The Roman Guide to Slave Management: A Treatise by Nobleman Marcus Sidonius Falx

by Jerry Toner

  Or take the case of the goodwill a slave showed his master despite having himself been recently punished by him. The master, Antius Restio, was outlawed and fled into the night on his own. His slaves started to plunder his property, all except one who had been chained up and branded on the forehead. The other slaves released him but, instead of joining in the pillaging, he followed after his fugitive master. He found him and Restio naturally feared that he was out to avenge his cruel punishment. But the slave assured him that he understood that his degrading punishment had been the fault of fortune not his master. He then hid Restio and fetched him supplies. Soon after, when he realised that soldiers were approaching, he strangled an old man who happened to be nearby, built a funeral pyre and threw the corpse on to it. He set it on fire and told anyone who came by that it was Restio who had died, which he deserved to have done for having branded him. Everyone believed the story, the soldiers went away, and Restio was saved.

  Similarly, when Caepio’s plot to murder Augustus had been uncovered and he had been condemned to death, one of his slaves carried him down to the Tiber in a chest and managed to take him to his estate in the country during the night. Later he took him on board a boat, was shipwrecked with him, and hid his master in Naples. Even when the pair was arrested, the slave refused to give any information that might incriminate his master. Or there was the time when the city of Padua was being pressured by Asinius Pollio to supply him with arms and money and many owners went into hiding as a result. Pollio offered rewards and freedom to any slaves who betrayed their masters, but not a single one did so.

  Mark Antony was once accused of a sexual offence and the prosecutors demanded that a certain slave of his, I can’t remember his name, be tortured for evidence since he had been carrying the lantern when the crime was committed. The interrogation could only happen if his master agreed and Mark Anthony was unwilling, perhaps fearing what the slave might say under duress. But despite realising that it would mean his own torture, the slave urged his master to hand him over, promising that he would not say anything incriminating. Despite being severely tortured, he revealed nothing.

  Some slaves have even preferred death to being separated from their masters. For example, when Gaius Vettius was arrested by his own troops so they could hand him over to Pompey, his slave killed him and then committed suicide so as not to survive his master. What nobility of character! And when Gaius Gracchus was killed, his loyal slave Euporus, who had been an inseparable companion, killed himself over Gracchus’s dead body by ripping open his stomach with his own hand.

  It is not only male slaves who can display these fine characteristics. There is one particularly memorable action performed by slave women, and you’ll find it difficult to find a better example of a deed benefiting the state that was performed by any noblewoman.

  It is well known that 7 July is the festival of slave women. On that day free women and their slaves sacrifice to Juno Caprotina beneath a wild fig tree. This commemorates the great courage shown by slave women in defence of the honour of Rome. For after Rome had been sacked in 390 bc, the state was in dire straits. The neighbouring tribes, looking for an opportunity to invade Roman territory, appointed Postumius Livius, the dictator of Fidenae, to command them. He demanded that the Roman senate hand over all mothers and unmarried girls if they wanted to keep what was left of their state. The senate hesitated about what to do. But a slave girl called Tutela promised that she would go across to the enemy with the other slave women, pretending to be their mistresses. So they dressed up as Roman mothers and girls and marched over to the enemy with a lot of people following them in tears, to make it look as though they were grieving over losing their mothers and sisters and daughters. Livius divided them up around the camp, and the slave women plied the men with lots of wine, pretending that it was a feast day for the Romans. When the men had all fallen into a deep sleep, they signalled to the Romans from a wild fig tree that stood next to the camp. The Romans attacked suddenly and were victorious. In gratitude, the senate ordered that all the slave women be freed, and gave them a financial reward too. And they decided to hold an annual sacrifice to commemorate the day, in memory of the female slaves’ heroic action.

  In these examples, I think you will agree, there are good reasons for not looking down with contempt on slaves, since there is ample evidence that many of them have been trustworthy, prudent and brave. Indeed, you will often find that is the kind of people who have lots of busts of their illustrious ancestors on display in their villas, and know every small twig of their family tree, who in their actions are revealed to be merely well known rather than truly noble.

  The same universe is father to us all. We all trace our ancestry from this one parent, whether high- or low-born. You should not look down on any man, even if he has no idea where he comes from and Fortune seems to have abandoned him. If your ancestors include slaves and freedmen then be proud of your humble beginnings. But don’t let your pride make you blind to the merits of slaves. For all slaves are capable of becoming Romans, even if it often takes several generations for this to be achieved.

  But of course, if we are honest, we know that slaves can only really be expected to follow the example set by their masters. For it is hard to learn to do something well if the teacher’s demonstration is bad. And if a master sets an example of carelessness, then it is difficult for the slave to learn to be careful. To be blunt, I don’t think I can remember a single case of good slaves belonging to a bad master. I do, however, know of a great many bad slaves who belong to a good master, and they are punished for it. If you want to make your slaves morally better people, then you have to supervise their work, and examine it; and you have to be willing to reward those responsible for what has been done well, just as you must not be frightened to punish a slave who has acted badly. For it is only by your example and teaching that your slaves can ever be expected to improve.

  Slaves are nearly always inferior to their masters and it is a sad fact that most slaves are not given the training they should be given to make them better. It is an even sadder fact of life today that we have to rely on these underlings for so many services. We use slaves to grow our food and cook it. We employ them to wash our clothes and carry our bags. I know of one great Roman who had so little self-restraint that he suffered the ultimate indignity of having to use a slave to restrain his hand from taking too much food when he was dining. How disgraceful it is that he should have been more ready to obey his slave than himself! It is masters like him, who are addicted to luxury, who are the true slaves.

  COMMENTARY

  Falx’s attitude takes a distinctly more philosophical turn in this chapter. His writings show the influence of Stoic thinking, which affected a number of the Roman philosopher Seneca’s texts on the subject of slavery. In this way of thinking, the fact that a slave is a slave is seen as irrelevant. What matters is the inner soul of the individual. It was equally possible for a wealthy owner to be the real slave if he was addicted to certain vices, such as sex or eating.

  This approach to slavery was quite different from that of the classical Greeks. In Greek philosophy, such as that of Aristotle, slavery was seen as a natural opposite to the freedom of the Greeks. Barbarians and slaves were almost synonymous. Much later, in the British and American slave trade, this kind of reasoning provided a basis for a racial model of slavery which saw blacks as being naturally suited to slavery and naturally inferior to whites. The Romans never argued for such a distinction, in part because it made no sense in a society where so many freed slaves were incorporated into the citizen body. It would have been impossible to maintain a notion of the racial purity of the Romans in the face of the overwhelming fact that so many of them were descended from slaves. This also meant that Romans had no difficulties in enslaving other Italians, even though they saw these as naturally closer to them than non-Italians. By contrast, the Greeks found the idea of enslaving other Greeks abhorrent precisely because they were seen as naturally free, re
gardless of what kind of character each individual possessed.

  Falx has a far more humane attitude towards slaves because he sees the fact of slavery as no more than a social convention. The enslaved individual is still worth something as a human being, is capable of acting with great morality, and needs to be treated with respect because of this.

  But before we start seeing the Roman empire as some kind of proto-humanist institution, we must remember that there is no notion of universal human rights in such Stoic thought. It is more that the master has some vague duty to behave decently to his slaves, so long as they behave well, in order to inspire them to behave even better. One of the main motivators for this gentler attitude may have been the fear that otherwise slaves might attack their masters. There also seems to have been a near-universal assumption that even though slaves were capable of virtuous acts, it was impossible for a slave to be better than his master. Other groups, such as women slaves, were mostly not included in these moral discussions because they simply didn’t register with elite philosophers.

  There is no evidence that such Stoic thinking had any effect on the actual treatment of slaves. It certainly did not give rise to any ideas of abolition, or even any criticism of slavery as a social institution. Texts such as those of Seneca were theoretical and written to impress a small audience of educated thinkers. Seneca himself makes many derogatory comments about slaves in his other writings, which contradict his more benevolent views. Falx’s comments may not have been reflective of the attitude of the average Roman slave owner. Even if such ideas were to be found in society more widely, there is again no evidence that it made Roman masters more gentle towards their servants. It probably makes more sense to interpret such elite thinking as a reaction to their own changed political circumstances. The fact that people of Seneca’s status now had to live under emperors like Nero made it appealing to see slavery as being unimportant. All free Romans were now in effect the political slaves of the emperor.

  The discussion between the Greek and the clever slave is based on Dio Chrysostom Oration 15. An example of the Stoic doctrine towards slaves can be seen at Epictetus Discourses 4.1. Cicero repeats the Stoic doctrine that masters had a duty to behave justly even towards the lowest kinds of people in On Duties 1.13.41. For the Roman idea that it was necessary to show your worth by your actions not by birth alone, see Dio Chrysostom Oration 15. The story of the Roman who used a slave to stop himself overeating is at Pliny the Elder Natural History 28.14. Accounts of slaves who performed great acts of virtue are listed in Suetonius Grammarians, Macrobius Saturnalia 1.10.16–25 and Seneca On Benefits 3.23–8. The view that slaves should be treated as human beings is in Seneca Letters 47. Analysis of the various theories of slavery that existed in antiquity can be found in Peter Garnsey’s Ideas of slavery from Aristotle to Augustine.

  CHAPTER V

  THE PUNISHMENT OF SLAVES

  WHEN YOU OWN A STUBBORN MULE, there is no point in using the fine art of rhetoric to try to persuade it to carry out your wishes. Likewise with your slaves: whatever high ideals of ownership you might strive to maintain, you will often find the philosophy of slavery of little practical benefit. However noble and diligent, inspired by your fine example, you might hope that your slaves will be, you will in reality find that you are sometimes obliged to give them forceful reminders of their low status in order to compel them to work hard on your behalf. There is no point thinking you would be better off treating them gently. Recalcitrant slaves do not understand logic. Such slaves are like animals and they respond best to the touch of the whip. In fact, you will find that the average slave’s mind is constantly preoccupied with the risk of physical punishment. They even dream about it, and it is known that it is bad for a slave to dream of beef, because both straps and whips are made of ox hide. But this ever-present anxiety of theirs about corporal punishment should not worry you, their owner. Rather, you should understand that it helps to reinforce the dominance of the figure of the master in their life. A slave who always has the master at the back of his mind, whatever task he is carrying out, will be a more attentive, diligent and productive slave.

  Slaves sometimes need to be punished but you should be careful not to do so excessively. Where possible, and within the constraints of maintaining discipline and authority, you should refrain from flogging a slave just because he gives you a cheeky or disrespectful answer. They are, after all, items of your property and if you harm them you are, in effect, damaging your own goods. If someone else were to injure you, you would naturally seek financial compensation from the courts. So it is also with your slaves, even if damage to a slave is worth only half that of damage to a free man.

  Sadly, though, we all know people who have gone too far in their punishments. One friend of mine insists, as many do, that his slaves serve him and his family at meals in complete silence. I dined there recently and a muffled sneeze from a waiter brought a savage whipping. Another coughed when serving the soup, for which he was dragged out and beaten with rods. It was hardly relaxing, I have to say. I suspect that the moment we guests left, things really started to hot up and I’m told that any slaves who had failed to carry out their tasks perfectly, or any cook that had prepared a less than sumptuous dish, were all made to dance. Then there is that famous story about Vedius Pollio, who invited his friend the divine emperor Augustus around for dinner. One of the host’s slaves broke a valuable crystal cup, whereupon Vedius ordered the slave to be taken and thrown to the huge lampreys which he kept in his fish pond. Obviously he was just showing off to the emperor by letting him see how hard he could be. But this was savagery, not toughness. The boy escaped and ran to Augustus’s feet for refuge. He begged that he be allowed to die by some other means than as fishmeal. Augustus was outraged at this novel form of cruelty. He ordered Vedius to free the slave. He then told the other slaves to bring all the crystal cups they could find and smash them in their master’s presence. Vedius was instructed to fill in the fish pond and get rid of the lampreys.

  We’ve all done it, of course. What master has not occasionally lashed out at his slaves from sheer exasperation at their uselessness? I heard of one local owner who became so mentally unbalanced that he threw his slave out of a first-floor window. And a friend of mine who got so fed up with an old slave who never did anything that he severed his hams so he would never move anywhere again. Even the emperor Hadrian once poked out a slave’s eye with his pen when he was annoyed by him in some way. But allowances for anger aside, we should not be over zealous or invent new kinds of punishment to impress our guests. Are a man’s bowels to be ripped apart just because one of your cups has been broken? You should try to control your moods if you can. For one thing, this is the kind of behaviour you find from freedmen who have gone on to own their own slaves. They are infamous for their brutality and are always calling for floggings and thrashings as if to compensate for their own servile origins.

  I am of course talking here about domestic and privately owned slaves. Slaves who have been justly condemned by the courts to the mines as punishment for some heinous crime cannot expect to be so leniently treated. These slaves are destroyed physically and are forced to endure the most dreadful hardships. In the end, they often pray for death because of the magnitude of their suffering. These criminals deserve their fates. But one can’t help feeling some sympathy for slaves who are being used by contractors to work the mines in hardly less dreadful circumstances. These men generate unbelievable wealth for their owners, but are ruined by their constant, day-and-night underground excavations. The conditions are bad, and they are not allowed to rest and are instead forced by the beatings given out by their overseers to keep working. Still, there are plenty of freeborn men who have to earn a living by working the mines. And these mines are no longer the routes to easy fortunes they once were. The silver- and gold-bearing seams have dried up and considerably more work is required in more dangerous circumstances to produce the same amount of bullion.

  Nor am I tal
king about slaves who have been rightly sentenced by the courts to be thrown to the wild beasts in the arena for the entertainment of our citizens. None of these slaves have been sent to suffer such a fate simply on their owners’ whims, since owners may not sell their slaves for such a purpose. When we see them being torn limb from limb, or we hear the crunching and grinding of bones, we may therefore relax and be certain that we are witnessing the suitable punishment of a deserving criminal. A friend of mine has recently had some most delicate and graceful mosaics showing these executions put up in his dining room, and they look splendid!

  There are also certain situations when a privately owned, domestic slave should suffer the ultimate penalty. I am thinking, above all, of the occasions when a slave is able to come to their master’s help, but fails to do so. For when a slave’s master is in danger, the slave should have more regard for his master’s safety than his own. I remember once that a slave girl was sleeping in the same bedroom as her mistress when a murderer broke in. He threatened to kill the girl if she cried out and so she kept quiet, when she could definitely have come to her mistress’s assistance, either by putting her own body in the way, or by shouting loudly to alert other slaves in the household. It was only right that the girl was executed, so that other slaves did not get the idea that they could think about their own safety when their owners were in danger.

  For myself, when it comes to punishing my slaves, I often rely on the services of an outside contractor. The local council here offers a service by which they will administer beatings for a set fee. The terms are very modest, about four sesterces per flogging if I remember rightly. For that they come and set up a gibbet on to which they bind the offending slave after they have solemnly led him out from the room in which he is being held. They think of everything, even supplying the ropes to tie the slave. It provides a salutary warning to the rest of the slaves to behave properly and saves you from getting your own hands dirty. In the past, when it was permissible for a master to execute his own slaves, these contractors provided a crucifixion service too, supplying both cross and nails. Hot pitch was also available where torture was required. Most masters back then would try any slave in their household who was accused of a serious crime in the presence of all the other dependants, and have the offender killed if he was found guilty.