DEPENDENTS: SLAVES AND CLIENTS. HOSPITES
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 135-212; Göll, II, 114-212; Guhl and Koner,
764-772; Friedländer, I, 404 f.; Ramsay, 124 f.; Pauly-Wissowa,
_clientēs_; Smith, _servus_, _lībertus_, _cliēns_, _clientēla_,
_hospitium_; Harper, _servus_, _lībertī_, _clientēs_; Lübker, _servī_,
_lībertīnus_, _hospitium_, _patrōnus_.
§129. Growth of Slavery.--So far as we may learn from history and
legend, slavery was always known at Rome. In the early days of the
Republic, however, the farm was the only place where slaves were
employed. The fact that most of the Romans were farmers and that they
and their free laborers were constantly called from the fields to
fight the battles of their country led to a gradual increase in the
number of slaves, until they were far more numerous than the free
laborers who worked for hire. We can not tell when the custom became
general of employing slaves in personal service and in industrial
pursuits, but it was one of the grossest evils resulting from Rome's
foreign conquests. In the last century of the Republic all manual
labor, almost all trades, and certain of what we now call professions
were in the hands of slaves. Not only were free laborers unable to
compete with slaves, but every occupation in which slaves engaged was
degraded in the eyes of freemen, until all labor was looked upon as
dishonorable. The small farms were gradually absorbed in the vast
estates of the rich, the sturdy yeomanry of Rome disappeared, and by
the time of Augustus the freeborn citizens of Italy who were not
soldiers were either slaveholders themselves or the idle proletariate
of the cities.
§130. Ruinous as were the economic results of slavery, the moral
effects were no less destructive. It is to slavery more than to
anything else that is due the change in the character of the Romans in
the first century of the Empire. With slaves swarming in their houses,
ministering to their luxury, pandering to their appetites, directing
their amusements, managing their business, and even educating their
children, it is no wonder that the old Roman virtues of simplicity,
frugality, and temperance declined and perished. And with the passing
of Roman manhood into oriental effeminacy began the passing of Roman
sway over the civilized world.
§131. Numbers of Slaves.--We have almost no testimony as to the number
of slaves in Italy, none even as to the ratio of the free to the
servile population. We have indirect evidence enough, however, to make
good the statements in the preceding paragraphs. That slaves were few
in early times is shown by their names (§58): if it had been usual for
a master to have more than one slave, such names as _Mārcipor_, and
Ōlipor would not have sufficed to distinguish them. An idea of the
rapid increase after the Punic wars may be gained from the number of
captives sold into slavery by successful generals. Scipio Aemilianus
is said to have disposed in this way of 60,000 Carthaginians, Marius
of 140,000 Cimbri, Aemilius Paulus of 150,000 Greeks, Pompeius and
Caesar together of more than a million of Asiatics and Gauls.
§132. The very insurrections of the slaves, unsuccessful as they
always were, also testify to their overwhelming numbers. Of the two in
Sicily, the first lasted from 134 to 132 B.C., and the second from 102
to 98; the last in spite of the fact that at the close of the first
the consul Rupilius had crucified 20,000, whom he had taken alive, as
a warning to others to submit in silence to their servitude. Spartacus
defied the armies of Rome for two years, and in the decisive battle
with Crassus (71 B.C.) left 60,000 dead upon the field. Cicero's
orations against Catiline show clearly that it was the calling out of
the hordes of slaves by the conspirators that was most dreaded in the
city.
§133. Of the number under the Empire we may get some idea from more
direct testimony. Horace tells us that ten slaves were as few as a
gentleman in even moderate circumstances could afford to own. He
himself had two in town and eight on his little Sabine farm, and he
was a poor man and his father had been a slave. Tacitus tells us of a
city prefect who had four hundred slaves in his mansion. Pliny says
that one Caius Caecilius Claudius Isodorus left at his death over four
thousand slaves. Athenaeus (170-230 A.D.) gives us to understand that
individuals owned as many as ten thousand and twenty thousand. The
fact that house slaves were commonly divided into "groups of ten"
(_decuriae_) points in the same direction.
§134. Sources of Supply.--Under the Republic the largest number of
slaves brought to Rome and offered there for sale were captives taken
in war, and an idea of the magnitude of this source of supply has
already been given (§131). The captives were sold as soon as possible
after they were taken, in order that the general might be relieved of
the trouble and risk of feeding and guarding such large numbers of men
in a hostile country. The sale was conducted by a quaestor, and the
purchasers were the wholesale slave dealers that always followed an
army along with other traders and peddlers. The spear (_hasta_), which
was always the sign of a sale conducted under public authority, was
set up in the ground to mark the place, and the captives had garlands
on their heads as did the victims offered in sacrifice. Hence the
expression _sub hastā_ and _sub corōnā vēnīre_ came to have
practically the same meaning.
§135. The wholesale dealers (_mangōnēs_) assembled their purchases in
convenient depots, and when sufficient numbers had been collected
marched them to Rome, in chains and under guard, to be sold to local
dealers or to private individuals. The slaves obtained in this way
were usually men and likely to be physically sound and strong for the
simple reason that they had been soldiers. On the other hand they were
likely to prove intractable and ungovernable, and many preferred even
suicide to servitude. It sometimes happened, of course, that the
inhabitants of towns and whole districts were sold into slavery
without distinction of age or sex.
§136. Under the Empire large numbers came to Rome as articles of
ordinary commerce, and Rome became one of the great slave marts of the
world. The slaves were brought from all the provinces of the Empire:
blacks from Egypt; swift runners from Numidia; grammarians from
Alexandria; from Cyrene those who made the best house servants; from
Greece handsome boys and girls, and well-trained scribes, accountants,
amanuenses, and even teachers; from Epirus and Illyria experienced
shepherds; from Cappadocia the most patient and enduring laborers.
§137. Some of these were captives taken in the petty wars that Rome
was always waging in defense of her boundaries, but these were
numerically insignificant. Others had been slaves in the countries
from which they came, and merely exchanged old masters for new when
they were sent to Rome. Others still were the victims of slave
hunters, who preyed on weak and defenseless peoples two thousand years
ago much as they are said to do in Africa in our own time. These
man-hunts were not prevented, though perhaps not openly countenanced,
by the Roman governors.
§138. A less important source of supply was the natural increase in
the slave population as men and women formed permanent connections
with each other, called _contubernia_. This became of general
importance only late in the Empire, because in earlier times,
especially during the period of conquest, it was found cheaper to buy
than to breed slaves. To the individual owner, however, the increase
in his slaves in this way was a matter of as much interest as the
increase of his flocks and herds. Such slaves would be more valuable
at maturity, for they would be acclimated and less liable to disease,
and besides would be trained from childhood in the performance of the
very tasks for which they were destined. They would also have more
love for their home and for their master's family, for his children
were often their playmates. It was only natural, therefore, for slaves
born in the _familia_ to have a claim upon their master's confidence
and consideration that others lacked, and it is not surprising that
they were proverbially pert and forward. They were called _vernae_ as
long as they remained the property of their first master. The
derivation of the word is not certain, but it is probable that it has
the same origin as Vesta and means something like "born in the house."
[Illustration: FIGURE 29. SALE OF A SLAVE]
§139. Sales of Slaves.--Slave dealers usually offered their wares at
public auction sales (Fig. 29). These were under the supervision of
the aediles, who appointed the place and made rules and regulations to
govern them. A tax was imposed on imported slaves and they were
offered for sale with their feet whitened with chalk; those from the
east had also their ears bored, a common sign of slavery among
oriental peoples. As bids were asked for each slave he was made to
mount a stone or platform, corresponding to the "block" familiar to
the readers of our own history. From his neck hung a scroll
(_titulus_), setting forth his character and serving as a warrant for
the purchaser. If the slave had defects not made known in this warrant
the vendor was bound to take him back within six months or make good
the loss to the buyer. The chief items in the _titulus_ were the age
and nationality of the slave, and his freedom from such common defects
as chronic ill-health, especially epilepsy, and tendencies to
thievery, running away, and suicide. In spite of the guarantee the
purchaser took care to examine the slaves as closely as possible. For
this reason they were commonly stripped, made to move around, handled
freely by the purchaser, and even examined by physicians. If no
warrant was given by the dealer, a cap (_pilleus_) was put on the
slave's head at the time of the sale and the purchaser took all risks.
The dealer might also offer the slaves at private sale, and this was
the rule in the case of all of unusual value and especially of marked
personal beauty. These were not exposed to the gaze of the crowd, but
were offered to those only who were likely to purchase. Private sales
and exchanges between citizens without the intervention of a regular
dealer were as common as the sales of other property, and no stigma
was attached to them. The trade of the _mangōnēs_, on the other hand,
was looked upon as utterly disreputable, but it was very lucrative and
great fortunes were often made in it. Vilest of all the dealers were
the _lēnōnēs_, who kept and sold slaves for immoral purposes only.
[Illustration: FIGURE 30. THE GAUL AND HIS WIFE]
§140. Prices of Slaves.--The prices of slaves varied as did the prices
of other commodities. Much depended upon the times, the supply and
demand, the characteristics and accomplishments of the particular
slave, and the requirements of the purchaser. Captives bought upon the
battlefield rarely brought more than nominal prices, because the sale
was in a measure forced (§134), and because the dealer was sure to
lose a large part of his purchase on the long march home through
disease, fatigue, and especially suicide. There is a famous piece of
statuary representing a hopeless Gaul killing his wife and then
himself (Fig. 30). We are told that Lucullus once sold slaves in his
camp at an average price of eighty cents each. In Rome male slaves
varied in value from $100, paid for common laborers in the time of
Horace, to $28,000 paid by Marcus Scaurus for an accomplished
grammarian. Handsome boys, well trained and educated, sold for as much
as $4,000. Very high prices were also paid for handsome and
accomplished girls. The music girls in Plautus and Terence cost their
lovers from $500 to $700, but girls of the lowest class sold for as
little as $25. It seems strange to us that slaves were matched in size
and color as carefully as horses are now, and that a well-matched pair
of boys would bring a much larger sum when sold together than when
sold separately.
§141. Public and Private Slaves.--Slaves were called _servī pūblicī_
and _servī prīvātī_ according as they were owned by the state or by
individuals. The condition of the former was considered the more
desirable: they were not so likely to be sold, were not worked so
hard, and were not exposed to the whims of a capricious master. They
were employed to take care of the public buildings and as servants of
the magistrates and priests. The quaestors and aediles had great
numbers of them in their service, and they were drilled as a corps of
firemen to serve at night under the _triumvirī nocturnī_. Others were
employed as lictors, jailers, executioners, etc. The number of public
slaves while considerable in itself was inconsiderable as compared
with that of those in private service.
§142. Private Slaves.--Private slaves either were employed in the
personal service of their master and his family or were kept for gain.
The former, known as the _familia urbāna_, will be described later.
The latter may be classified according as they were kept for hire or
employed in the business enterprises of their master. Of these last
the most important as well as the oldest (§129) class was that of the
farm laborers (_familia rūstica_). Of the others, engaged in all sorts
of industries, it may be remarked that it was considered more
honorable for a master to employ his slaves in enterprises of his own
than to hire them out to others. At the same time slaves could always
be hired for any desired purpose in Rome or any other city.
§143. Industrial Employment.--It must be remembered that there were
practically no freeborn laborers left in the last century of the
Republic (§129), and that much work was then done by hand that is now
done by machinery. In work of this sort were employed armies of slaves
fit only for unskilled labor: porters for the transportation of
materials and merchandise, stevedores for the lading and discharging
of vessels, men who handled the spade, pickax, and crowbar, men of
great physical strength but of little else to make them worth their
keep. Above these came artisans, mechanics, and skilled workmen of
every kind: smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, seamen, etc. The
merchants and shopkeepers required assistants, and so did the millers
and bakers, the dealers in wool and leather, the keepers of lodging
houses and restaurants, all who helped to supply the countless wants
of a great city. Even the professions, as we should call them, were
largely in the hands of slaves. Books were multiplied by slaves. The
artists who carved wood and stone, designed furniture, laid mosaics,
painted pictures, and decorated the walls and ceilings of public and
private buildings were slaves. So were the musicians and the acrobats,
actors and gladiators who amused the people at the public games. So
too, as we have seen (§121), were many of the teachers in the schools,
and physicians were usually slaves.
§144. And slaves did not merely perform these various functions under
the direction of their master or of the employer to whom he had hired
them for the time. Many of them were themselves captains of industry.
When a slave showed executive ability as well as technical knowledge,
it was common enough for his master to furnish him with the necessary
capital to carry on independently the business or profession which he
understood. In this way slaves were often the managers of estates, of
banks, of commercial enterprises, though these might take them far
beyond the reach of their masters' observation, even into foreign
countries. Sometimes such a slave was expected to pay the master
annually a fixed sum out of the proceeds of the business; sometimes he
was allowed to keep for himself a certain share of the profits;
sometimes he was merely required to repay the sum advanced with
interest from the time he had received it. In all cases, however, his
industry and intelligence were stimulated by the hope of acquiring
sufficient means from the venture to purchase his freedom and
eventually make the business his own.
§145. The Familia Rustica.--Under this name are comprised the slaves
that were employed upon the vast estates that long before the end of
the Republic had supplanted the small farms of the earlier day. The
very name points at this change, for it implies that the estate was no
longer the only home of the master. He had become a landlord, living
in the capital and visiting his lands only occasionally for pleasure
or for business. The estates may, therefore, be divided into two
classes: country seats for pleasure and farms or ranches for profit.
The former were selected with great care, the purchaser having regard
to their proximity to the city or other resorts of fashion, their
healthfulness, and the natural beauty of their scenery. They were
maintained upon the most extravagant scale. There were villas and
pleasure grounds, parks, game preserves, fish ponds and artificial
lakes, everything that ministered to open air luxury. Great numbers of
slaves were required to keep these places in order, and many of them
were slaves of the highest class: landscape gardeners, experts in the
culture of fruits and flowers, experts even in the breeding and
keeping of the birds, game, and fish, of which the Romans were
inordinately fond. These had under them assistants and laborers of
every sort, and all were subject to the authority of a superintendent
or steward (_vīlicus_), who had been put in charge of the estate by
the master.
§146. Farm Slaves.--But the name _familia rūstica_ is more
characteristically used of the drudges upon the farms, because the
slaves employed upon the country seats were more directly in the
personal service of the master and can hardly be said to have been
kept for profit. The raising of grain for the market had long ceased
to be profitable, but various industries had taken its place upon the
farms. Wine and oil had become the most important products of the
soil, and vineyards and olive orchards were found wherever climate and
other conditions were favorable. Cattle and swine were raised in
countless numbers, the former more for draft purposes and the products
of the dairy than for beef. Sheep were kept for the wool, and woolen
garments were worn by the rich and poor alike. Cheese was made in
large quantities, all the larger because butter was unknown. The
keeping of bees was an important industry, because honey served, so
far as it could, the purposes for which sugar is used in modern times.
Besides these things that we are even now accustomed to associate with
farming, there were others that are now looked upon as distinct and
separate businesses. Of these the most important, perhaps, as it was
undoubtedly the most laborious, was the quarrying of stone; another
was the cutting of timber and working it up into rough lumber, and
finally the preparing of sand for the use of the builder. This last
was of much greater importance relatively then than now, on account of
the extensive use of concrete at Rome.
§147. In some of these tasks intelligence and skill were required as
they are to-day, but in many of them the most necessary qualifications
were strength and endurance, as the slaves took the place of much of
the machinery of modern times. This was especially true of the men
employed in the quarries, who were usually of the rudest and most
ungovernable class, and were worked in chains by day and housed in
dungeons by night, as convicts have been housed and worked in much
later times.
§148. The Vilicus.--The management of such an estate was also
intrusted to a _vīlicus_ (§145), who was proverbially a hard
taskmaster, simply because his hopes of freedom depended upon the
amount of profits he could turn into his master's coffers at the end
of the year. His task was no easy one. Besides planning for and
overseeing the gangs of slaves already mentioned, he had under his
charge another body of slaves only less numerous, employed in
providing for the wants of the others. Everything necessary for the
farm was produced or manufactured on the farm. Enough grain was raised
for food, and this grain was ground in the farm mills and baked in the
farm ovens by millers and bakers who were slaves on the farm. The task
of turning the mill was usually given to a horse or mule, but slaves
were often made to do the grinding as a punishment. Wool was carded,
spun, and woven into cloth, and this cloth was made into clothes by
the female slaves under the eye of the steward's consort, the
_vīlica_. Buildings were erected, and the tools and implements
necessary for the work of the farm were made and repaired. These
things required a number of carpenters, smiths, and masons, though
they were not necessarily workmen of the highest class. It was the
touchstone of a good _vīlicus_ to keep his men always busy, and it is
to be understood that the slaves were alternately plowmen and reapers,
vinedressers and treaders of the grapes, perhaps even quarrymen and
lumbermen, according to the season of the year and the place of their
toiling.
§149. The Familia Urbana.--The number of slaves kept by the wealthy
Roman in his city mansion was measured not by his needs, but by the
demands of fashion and his means. In the early days a sort of butler
(_ātriēnsis_), or major domo, had relieved the master of his household
cares, had done the buying, had kept the accounts, had seen that the
house and furniture were in order, and had looked after the few
servants who did the actual work. Even under the Republic all this was
changed. Other slaves, the _prōcūrātor_ and _dispēnsātor_, relieved
the _ātriēnsis_ of the purchasing of the supplies and the keeping of
the accounts, and left to him merely the supervision of the house and
its furniture. The duties of the slaves under him were, in the same
way, distributed among a number many times greater. Every part of the
house had its special staff of servants, often so numerous as to be
distributed into _decuriae_ (§133), with a separate superintendent for
each division: one for the kitchen, another for the dining-rooms,
another for the bedrooms, etc.
§150. The very entrance door had assigned to it its special slave
(_ōstiārius_ or _iānitor_), who was often chained to it like a
watchdog, in order to keep him literally at his post. And the duties
of the several sets were again divided and subdivided, each slave
having some one office to perform, and only one. The names of the
various functionaries of the kitchen, the dining-rooms, and the
bedchambers are too numerous to mention, but an idea of the complexity
of the service may be gained from the number of attendants that
assisted the master and mistress with their toilets. The former had
his _ōrnātor_, _tōnsor_, and _calceātor_ (who cared for the feet); the
latter her hairdressers (_ciniflōnēs_ or _cinerāriī_) and _ōrnātrīx_;
and besides these each had no less than three or four more to assist
with the bath. The children, too, had each his or her own attendants,
beginning with the _nūtrix_, and continuing in the case of the boy
with the _paedagōgus_ and _pedisequī_ (§123).
[Illustration: FIGURE 31. LECTICA]
§151. When the master or mistress left the house a numerous retinue
was deemed necessary. If they walked, slaves went before to clear the
way (_anteambulōnēs_), and pages and lackeys followed carrying wraps
or the sunshade and fan of the mistress, and ready to perform any
little service that might be necessary. The master was always
accompanied out of the house by his _nōmenclātor_, who prompted him in
case he had forgotten the name of any one who greeted him. If they did
not walk, they were carried in litters (_lectīcae_, Fig. 31),
something like sedan chairs. The bearers were strong men, by
preference Syrians or Cappadocians (§136), all carefully matched in
size (§140) and dressed in gorgeous liveries. As each member of the
household had his own litter and bearers, this one class of slaves
made an important item in the family budget. And even when they rode
in this way the same attendants accompanied them as when they walked.
§152. When the master dined at the house of a friend his slaves
attended him as far as the door at least. Some remained with him to
care for his sandals, and others (_adversitōrēs_) returned at the
appointed hour to see him home. A journey out of the city was a more
serious matter and called for more pomp and display. In addition to
the horses and mules that drew the carts of those who rode, there were
mounted outriders and beasts of burden loaded with baggage and
supplies. Numerous slaves followed on foot, and a band of gladiators
not infrequently acted as escort and bodyguard. It is not too much to
say that the ordinary train of a wealthy traveler included scores,
perhaps hundreds, of slaves.
§153. Among the _familia urbāna_ must be numbered also those who
furnished amusement and entertainment for the master and his guests,
especially during and after meals. There were musicians and readers,
and for persons of less refined tastes, dancers, jesters, dwarfs, and
even misshapen freaks. Under the Empire little children were kept for
the same purpose.
§154. Lastly may be mentioned the slaves of the highest class, the
confidential assistants of the master, the amanuenses who wrote his
letters, the secretaries who kept his accounts, and the agents through
whom he collected his income, audited the reports of his stewards and
managers, made his investments, and transacted all sorts of business
matters. The greater the luxury and extravagance of the house, the
more the master would need these trained and experienced men to
relieve him of cares which he detested, and by their fidelity and
skill to make possible the gratification of his tastes and passions.
§155. Such a staff as has been described belonged, of course, to a
wealthy and fashionable man. Persons with more good sense had only
such slaves as could be profitably employed. Atticus, the friend of
Cicero, a man of sufficient wealth and social position to defy the
demands of fashion, kept in his service only _vernae_ (§138), and had
them so carefully trained that the meanest could read and write for
him. Cicero, on the other hand, could not think it good form to have a
slave do more than one kind of work, and Cicero was not to be
considered a rich man.
§156. Legal Status of Slaves.--The power of the master over the slave,
called _dominium_ (§37), was absolute. He could assign him the most
laborious and degrading tasks, punish him even unto death at his sole
discretion, sell him, and kill him (or turn him out in the street to
die) when age or illness had made him incapable of labor. Slaves were
mere chattels in the eyes of the law, like oxen or horses. They could
not hold property, they could not make contracts, they could testify
in the courts only on the rack, they could not marry. The free person
_in potestāte_ was little better off legally (§31), but there were two
important differences between the son, for example, and the slave. The
son was relieved of the _potestās_ on the death of the _pater
familiās_ (§34), but the death of the master did not make the slave
free. Again, the condition of the son was ameliorated by _pietās_
(§73) and public opinion (§§32, 33), but there was no _pietās_ for the
slave and public opinion hardly operated in his behalf. It did enable
him to hold as his own his scanty savings (§162), and it gave a sort
of sanction to the permanent unions of male and female slaves called
_contubernium_, but in other respects it did little for his benefit.
§157. Under the Empire various laws were passed that seemed to
recognize the slave as a person, not a thing: it was forbidden to sell
him for the purpose of fighting with wild beasts in the amphitheater;
it was provided that the slave should not be put to death by the
master simply because he was too old or too ill to work, and that a
slave "exposed" (§95) should become free by the act; at last the
master was forbidden to kill the slave at all without due process of
law. As a matter of fact these laws were very generally disregarded,
much as are our laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and it
may be said that it was only the influence of Christianity that at
last changed the condition of the slave for the better.
§158. The Treatment of Slaves.--There is nothing in the stern and
selfish character of the Roman that would lead us to expect from him
gentleness or mercy in the treatment of his slaves. At the same time
he was too shrewd and sharp in all matters of business to forget that
a slave was a piece of valuable property, and to run the risk of the
loss or injury of that property by wanton cruelty. Much depended, of
course, upon the character and temper of the individual owner, and
Juvenal gives us to understand that the mistress was likely to be more
spiteful and unreasonable than the master. But the case of Vedius
Pollio, in the time of Augustus, who ordered a slave to be thrown
alive into a pond as food for the fish because he had broken a goblet,
may be balanced by that of Cicero, whose letters to his slave Tiro
disclose real affection and tenderness of feeling. The passionate man
nowadays may kill or maim the dog or horse, although it has a money
value and he needs its services, and most of us know of worn-out
horses turned out upon the common to die. But these things are
exceptional, and if we consider the age in which the Roman lived and
pass for a moment the matter of punishments, we may say that he was
rather pitiless as a taskmaster than habitually cruel to his slaves.
§159. Of the daily life of the town slave we know but little except
that his work was light and he was the envy of the drudge upon the
farm. Of the treatment of the latter we get some knowledge from the
writings of the elder Cato, who may be taken as a fair specimen of the
rugged farmer of his time (234-149 B.C.). He held that slaves should
always be at work except in the hours, few enough at best, allowed
them for sleep, and he took pains to find plenty for his to do even on
the public holidays. He advised farmers to sell immediately worn-out
draft cattle, diseased sheep, broken implements, aged and feeble
slaves, "and other useless things."
§160. Food and Dress.--Slaves were fed on coarse food, but when Cato
tells us that in addition to the monthly allowance of grain (about a
bushel) they were to have merely the fallen olives, or, failing these,
a little salt fish and vinegar, we must remember that this was no less
and no worse than the common food of the poorer Romans. Every
schoolboy knows that grain was the only ration of the sturdy soldiers
that won Caesar's battles for him. A slave was furnished a tunic every
year, and a cloak and a pair of wooden shoes every two years. Worn-out
clothes were returned to the _vīlicus_ to be made up into patchwork
quilts. We are told that this same _vīlicus_ often cheated the slaves
by stinting their allowance for his own benefit, and we can not doubt
that he, a slave himself, was more likely to be brutal and cruel than
the master would have been.
§161. But entirely apart from the grinding toil and the harshness and
insolence of the master and the overseer, the mere restraint from
liberty was torture enough in itself. There was little chance of
escape by flight. The Greek slave might hope to cross the boundary of
the little principality in which he served, to find freedom and refuge
under the protection of an adjoining power. But Italy was not cut up
into hostile communities, and should the slave by a miracle reach the
Rubicon or the sea, no neighboring state would dare defend him or even
hide him from his Roman master. If he attempted flight, he must live
the life of an outlaw, with organized bands of slave hunters on his
track, with a reward offered for his return, and unspeakable tortures
awaiting him as a warning for others. It is no wonder, then, that vast
numbers of slaves sought rest from their labors by a voluntary death
(§140). It must be remembered that many of them were men of good birth
and high position in the countries from which they came, some of them
even soldiers, taken on the field of battle with weapons in their
hands.
§162. The Peculium.--We have seen that the free man _in potestāte_
could not legally hold property, that all that he acquired belonged
strictly to his _pater familiās_ (§31). We have also seen that he was
allowed to hold, manage and use property assigned to him by the _pater
familiās_, just as if it had been his own (§33). The same thing was
true in the case of a slave, and the property was called by the same
name (_pecūlium_). His claim to it could not be maintained by law, but
was confirmed by public opinion and by inviolable custom. If the
master respected these, there were several ways in which an
industrious and frugal slave could scrape together bit by bit a little
fund of his own, depending in great measure, of course, upon the
generosity of his master and his own position in the _familia_.
§163. If he belonged to the _familia rūstica_, the opportunities were
not so good, but by stinting himself he might save something from his
monthly allowance of food (§160), and he might, perhaps, do a little
work for himself in the hours allowed for sleep and rest, tilling, for
example, a few square yards of garden for his own benefit. If he were
a city slave there were besides these chances the tips from his
master's friends and guests, and perhaps a bribe for some little piece
of knavery or a reward for its success. We have already seen that a
slave teacher received presents from his pupils (§121). It was no
uncommon thing either, as has been said, for a shrewd master to teach
a slave a trade and allow him to keep a portion of the increased
earnings which his deftness and skill would bring. More rarely the
master would furnish the capital and allow the slave to start in
business and retain a portion of the profits (§144).
§164. For the master the custom was undoubtedly profitable in the long
run. It stimulated the slave's energy and made him more contented and
cheerful. It also furnished a means of control more effective than the
severest corporal punishment, and that without physical injury to the
chattel. To the ambitious slave the _pecūlium_ gave at least a chance
of freedom, for he hoped to save enough in time to buy himself from
his master. Many, of course, preferred to use their earnings to
purchase little comforts and luxuries nearer than distant liberty.
Some upon whom a high price was set by their owners used their
_pecūlium_ to buy for themselves cheaper slaves, whom they hired out
to the employers of laborers already mentioned (§143). In this way
they hoped to increase their savings more rapidly. The slave's slave
was called _vicārius_, and legally belonged to the owner of his
master, but public opinion regarded him as a part of the
slave-master's _pecūlium_. The slave had a life interest only in his
savings, that is, they did not pass to his heirs on his death, for a
slave could have no "heirs," and he could not dispose of them by will.
If he died in slavery his property went to his master. Public slaves
(§141) were allowed as one of their greatest privileges to dispose of
one-half of their property by will.
§165. At the best the accumulation of a sum large enough (§140) to buy
his liberty was pitifully slow and painful for the slave, all the more
because the more energetic and industrious he was, the higher the
price that would be set upon him. We can not help feeling a great
respect for the man who at so great a price obtained his freedom. We
can sympathize, too, with the poor fellows who had to take from their
little hoards to make to the members of their masters' families the
presents that were expected on such great occasions as the marriage of
one of them, the naming of a child (§98), or the birthday of the
mistress (§91).
§166. Punishments.--It is not the purpose of the following sections to
catalogue the fiendish tortures sometimes inflicted upon slaves by
their masters. They were not very common for the reason suggested in
§158, and were no more characteristic of the ordinary correction of
slaves than lynching and whitecapping are characteristic of the
administration of justice in Georgia and Indiana. Certain punishments,
however, are so frequently mentioned in Latin literature, that a
description of them is necessary in order that the passages in which
they occur may be understood by the reader.
[Illustration: FIGURE 32. FLAGELLUM]
§167. The most common punishment for neglect of duty or petty
misconduct was a beating with a stick or flogging with a lash. If the
picture of a Roman school already referred to (§119) gives a correct
idea of the punishments inflicted upon a schoolboy with the consent of
his parents, we should expect that of a slave to be as severe as
regard for his usefulness afterwards would permit. Hence we find that
for the single rod or stick was often substituted a bundle of rods,
usually elm (_ulmī_) corresponding to the birch of England and the
hickory of America. For the lash or rawhide (_scutica_ or _lōrum_) was
often used a sort of cat-o'-nine-tails, made of cords or thongs of
leather. When the offense was more serious, bits of bone were attached
to this, and even metal buttons, to tear the flesh, and the instrument
was called a _flagrum_ or _flagellum_ (Fig. 32). It could not have
been less severe than the knout of Russia, and we may well believe
that slaves died beneath its blows. To render the victim incapable of
resistance he was sometimes drawn up to a beam by the arms, and
weights were even attached to his feet, so that he could not so much
as writhe under the torture.
§168. In the comedies are many references to these punishments, and
the slaves make grim jests on the rods and the scourge, taunting each
other with the beatings they have had or deserve to have. Sometimes
the rods are parasites, who shave close the person to whom they attach
themselves; sometimes they are pens, the back of the culprit being the
copybook; sometimes they are catapults, dealing darts and death.
Sometimes the victim is a bottomless abyss of rods; sometimes he has
absorbed so much essence of elm that he is in danger of himself
becoming a tree; sometimes he is an anvil; sometimes he is a solid
melting under the blows; sometimes he is a garden well watered by
blows. Sometimes an entertainment is being prepared scot-free for his
back; and sometimes his back is a beautifully embroidered carpet.
§169. Another punishment for offenses of the same trivial nature
resembled the stocks of old New England days. The offender was exposed
to the derision of his fellows with his limbs so confined that he
could make no motion at all, could not so much as brush a fly from his
face. Variations of this form of punishment are seen in the _furca_
and in the "making a quadruped out of a man." The latter must have
been something like the "bucking and gagging" used as a punishment in
the militia; the former was so common that _furcifer_ became a mere
term of abuse. The culprit carried upon his shoulders a log of wood,
shaped like a V, and had his arms stretched out before him with his
hands fastened to the ends of the fork. This log he had to carry
around in order that the other members of the _familia_ might see him
and take warning. Sometimes to this punishment was added a lashing as
he moved painfully along.
§170. Less painful and degrading for the moment, but far more dreaded
by the slave, was a sentence to harder labor than he had been
accustomed to perform. The final penalty for misconduct on the part of
a city slave, for whom the rod had been spoiled in vain, was
banishment to the farm, and to this might be added at a stroke the
odious task of grinding at the mill (§148), or the crushing toil of
labor in the quarries. The last were the punishments of the better
class of farm slaves, while the desperate and dangerous class of
slaves who regularly worked in the quarries paid for their misdeeds
under the scourge and in heavier shackles by day and fewer hours of
rest by night. These may be compared to the galley slaves of later
times. Those utterly incorrigible might be sold for gladiators.
§171. For actual crimes, not mere faults or offenses, the punishments
were far more severe. Slaves were so numerous (§131) and their various
employments gave them such free access to the person of the master,
that his property and very life were always at their mercy. It was
indeed a just and gentle master that did not sometimes dream of a
slave holding a dagger at his throat. There was nothing within the
confines of Italy so much dreaded as an uprising of the slaves. It was
simply this haunting fear that led to the inhuman tortures inflicted
upon the slave guilty of an attempt upon the life of his master or of
the destruction of his property. The Romans had not learned twenty
centuries ago, as some of our own citizens have not yet learned, that
crimes are not lessened by increasing the sufferings of the criminals.
[Illustration: FIGURE 33. SLAVE'S COLLAR--_Servus sum dom(i)ni mei
Scholastici v(iri) sp(ectabilis). Tene me ne fugiam de domo
Pulverata._]
§172. The runaway slave was a criminal: he had stolen himself. He was
also guilty of setting a bad example to his fellow slaves; and, worst
of all, runaway slaves always became bandits (§161) and they might
find a Spartacus to lead them (§132). There were, therefore, standing
rewards for the capture of _fugitīvī_, and there were men who made it
their business to track them down and return them to their masters.
The _fugitīvus_ was brought back in shackles, and was sure to be
flogged within an inch of his life and sent to the quarries for the
rest of his miserable days. Besides this, he was branded on the
forehead with the letter F, for _fugitīvus_, and sometimes had a metal
collar riveted about his neck. One such, still preserved at Rome, is
shown in Fig. 33, and another has the inscription:
FUGI. TENE ME. CUM REVOCAVERIS ME D. M.
ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM.[1]
[Footnote 1: I have run away. Catch me. If you take me back to my
master Zoninus you'll be rewarded.]
§173. For an attempt upon the life of the master the penalty was death
in its most agonizing form, by crucifixion. This was also the penalty
for taking part in an insurrection, witness the twenty thousand
crucified in Sicily (§132) and the six thousand crosses that Pompeius
erected along the road to Rome, each bearing the body of one of the
survivors of the final battle in which Spartacus fell. And the
punishment was inflicted not only upon the slave guilty of his
master's life, but also upon the family of the slave, if he had wife
(§156) and children. If the guilty man could not be found, his
punishment was made certain by the crucifixion of all the slaves of
the murdered man. Tacitus tells us that in the reign of Nero four
hundred slaves were executed for the murder of their master, Pedianus
Secundus, by one of their number undetected.
§174. The cross stood to the slave as the horror of horrors. The very
word (_crux_) was used among them as a curse, especially in the form
_ad (malam) crucem_. The various minor punishments were inflicted at
the order of the master or his representative by some fellow slave
called for the time _carnifex_ or _lōrārius_, though these words by no
means imply that he was regularly or even commonly designated for the
disagreeable duty. Still, the administration of punishment to a fellow
slave was felt to be degrading, and the word _carnifex_ was apt to
attach itself to such a person and finally came to be a standing term
of abuse and taunt. It is applied to each other by quarreling slaves,
apparently with no notion of its literal meaning, as many vulgar
epithets are applied to-day. The actual execution of a death sentence
was carried out by one of the _servī pūblicī_ (§141) at a fixed place
of execution outside of the city walls.
[Illustration: FIGURE 34. COIN, SHOWING THE PILLEUS]
§175. Manumission.--The slave might purchase his freedom from his
master by means of his savings, as we have seen (§164), or he might be
set free as a reward for faithful service or some special act of
devotion. In either case it was only necessary for the master to
pronounce him free in the presence of witnesses, though a formal act
of manumission often took place before a praetor. The new-made
freedman set proudly on his head the cap of liberty (_pilleus_), often
seen on Roman coins (Fig. 34). He was now called _lībertus_ in
reference to his master, _lībertīnus_ in reference to others; his
master was no longer _dominus_, but _patrōnus_. The relation that now
existed between them was one of mutual helpfulness. The patron
assisted the freedman in business, often supplying the means with
which he was to make a start in his new life. It the freedman died
first, the patron paid the expenses of a decent funeral and had the
body buried near the spot where his own ashes would be laid. He became
the guardian of the freedman's children, or if no heirs were left, he
himself inherited the property. The freedman was bound to show his
patron marked deference and respect on all occasions, to attend him
upon public occasions, to assist him in case of reverse of fortune,
and in short to stand to him in the same relation as the client had
stood to the patron in the brave days of old.
§176. The Clients.--The word _cliēns_ (from _clueō_; therefore
"hearer," "one who obeys") is used in Roman history of two very
different classes of dependents, who are separated by a considerable
interval of time and may be roughly distinguished as the Old Clients
and the New. The former played an important part under the Kings, and
especially in the struggles between the patricians and plebeians in
the early days of the Republic, but had practically disappeared by the
time of Cicero. The latter are first heard of after the Empire was
well advanced, and never had any political significance. Between the
two classes there is absolutely no connection, and the student must be
careful to notice that the later is not a development of the earlier
class.
§177. The Old Clients.--Clientage (_clientēla_) goes back beyond the
founding of Rome to the most ancient social institutions of the
Italian communities. The _gentēs_ who settled on the hills along the
Tiber (§22) had brought with them as a part of their _familiae_ (§21)
numerous free retainers, who seem to have farmed their lands, tended
their flocks, and done them certain personal services in return for
protection against cattle thieves, raiders, and open enemies. These
retainers were regarded as inferior members of the _gēns_ to which
they had severally attached themselves, had a share in the increase of
the flocks and herds (§33, _pecūlia_), and were given the clan name
(§47), but they had no right of marriage with persons of the higher
class and no voice in the government. They were the original _plēbs_,
while the _gentīlēs_ (§22) were the _populus_ of Rome.
§178. Rome's policy of expansion soon brought within the city a third
element, distinct from both _gentīlēs_ and _clientēs_. Conquered
communities, especially those dangerously near, were made to destroy
their own strongholds (_oppida_) and move in mass to the city. Those
who possessed already the gentile organization were allowed to become
a part of the _populus_, or governing body, and these, too, brought
their _clientēs_ with them. Those who had no such organization either
attached themselves to the _gentēs_ as clients, or preferring personal
independence settled here and there, in and about the city, to make a
living as best they might. Some were possessed of means as large
perhaps as those of the patricians; others were artisans and laborers,
hewers of wood and drawers of water; but all alike were without
political rights and occupied the lowest position in the new state.
Their numbers increased rapidly with the expansion of Roman territory,
and they soon outnumbered the patricians with their retainers, with
whom, of course, as conquered people they could have no sympathies or
social ties. To them also the name of _plēbs_ was given, and the old
_plēbs_, the _clientēs_, began to occupy an intermediate position in
the state, though politically included with the plebeians. Many of
them, owing perhaps to the dying out of ancient patrician families,
gradually lost their dependent relation and became identified in
interests with the newer element.
§179. Mutual Obligations.--The relation between the patrician patrons
and the plebeian clients is not now thoroughly understood; the
problems connected with it seem beyond solution. We know that it was
hereditary and that the great houses boasted of the number of their
clients and were eager to increase them from generation to generation.
We know that it was regarded as something peculiarly sacred, that the
client stood to the patron as little less than a son. Vergil tells us
that a special punishment in the underworld awaited the patron who
defrauded a client. We read, too, of instances of splendid loyalty to
their patrons on the part of clients, a loyalty to which we can only
compare in modern times that of Highlanders to the chief of their
clan. But when we try to get an idea of the reciprocal duties and
obligations we find little in our authorities that is definite (§12,
end). The patron furnished means of support for the client and his
family (§177), gave him the benefit of his advice and counsel, and
assisted him in his transactions with third parties, representing him
if necessary in the courts. On the other hand the client was bound to
advance the interests of his patron in every possible way. He tilled
his fields, herded his flocks, attended him in war, and assisted him
in special emergencies with money.
§180. It is evident that the mutuality of this relation depended
solely upon the predominant position of the patron in the state. So
long as the patricians were the only full citizens, so long, that is,
as the plebeians had no civil rights, the client might well afford to
sacrifice his personal independence for the sake of the countenance
and protection of one of the mighty. In the case of disputes over
property, for example, the support of his patron would assure him
justice even against a patrician, and might secure more than justice
were his opponent a plebeian without another such advocate. It is
evident, too, that the relation could not long endure after the
equalization of the orders. For a generation or two the patron and the
client might stand together against their old adversaries, but sooner
or later the client would see that he was getting no equivalent for
the service he rendered, and his children or his children's children
would throw off the yoke. The introduction of slavery, on the other
hand, helped to make the patron independent of the client, and while
we can hardly tell whether its rapid growth (§129) was the cause or
the effect of declining clientage, it is nevertheless significant that
the new relation of _patrōnus_ and _lībertus_ (§175) marks the
disappearance of that of _patrōnus_ and _cliēns_ in the old and better
sense of the words.
§181. The New Clients.--The new clients need not detain us long. They
came in with the upstart rich, who counted a long train of dependents
as necessary to their state as a string of high-sounding names (§50),
or a mansion crowded with useless slaves (§155). These dependents were
simply obscure and needy men who toadied to the rich and great for the
sake of the crumbs that fell from their tables. There might be among
them men of perverted talents, philosophers or poets like Martial and
Statius, but they were all at best a swarm of cringing, fawning,
time-serving flatterers and parasites. It is important to understand
that there was no personal tie between the new patron and the new
client, no bond of hereditary association. No sacrifice was involved
on either side. The client did not attach himself for life to one
patron for better or for worse; he frequently paid his court to
several at a time and changed his masters as often as he could hope
for better things. The patron in like manner dismissed a client when
he had tired of him.
§182. Duties and Rewards.--The service, however mean and degrading,
was easy enough. The chief duty was the _salūtātiō_: the clients
arrayed in the toga, the formal dress for all social functions,
assembled early in the morning in the great man's hall to greet him
when he first appeared. This might be all required of them for the
day, and there might be time to hurry through the streets to another
house to pay similar homage to another patron, perhaps to others
still, for the rich slept late. On the other hand the patron might
command their attendance in the house or by his litter (§151), if he
was going out, and keep them at his side the whole day long. Then
there was no chance to wait upon the second patron, but every chance
to be forgotten by him. And the rewards were no greater than the
services. A few coins for a clever witticism or a fulsome compliment;
a cast-off toga occasionally, for a shabby dress disgraced the levee;
or an invitation to the dinner table if the patron was particularly
gracious. One meal a day was always expected, and felt to be the due
of the client. But sometimes the patron did not receive and the
clients were sent empty away. Sometimes, too, after a day's attendance
the hungry and tired train were dismissed with a gift of cold food
distributed in little baskets (_sportulae_), a poor and sorry
substitute for the good cheer they had hoped for. From these baskets
the "dole," as we should call it now, came to be called _sportula_
itself, and in the course of time an equivalent in money, fixed
finally at about thirty cents, took the place of this. But it was
something to be admitted to the familiar presence of the rich and
fashionable, there was always the hope of a little legacy, if the
flattery was adroit, and even the dole would enable one to live more
easily than by work, especially if one could stand well with several
patrons and draw the dole from each of them.
§183. The Hospites.--Finally we come to the _hospitēs_, though these
in strictness ought not to be reckoned among the dependents. It is
true that they were often dependent on others for protection and help,
but it is also true that they were equally ready and able to extend
like help and protection to others who had the right to claim
assistance from them. It is important to observe that _hospitium_
differed from clientship in this respect, that the parties to it were
actually on the footing of absolute equality. Although at some
particular time one might be dependent upon the other for food or
shelter, at another time the relations might be reversed and the
protector and the protected change places.
§184. _Hospitium_, in its technical sense, goes back to a time when
there were no international relations, to the time when stranger and
enemy were not merely synonymous words, but absolutely the same word.
In this early stage of society, when distinct communities were
numerous, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion, and the
traveler in a state not his own found it difficult to get his wants
supplied, even if his life was not actually in danger. Hence the
custom arose for a man engaged in commerce or in any other occupation
that might compel him to visit a foreign country to form previously a
connection with a citizen of that country, who would be ready to
receive him as a friend, to supply his needs, to vouch for his good
intentions, and to act if necessary as his protector. Such a
relationship, called _hospitium_, was always strictly reciprocal: if A
agreed to entertain and protect B, when B visited A's country, then B
was bound to entertain and protect A, if A visited B's country. The
parties to an agreement of this sort were called _hospitēs_, and hence
the word _hospes_ has a double signification, at one time denoting the
entertainer, at another the guest.
§185. Obligations of Hospitium.--The obligations imposed by this
covenant were of the most sacred character, and any failure to regard
its provisions was sacrilege, bringing upon the offender the anger of
_Iuppiter Hospitālis_. Either of the parties might cancel the bond,
but only after a formal and public notice of his intentions. On the
other hand the tie was hereditary, descending from father to son, so
that persons might be _hospitēs_ who had never so much as seen each
other, whose immediate ancestors even might have had no personal
intercourse. As a means of identification the original parties
exchanged tokens _tesserae hospitālēs_, (see Rich and Harper, s. v.),
by which they or their descendants might recognize each other. These
tokens were carefully preserved, and when a stranger claimed
_hospitium_ his _tessera_ had to be produced and submitted for
examination. If it was found to be genuine, he was entitled to all the
privileges that the best-known guest-friend could expect. These seem
to have been entertainment so long as he remained in his host's city,
protection including legal assistance if necessary, nursing and
medical attendance in case of illness, the means necessary for
continuing his journey, and honorable burial if he died among
strangers. It will be noticed that these are almost precisely the
duties devolving upon members of our great benevolent societies at the
present time when appealed to by a brother in distress.