Slavery
- Thread starter Nooj
- Start date
Yes, for example:
I had this quotation in my sig until recently!
He argued that slaves were people just like anyone else, and should be treated well. The idea of abolition didn't seem to arise though, as it just seemed too unrealistic back then.Seneca dixit:
I had this quotation in my sig until recently!
It turns out that this idea was not at all evident. At that, Seneca's words may have been as idealistic as e.g. modern pacifists' admonitions. As far as I remember, Varro (?) treated slaves just like cattle in one of his compositions on agriculture.CHAMÆLEO dixit:
It astonishes me that it was only until...what, the 17th century or so (?), that people started arguing against slavery, whether from a 'natural rights of man' perspective or the religious side. What were they doing until then? :sick2:
During Saturnalia, slaves superficially reversed their roles with their masters, thereby enforcing the slave-master relationship.
Unfortunately, yes. There have been many stories of children in the Third World chained to machines in soccer ball factories for almost nothing. Sadly, there had been no holidays in which the roles of slaves and masters are reversed, as in Saturnalia. According to Karl Marx, the proletariat toiled in their labour for very little compensation, while the bourgeoisie were overpaid and underworked.
Of course no one questioned slavery (not even Cicero); that was why Saturnalia existed, in which slaves and masters superficially swapped roles to reinforce the relationship between the two parties. Saturnalia also allowed for the proper treatment of slaves.
Before we get too moralistic... Maybe we should consider how a Roman might view us....
How many of the Roman virtues does our society uphold? virtus? honos? pietas? pudor? disciplina?
Might they consider our guiding principles to be closer to cupiditas, avaritia, luxuria, stupra?
Clearly the Romans did not hold our values, nor do we hold theirs...
If we are going to demand an omni-temporal application of modern Christian values, should we not also apply Mat 7:5 (eice primum trabem de oculo tuo et tunc videbis eicere festucam de oculo fratris tui) ?
How many of the Roman virtues does our society uphold? virtus? honos? pietas? pudor? disciplina?
Might they consider our guiding principles to be closer to cupiditas, avaritia, luxuria, stupra?
Clearly the Romans did not hold our values, nor do we hold theirs...
If we are going to demand an omni-temporal application of modern Christian values, should we not also apply Mat 7:5 (eice primum trabem de oculo tuo et tunc videbis eicere festucam de oculo fratris tui) ?
That's a good point.Cinefactus dixit:
However, I'd say that all of those concepts are ones advocated today by various political or religious groups, and adhered to by many. The difference is that no Roman seems to have taken a clear abolitionist stand against slavery.
I believe that we have indeed advanced morally.
A good reading of history certainly renders our heroes in a more complex light...
I think that because we admire historical figures like Cicero, we subconsciously want them to hold our values... but they did not...
I think that because we admire historical figures like Cicero, we subconsciously want them to hold our values... but they did not...
Yes, Seneca. Also Pliny argues for the good treatment of slaves (book 5, letter 19; book 8, letter 16) although not against the institution itself. There seems to have been an elite literary ideal of the 'benign slave-master'.
Ancient slavery was different from your Trans-Atlantic slave trade which was defined by race and contained few manumissions. Manumission was quite common in the Roman world: liberti gained Roman citizenship (and thus received the tria nomina etc) and frequently became wealthy and influential in their own right. The sons of freedman could enter the governing elite. By the 2nd century many Roman citizen families probably had some degree of slave descent although they obviously wouldn’t proclaim this fact too loudly.
Of course you have the gross parodies of the 'boorish freedman' in, for example Petronius (Trimalchio), Juvenal and Martial. Freedmen tended to overemphasise their romanitas.
Ancient slavery was different from your Trans-Atlantic slave trade which was defined by race and contained few manumissions. Manumission was quite common in the Roman world: liberti gained Roman citizenship (and thus received the tria nomina etc) and frequently became wealthy and influential in their own right. The sons of freedman could enter the governing elite. By the 2nd century many Roman citizen families probably had some degree of slave descent although they obviously wouldn’t proclaim this fact too loudly.
Of course you have the gross parodies of the 'boorish freedman' in, for example Petronius (Trimalchio), Juvenal and Martial. Freedmen tended to overemphasise their romanitas.
Well I think slavery was widely excepted in those ages. Not only in roman civilization, even in barbarians. We cannot investigate history with today's ethical perspective. One think is sure that slavery was an important social phenomenon in Roman times. Because, technology was not that advanced, and labor force was highly needed to built this great empire's buildings and feed vast population of this empire. Roman citizens lived in peace and prosperity, but slaves compelled to serve. Slavery can be seen more humanitarian way to tread people who were captured by Romans in a comparison with extermination of entire population of cities which was conquered. There is a roman proverb that show how enemies of Roman was treated by Romans; vae victis!
Let's imagine a Roman who suddenly became completely averse to slavery and decided to only use hired labour. Can you imagine what kind of a financial stress would create? That person would undoubtedly go down quite a few publicly noticeable steps on the scale of financial well-being.
All-in-all, I think that any such noble attempt would be stopped in its tracks by the person's family. Once something comes to you cheaply, who will be willing not only to abandon it, but to also convince all those that depend on him to abandon it as well?
This takes not only mercy/nobility of character/pity but also quite the strength of character to insist on such actions when your family questions why can they no longer afford the things they could have yesterday.
Unless, of course, no one depends on you. Then, everything is fair game
All-in-all, I think that any such noble attempt would be stopped in its tracks by the person's family. Once something comes to you cheaply, who will be willing not only to abandon it, but to also convince all those that depend on him to abandon it as well?
This takes not only mercy/nobility of character/pity but also quite the strength of character to insist on such actions when your family questions why can they no longer afford the things they could have yesterday.
Unless, of course, no one depends on you. Then, everything is fair game
Of course as a society Rome never bothered to consider the abolition of Slavery - indeed as time passed more slaves were created, when you consider the legal status of the Coloni. There is a really interesting article I read http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/338469 ... 055554.pdf which answers the obvious question - what happened to slaves at the fall of the Roman empire, and indeed traces the transformation of Roman slavery into Medieval slavery and serfdom.
No go for me...