previous next



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 ( δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, Eth. Nic. 8.13=p. 1161 b, 4; 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. 235b], 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-- γὰρ νόμος ὁμολογία τίς ἐστιν, ἐν 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, δοῦλος οὐ μόνον δεσπότου δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ . . . . ὅλως ἐκείνου: ib. 7, 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. 662b), 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 8s. 4d. and £1770 16s. 8d.). 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]

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: