Cod. 12, 5,
3); and from that of Justinian, subject to certain conditions, by his
becoming a monk or spiritual person (Nov. 5, 2, 1; 123, 7, 35). In times
of revolution under the Republic, it was not unusual to proclaim the
liberty of slaves to induce them to join in revolt (
Plut. Mar. 41,
42); but these were irregular proceedings, and neither
justifiable nor examples for imitation. [
J.B.M]
The preceding account treats of the legal condition of slaves in relation
to their masters. It remains to give an account of the history of
slavery among the Romans, of the sale and value of slaves, of the
different classes into which they were divided, and of their general
treatment.
Slaves existed at Rome in the earliest times of which we have any record;
but they do not appear to have been numerous under the kings and in the
earliest ages of the Republic. According to Dionysius (
9.25), in B.C. 476 they cannot have
amounted to more than one-eighth of the population, and were probably
much less (cf. Dureau de la Malle,
Écon. Pol.
1.225). The different trades and the mechanical arts were chiefly
carried on by the clientes of the patricians, and the small farms in the
country were cultivated for the most part by the labours of the
proprietor and of his own family. But as the territories of the Roman
state were extended, the patricians obtained the right of occupying
large portions of the ager publicus (Mommsen, 1.276). These estates
required a larger number of hands for their cultivation than could
readily be obtained among the free population; and since the free men
were constantly liable to be called away from their work to serve in the
armies, the lands began to be cultivated almost entirely by slave
labour. (Cf.
Liv. 6.12; Appian,
App. BC 1.7,
γεωργοῖς χρωμένων θεράπουσιν ἀντὶ ἐλευθέρων.)
Through war and commerce slaves could easily be obtained, and at a cheap
rate, and their number soon became so great that the poorer class of
free men was thrown almost entirely out of employment. This state of
things was one of the chief arguments used by Licinius and the Gracchi
for limiting the quantity of public land which a person might possess
(Appian,
App. BC 1.7,
9,
10); and
we know that there was a provision in the Licinian Rogations that a
certain number of free men should be employed on every estate (Appian,
App. BC 1.8). This regulation,
however, was probably of little avail: the lands still continued to be
almost entirely cultivated by slaves, although in the latest times of
the Republic we find that Julius Caesar attempted to remedy this state
of things to some extent, by enacting that of those persons who attended
to cattle a third should always be free men (
Suet. Jul. 42). In Sicily, which supplied Rome with so great
a quantity of corn, the number of agricultural slaves was immense: the
oppressions to which they were exposed drove them twice to open
rebellion, and their numbers enabled them to defy for a time the Roman
power. The first of these Servile Wars
[p. 2.664]began
in B.C. 134 and ended in B.C. 132, and the second commenced in B.C. 102
and lasted almost four years.
Long, however, after it had become the custom to employ large gangs of
slaves in the cultivation of the land, the number of those who served as
personal attendants still continued to be small. Persons in good
circumstances seem usually to have had only one to wait upon them (
Plin. Nat. 33.26), who was generally
called by the name of his master with the word
por (that is,
puer) affixed to it, as
Gaipor, Lucipor, Marcipor, Publipor, Quintipor,
&c.; and hence Quintilian (1.4, 26), long before whose time
luxury had augmented the number of personal attendants, says that such
names no longer existed. Cato, when he went to Spain as consul, took
only three slaves with him (Apul.
Apol. p. 431, ed.
Ouden). But during the later times of the Republic and under the Empire
the number of domestic slaves greatly increased, and in every family of
importance there were separate slaves to attend to all the necessities
of domestic life. It was considered a reproach to a man not to keep a
considerable number of slaves. Thus Cicero, in describing the meanness
of Piso's housekeeping, says, “Idem coquus, idem atriensis: pistor
domi nullus” (
in Pis. 27). The first question
asked respecting a person's fortune was, “Quot pascit
servos?” (
Juv. 3.141). Horace
(
Sat. 1.3, 12) seems to speak of ten
slaves as the lowest number which a person in tolerable circumstances
ought to keep, and he ridicules the praetor Tullius for being attended
by no more than five slaves in going from his Tiburtine villa to Rome
(
Sat. 1.6, 107). The immense number of
prisoners taken in the constant wars of the Republic, and the increase
of wealth and luxury, augmented the number of slaves to a prodigious
extent. The statement of Athenaeus (vi. p. 272 e), that very many Romans
possessed 10,000 and 20,000 slaves and even more, is probably an
exaggeration; but a freedman under Augustus, who had lost much property
in the Civil Wars, left at his death as many as 4,116 (
Plin. Nat. 33.135). Two hundred was no
uncommon number for one person to keep (Hor.
Sat. 1.3, 11), and Augustus permitted even a person that was
exiled to take twenty slaves or freedmen with him (
D. C. 56.27). The mechanical arts, which were formerly in
the hands of the clientes, were now entirely exercised by slaves (
Cic. de Off. 1.4. 2, 150):
a natural growth of things, for where slaves perform certain duties or
practise certain arts, such duties or arts will be thought degrading to
a freedman. It must not be forgotten that the games of the amphitheatre
required an immense number of slaves trained for the purpose. [
GLADIATORES] Like the
slaves in Sicily, the gladiatores in Italy rose in B.C. 73 against their
oppressors, and, under the able generalship of Spartacus, defeated a
Roman consular army, and were not subdued till B.C. 71, when 60,000 of
them are said to have fallen in battle (Liv.
Epit.
xcvii.).
Under the Empire various enactments, mentioned above (p. 660), were made
to restrain the cruelty of masters towards their slaves; but the spread
of Christianity tended most to ameliorate their condition, though the
possession of them was for a long time by no means condemned as contrary
to Christian justice. The Christian writers, however, inculcate the duty
of acting towards them as we would be acted by (Clem. Alex.
Paedagog. 3.12); but down to the age of Theodosius
wealthy persons still continued to keep as many as two or three thousand
(Chrysost. vol. vii. p. 633). Justinian did much to promote the ultimate
extinction of slavery; but the number of slaves was again increased by
the invasion of the barbarians from the North, who not only brought with
them their own slaves, who were chiefly Sclavi or Sclavonians (whence
our word
slave; cf. Gibbon, 100.55), but also
reduced many of the inhabitants of the conquered provinces to the
condition of slaves. But all the various classes of slaves became merged
in course of time into the
adscripti
glebae, or serfs of the Middle Ages.
The chief sources from which the Romans obtained slaves have been pointed
out above. Under the Republic one of the chief supplies consisted of
prisoners taken in war, who were sold by the quaestores (Plaut.
Capt. Prol. 34) with a crown on their heads (see
above, p. 662
b), and usually on the spot
where they were taken, as the care of a large number of captives was
inconvenient (cf.
Liv. 10.42,
46). Consequently slave-dealers generally
accompanied an army, and frequently after a great battle had been gained
many thousands were sold at once (
Caes. Gal.
3.16), when the slave-dealers obtained them for a mere
nothing. In the camp of Lucullus on one occasion slaves were sold for
four drachmae each. The slave trade was also carried on to a great
extent, and, after the fall of Corinth and Carthage, Delos was the chief
mart for this traffic. When the Cilician pirates had possession of the
Mediterranean, as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been imported
and sold there in one day (
Strab. xiv.
p.668). A large number came from Thrace and the countries in the
North of Europe, but the chief supply was from Africa, and more
especially Asia, whence we frequently read of Phrygians, Lycians,
Cappadocians, &c., as slaves (
Cic.
pro Flacc. 27, 65).
The trade of slave-dealers (
mangones) was
considered disreputable, and expressly distinguished from that of
merchants (
mangones non mercatores sed venaliciarii
appellantur,
Dig. 50,
16,
207; Plaut.
Trin.
2.2, 51); but it was very lucrative, and great fortunes were frequently
realised from it. The slave-dealer Thoranius, who lived in the time of
Augustus, was a well-known character (
Suet. Aug.
69;
Macr. 2.4;
Plin. Nat. 7.56). Martial (
8.13) mentions another celebrated slave-dealer
in his time, of the name of Gargilianus.
Slaves were usually sold by auction at Rome. They were placed either on a
raised stone (hence
de lapide emptus,
Cic. in Pis. 15, 36; Plaut.
Bacch. 4.7, 17) or a raised platform (
catasta,
Tib. 2.3,
60;
Persius, 6.77; Casaubon,
ad loc.), so that every
one might see and handle them, even if they did not wish to purchase
them. Purchasers usually took care to have them stript naked (Sen.
Ep. 80;
Suet. Aug.
69), for slave-dealers had recourse to as many tricks to conceal
personal defects as the horse-jockeys of modern times: sometimes
purchasers called
[p. 2.665]in the advice of medical men
(Claudian,
in Eutrop. 1.35, 36). Slaves of great beauty
and rarity were not exhibited to public gaze in the common slave-market,
but were shown to purchasers in private (
arcanae
tabulata catastae,
Mart. 9.60). Newly imported slaves had their
feet whitened with chalk (
Plin. Nat.
35.199; Ovid,
Ov. Am. 1.8, 64), and
those that came from the East had their ears bored (
Juv. 1.104), which we know was a sign of slavery among many
Eastern nations. The slave-market, like all other markets, was under the
jurisdiction of the aediles, who made many regulations by edicts
respecting the sale of slaves. The character of the slave was set forth
in a scroll (
titulus, Sen.
Ep. 47) hanging round his neck, which was a warranty to
the purchaser (
Gel. 4.2; Propert. 5.5, 51):
the vendor was bound to announce fairly all his defects (
Dig. 21,
1,
1; Hor.
Sat. 2.3,
284), and if he gave a false account had to take him back within six
months from the time of his sale (
Dig. 21,
1,
19,
6), or make up to the purchaser what the latter
had lost through obtaining an inferior kind of slave to what had been
warranted (
Dig. 19,
1,
13,
4;
Cic. de Off. 3.2. 3, 91).
The vendor might, however, use general terms of commendation without
being bound to make them good (
Dig. 18,
1,
43;
21,
1,
19).
The chief points which the vendor had to warrant, were the health of the
slave, especially freedom from epilepsy, and that he had not a tendency
to thievery, running away, or committing suicide (
Cic. de Off. 3.1. 7, 71).
The nation of a slave was considered important, and had to be set forth
by the vendor (
Dig. 21,
1,
31,
21).
Slaves sold without any warranty wore at the time of sale a cap
(
pilleus) upon their head (
Gel. 7.4). Slaves newly imported were generally
preferred for common work; those who had served long were considered
artful (
veteratores, Ter.
Heaut. 5.1, 16), and the pertness and impudence of those
born in their master's house (
vernae: see
above, p. 662) were proverbial (
vernae
procaces, Hor.
Sat. 2.6, 66;
Mart. 1.42,
10.3).
The value of slaves depended, of course, upon their qualifications: under
the Republic slaves were not dear, and Cato never gave more than 1500
drachmae for one (
Plut. Cat. Ma. 4);
but under the Empire the increase of luxury and the corruption of morals
led purchasers to pay immense sums for beautiful slaves, or such as
ministered to the caprice or whim of the purchaser. Eunuchs always
fetched a very high price (
Plin. Nat.
7.129), and Martial (
3.62,
11.70) speaks of beautiful boys who sold for
as much as 100,000 or 200,000 sesterces each (£885 8
s. 4
d. and
£1770 16
s. 8
d.). A
morio or fool sometimes sold
for 20,000 sesterces (
Mart. 8.13). [
NANI] Slaves who possessed a
knowledge of any art which might bring in profit to their owners, also
sold for a large sum. Thus literary men and doctors frequently fetched a
high price (Suet.
de Ill. Gram. 3;
Plin. Nat. 7.129), and also slaves
fitted for the stage, as we see from Cicero's speech on behalf of Q.
Roscius (10, 28). Female slaves who might bring in gain to their masters
by prostitution were also dear: sometimes 60 minae were paid for a girl
of this kind (Plaut.
Pers. 4.4, 113). Five hundred
drachmae (perhaps at that time about £18) seem to have been a
fair price for a good ordinary slave in the time of Horace (
Sat. 2.7, 43), and the average price in the time
of the Antonines must have been about the same (cf. Wallin, 2.172). In
the fourth century a slave capable of bearing arms was valued at 25
solidi or aurei (Cod. Theod. 7, 13, 13). In the time of Justinian the
legal valuation of slaves was as follows: common slaves, both male and
female, were valued at 20 solidi apiece (about £12), and under
ten years of age at half that sum; if they were artificers they were
worth 30 solidi, if notarii 50, if medical men or midwives 60; eunuchs
under ten years of age were worth 30 solidi, above that age 50, and if
they were artificers also as much as 70 (Cod. 6, 4, 3, 3). Female
slaves, unless possessed of personal attractions, were generally cheaper
than male. Six hundred sesterces (about £5) were thought too
much for a slave girl of indifferent character in the time of Martial
(
6.66); and two aurei or solidi were not
considered so low a price for a slave girl (
ancilla) in the time of Hadrian as to occasion doubt of her
having come honestly into the hands of the vendor (
Dig. 47,
2,
76). We have seen that in the time of Justinian the legal value
of female slaves was equal to that of males; this may probably have
arisen from the circumstance that the supply of slaves was not so
abundant then as at earlier times, and that therefore recourse was had
to propagation for keeping up the number of slaves. But under the
Republic and in the early times of the Empire this was done to a very
limited extent, as it was found cheaper to purchase than to breed
slaves.
Slaves were divided into many various classes: the first division was
into public or private. The former belonged to the state and public
bodies, and their condition was preferable to that of the common slaves.
They were less liable to be sold, and under less control than ordinary
slaves: they also possessed the privilege lege of the
testamenti factio to the amount of one-half of their
property (see above, p. 661), which shows that they were regarded in a
different light from other slaves. Scipio, therefore, on the taking of
Nova Carthago, promised 2000 artisans, who had been taken prisoners and
were consequently liable to be sold as common slaves, that they should
become public slaves of the Roman people, with a hope of speedy
manumission, if they assisted him in the war (
Liv.
26.47). Public slaves were employed to take care of the
public buildings (compare
Tac. Hist.
1.43), and to attend upon magistrates and priests. Thus the
aediles and quaestors had great numbers of public slaves at their
command (
Gel. 13.13), as had also the
triumviri nocturni, who employed them to extinguish fires by night
(
Dig. 1,
15,
1). They were also employed as lictors, jailors,
executioners, watermen, &c. (Cf. Gessner,
de
Servis Romanorum publicis, Berlin, 1844.)
A body of slaves belonging to one person was called
familia, but two were not considered sufficient to
constitute a
familia (
Dig. 50,
16,
40). Private slaves were divided into urban (
familia urbana) and rustic (
familia
rustica): but the name of “urban” was given
to those slaves who served in the villa or country residence as well
[p. 2.666]as in the town house; so that the words
“urban” and “rustic” rather characterised
the nature of their occupations than the place where they served (
“urbana familia et rustica non loco, sed genere distinguitur,”
Dig. 50,
16,
166). The
familia
urbana could therefore accompany their master to his villa
without being called
rustica on account of
their remaining in the country. When there was a large number of slaves
in one house, they were frequently divided into decuriae (Petron. 47),
each under the charge of a
decurio, whose
title often occurs in inscriptions; but independently of this division
they were arranged in certain classes, which held a higher or a lower
rank according to the nature of their occupation. The distinction drawn
by Ulpian (
Dig. 47,
10,
15,
44)
between
bonae frugi, ordinarius,
dispensator on the one hand, and
volgaris,
mediastinus, qualis-qualis on the other, is evidently not
meant to be technical, but general in its character; and it is doubtful
whether the
litterati or literary slaves
were included in any of these classes. Those called
vicarii are spoken of above (p. 662).
Ordinarii seem to have been those slaves who
had the superintendence of certain parts of the housekeeping. They were
also chosen from those who had the confidence of their master, and they
generally had certain slaves under them, often called
vicarii (
Dig. 15,
1,
17). To the same class
also belong the slaves who had the charge of the different stores, and
who correspond to our housekeepers and butlers: they are called
cellarii, promi, condi, procuratores peni,
&c. [
CELLA]
The first place in the
familia urbana was
held by the
procurator, a term applied
generally to the agent of another, but especially to the slave who was
placed in charge of the household (cf.
Cic.
Att. 14.1. 6). The
actor in the
familia rustica was almost the same as
the
vilicus or bailiff (
Col. 1.8;
Plin. Ep. 3.19).
The
dispensator was the slave in charge of
the cash and the accounts, usually but not always, in the
familia urbana (
Dig. 1,
16,
166; Suet.
Galb. 12;
Vesp. 22). The
dispensator was sometimes under the procurator,
but at other times was directly in relation with his master. In earlier
times the
atriensis had a general charge of
the money and of the household (Plaut.
Pseud. 2.2, 15).
Volgares included the great body of slaves
in a house who had to attend to any domestic duty, and to minister
generally to the wants of their master. As there were distinct slaves or
a distinct slave for almost every department of household economy, as
bakers (
pistores), cooks (
coqui), confectioners (
dulciarii), picklers (
salmentarii),
&c. it is
unnecessary to mention these more particularly. This class also included
the porters (
ostiarii), the bed-chamber
slaves [
CUBICULARII],
the litter-bearers (
lecticarii) [
LECTICA], the
pedisequi, and all personal attendants of any
kind.
Mediastini. [
MEDIASTINI]
Litterati, literary slaves, were used for
various purposes by their masters, either as readers [
ANAGNOSTAE], copyists, or
amanuenses [LIBRARII; AMANUENSIS], &c.
Others, again, were employed as MEDICI,
CHIRURGI, or IATRALIPTAE.
The treatment of slaves, of course, varied greatly according to the
disposition of their masters; but they appear upon the whole to have
been treated with greater severity and cruelty than among the Athenians.
Originally the master could use the slave as he pleased: under the
Republic the law does not seem to have protected the person or life of
the slave at all, but the cruelty of masters was to some extent
restrained under the Empire, as has been stated above (p. 660), and the
legal status of the slave was gradually improved. The general treatment
of slaves, however, was probably little affected by legislative
enactments. In early times, when the number of slaves was small, they
were treated with more indulgence, and more like members of the family:
they joined their masters in offering up prayers and thanksgivings to
the gods (
Hor. Ep. 2.1,
142), and partook of their meals in common
with their masters (
Plut. Cor. 24),
though not at the same table with them, but upon benches (
subsellia) placed at the foot of the lectus. But
with the increase of numbers and of luxury among masters, the ancient
simplicity of manners was changed: a certain quantity of food was
allowed them (
dimensum or
demensum), which was granted to them either
monthly (
menstruum, Plaut.
Stich. 1.2, 3), or daily (
diarium,
Hor. Ep. 1.14,
41;
Mart. 11.108). Their chief
food was the corn called
far, of which
either four or five modii were granted them a month (Donat.
in Ter.
Phorm. 1.1, 9; Sen.
Ep. 80), or one Roman pound (
libra) a day (Hor.
Sat. 1.5,
69). They also obtained an allowance of salt and oil: Cato (
Cat. Agr. 58) allowed his slaves a sextarius
of oil a month and a modius of salt a year. They also got a small
quantity of wine with an additional allowance on the Saturnalia and
Compitalia (Cato,
Cat. Agr. 57), and
sometimes fruit, but seldom vegetables. Butcher's meat seems to have
been hardly ever given them.
Under the Republic they were not allowed to serve in the army, though
after the battle of Cannae, when Rome was in such imminent danger, 8000
slaves were employed by the state for the army, and subsequently
manumitted on account of their bravery (
Liv.
22.57;
24.14-
16).
The offences of slaves were punished with severity and frequently with
the utmost barbarity. One of the mildest punishments was the removal
from the familia urbana to the rustica, where they were obliged to work
in chains or fetters (Plaut.
Most. i. 1,
18; Ter.
Phorm. 2.1, 20). They were frequently beaten
with sticks or scourged with the whip (of which an account is given
under
FLAGRUM), but these
were such everyday punishments, that many slaves ceased almost to care
for them; thus Chrysalus says (Plaut.
Bacchid. 2.3, 131):
Si illi sunt virgae ruri, at mihi tergum domi est.
Runaway slaves (
fugitivi) and thieves
(
fures) were branded on the forehead
with a mark (
stigma), whence they are said
to be
notati or
inscripti (
Mart. 7.75,
9). Slaves were also punished by being hung up
by their hands with weights suspended to their feet (Plaut.
Asin. 2.2, 31), or by being sent to work in the
Ergastulum or Pistrinum. [ERGASTULUM; MOLA.]
The carrying of the furca was a very common mode of punishment [
FURCA], and slaves were often
flogged while bearing it. The cross [
CRUX] was a specially
servile
supplicium. The toilet of the
[p. 2.667]Roman
ladies was a dreadful ordeal to the female slaves, who were often
barbarously punished by their mistresses for the slightest mistake in
the arrangement of the hair or a part of the dress (Ovid,
Ov. Am. 1.14, 15,
Ar. Am.
3.235;
Mart. 2.66;
Juv.
6.498, &c.).
Masters might work their slaves as many hours in the day as they pleased,
but they usually allowed them holidays on the public festivals. At the
festival of Saturnus in particular, special indulgences were granted to
all slaves, of which an account is given under
SATURNALIA
There was no distinctive dress for slaves. It was once proposed in the
senate to give slaves a distinctive costume, but it was rejected since
it was considered dangerous to show them how numerous they were (Sen.
de Clem. 1.24). Male slaves were not allowed to wear
the toga or bulla, nor females the stola; but otherwise they were
dressed nearly in the same way as poor people, in tunics and cloaks of a
dark colour (
pullati) and slippers
(
crepidae), or in the country
SCULPONEAE or clogs
(
vestis servilis,
Cic. in Pis. 38, 93).
The rites of burial, however, were not denied to slaves, for, as the
Romans regarded slavery as an institution of society, death was
considered to put an end to the distinction between slaves and free men.
Slaves were sometimes even buried with their masters, and we find
funeral inscriptions addressed to the Di Manes of slaves (
Dis Manibus). It seems to have been considered a
duty for a master to bury his slave, since we find that a person who
buried the slaves of another had a right of action against the master
for the expenses of the funeral (
Dig. 11,
7,
31). In 1726 the
burial vaults of the slaves belonging to Augustus and Livia were
discovered near the Via Appia, where numerous inscriptions were found,
which have been illustrated by Bianchini and Gori and give us
considerable information respecting the different classes of slaves and
their various occupations. Other sepulchres of the same time have been
also discovered in the neighbourhood of Rome (cp. Wilmann's
Ex.
Inscr. Lat. 1.125 ff.)
(Pignorius,
de Servis et eorum apud Veteres
Ministeriis; Popma,
de Operis
Servorum; both in
Poleni Suppl. ad Græv.
Thes. Antt. Rom. vol. iii.; Blair,
An Enquiry into
the State of Slavery amongst the Romans, Edinburgh, 1833;
Becker-Güll,
Gallus, vol.
2.99-154; Wallon,
Histoire de l'Esclavage dans
l'Antiquité, 2nd ed. Paris, 1879; Marquardt,
Privatleben, 135-191.)
[
W.S] [
A.S.W]