Slave Revolts in Antiquity

by Urbainczyk, Theresa;

  Sacks argues that Diodorus has been summarily dismissed as simply copying out his sources whereas, in fact, a careful analysis shows that he had very definite ideas of his own, and that one should not simply ascribe everything to the source he was using at the time. For the slave revolt, it is usually assumed that his source was the Stoic writer, Posidonius but, as Sacks demonstrates, in all non-Diodoran parts of Posidonius there is no evidence of anti-Roman sentiment: quite the opposite.10 Posidonius’ work was also on an epic scale: fifty-two volumes, covering probably 146–88 BCE. It has been suggested that Posidonius, who was born about 135 BCE, was interested in the slave wars because he was from Apamea in Syria; Eunus, one of the slave leaders of the first war in Sicily, was Syrian and we know from Athenaeus that Posidonius had written about this episode.

  Sacks, however, points out that there are two themes in Diodorus’ work through which he criticizes the Romans: one is the degeneration of Rome after the sack of Carthage, and the other is its harsh treatment of the provinces.11 Here one is reminded that Diodorus was from Sicily and told the reader himself that he had had first-hand experience of Romans in this province.12 Diodorus thus is someone from the provinces observing the negative aspects of imperial power and recording it, as Plutarch was to later. Diodorus, like Plutarch among others, saw the passage from the early to the more recent Romans as one of decline.13

  The preservation of Diodorus’ narrative

  Quite apart from his qualities or lack of them as a historian, there are problems with Diodorus’ text concerning the Sicilian slave wars. It survives only in the form of two epitomes made much later in Byzantine times. The two epitomes are not the same as each other and they emphasize different things, but it seems entirely possible, and more than probable, that they both reflect what the authors found in the narrative of Diodorus. In the ninth century, Photius, a patriarch of Constantinople, compiled his own Bibliotheca, which was a collection of summaries of all the books he had read, 280 in total, the result running to several volumes.14 He treated works in different ways and, fortunately for us, gives long summaries of Diodorus; for others he gives only a brief note, sometimes a short biographical sketch of the author and a comment on the literary style as well as content.15 In the tenth century the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus commissioned a work of morally edifying summaries of earlier writers, arranged under topical headings. The extracts of Diodorus in this second compilation are found under the headings “Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis”, “Excerpta de sententiis” and “Excerpta de insidiis”.16

  Mileta has argued that the aims of both these works must be examined in order to assess the information in them and it is certainly true that there are noticeably different emphases in the two summaries, so that, for instance, some modern sourcebooks include both versions.17 As Mileta has shown, the reasons for compiling the two epitomes have affected the content. Photius’ collection had a less overtly political aim than the Excerpts of Constantine, which was made to illustrate how to rule satisfactorily. Consequently, in this summary there is much more general moralizing about the faults of the upper classes and less about the actions of the slaves. These, on the contrary, are portrayed primarily as not conspiring to break free but rather reacting to bad treatment and being so oppressed that they could stand their situation no longer. There was a natural interest in Sicily at this time because in the course of the ninth century the Byzantines had gradually lost control of the island to the Arabs, helped, one could say, by mistakes of their own making.18

  Photius

  The description of the Sicilian couple who were the trigger for the first war gives a good example of Diodorus’ attitude to slaves and masters. It is from Photius’ narrative that we learn the following account of the start of the slave war:

  The origin of the whole slave rebellion was as follows. There was a certain Damophilus, a citizen of Enna, who was an exceedingly wealthy man, but one who had a rather arrogant character. He had maltreated his slaves beyond all tolerable limits. His wife, Megallis, competed with her husband in the punishment and general inhumane treatment of their slaves. Because of this maltreatment, the slaves were reduced to the level of wild beasts and began to plot with one another for rebellion and the murder of their masters.19

  There is no ambiguity in the account, no suggestion that the slaves were themselves violent, criminal or naturally rebellious. The picture is one of overbearing owners driving their slaves to desperate measures. It was the slaves belonging to this couple who plotted first, according to the narrative, and who then approached Eunus for his advice. Damophilus and his wife were in their country villa so the slaves sent some men to bring them to the city. Damophilus and Megallis received their just deserts: one was both stabbed in the heart and axed in the neck, and the other was tortured then flung off a precipice, but this is recorded only by Photius. We learn from Photius that the ex-slaves Hermeias and Zeuxis killed Damophilus, but only from the Excerpts that it was Hermeias who escorted the daughter to safety (see below).

  The Excerpts of Constantine

  In the Excerpts there are many more specific details about these two, as one might expect given that the tenor of these extracts is the emphasis of the faults of the ruling class. Damophilus is very wealthy and very arrogant and, says this summary, emulated the Italians in Sicily in the huge numbers of slaves he owned and the harsh way he treated them. He had a very luxurious lifestyle and the power he wielded corrupted his uneducated character: “At first his excessive wealth led to a desire for what would suffice, then it led a violent impulse to acquire more and finally it led to destruction and death for himself and to great misfortunes for his community”.20 The summary gives a highly moralistic judgement of the evils of not being able to control yourself, so it is easy to see why people have been ready to ascribe it to the Stoic Posidonius who, as we know from Athenaeus, had mentioned Damophilus.21 In his twelfth book, Athenaeus writes:

  Posidonius too in the eighth book of his histories says of the Sicilian Damophilus, who caused the stirring up of the slave war, that he was addicted to luxury and writes as follows: “He was therefore a slave to luxury and vice, driving round about over the countryside in four-wheeled carts, with horses and handsome grooms and a retinue of parasites and lads dressed as soldiers swarming beside him. But later he, with his whole household, ended his life after an outrageous fashion having been grievously outraged by slaves”.22

  Athenaeus appears to be quoting Posidonius directly, and yet the extract is briefer than the account found in the epitome of Diodorus, which is unexpected if the latter took it from the former and elaborated on it. One would have thought that the normal way of working was to summarize sources, not expand on them. This is not to cast doubt that Posidonius really did write this, because the wording is what one would expect of a Stoic: he describes Damophilus as a slave to luxury. However, it should be noted that Athenaeus had quoted Diodorus shortly before this.23

  The discussion here in Book 12 is about luxury, not slaves, and, in particular, instances of luxury in Sicily. At §541c he mentions the excesses of Dionysius the younger of Sicily, then at §541e he writes that Diodorus reported that the people of Agrigentum had built an enormously expensive swimming pool for Gelon. After a few lines quoting Duris, Silenus and Callias, all of whom could well have been sources for Diodorus since they all wrote on Sicily, Athenaeus moves on to Posidonius. It is possible that Athenaeus took all this material from Diodorus, or at least the sentence by Posidonius. Although Sacks is certainly correct in arguing that Diodorus held firm views of his own that are reflected in his history, there is no reason to doubt that he used Posidonius as a source.

  There are more details about Damophilus’ neglect of his slaves, such as his refusal to clothe them; when the slaves asked for clothes, his response was to tell them to steal from travellers. The account from the excerptor working for Constantine is unambiguous in its condemnation of this individual: “Because of the stubbornness and cruelty of his charact
er, there was not a day on which Damophilos did not punish some of his slaves, and never for any just cause”.24

  Both versions of Diodorus, preserved by Photius and, a century later, by the excerptors, stress that the cause of the war lay in the bad treatment of the slaves. (As this aspect is in both summaries we can reasonably assume it reflects Diodorus’ actual text.) The masters brought it on themselves, and in order to make this even clearer, there is the counterexample of the daughter of this vicious couple. She treated her inferiors well and thus escaped the terrible retribution wreaked on her parents.

  The slaves spared the daughter of this villainous couple because she was kind and in both accounts she is used explicitly to illustrate the views that the masters had brought this trouble on themselves. Photius has the following: “From these actions of theirs [i.e. sparing the daughter], it is shown that the violence of the slaves did not stem from an innate disposition toward others, but rather that their actions were only fair repayment for the injustices that had formerly been inflicted on them”.25 This is more fully developed in the Excerpts. Again we have more details about her: she was young, of a simple character and very kind, and lived in Sicily (which is an odd detail to include, as one might expect her to). She comforted the slaves beaten by her parents and defended those put in chains, and consequently was loved by everyone. The implications are quite clear: if masters treated their slaves well, and if the Romans were merciful to their subjects, they would be loved not hated. Because she had behaved kindly, this daughter in turn was well treated by the rebellious slaves, who did not rape her but escorted her to relatives in Catania, and in the Excerpt that narrates this event we even learn the name of the best of the excellent slaves who escorted her, Hermeias.

  A conclusion is then drawn from all this:

  Although the rebellious slaves were wild with rage against all the households of their masters and resorted to uncontrolled violence and vengeance against them, it was clear that this response was not rooted in any innately savage nature. Rather, it was because of the outrages that had previously been committed against them that they now ran wild in the punishment of those who had previously done wrong to them. Even among slaves, human nature is perfectly capable of being its own teacher about what is just repayment, whether it be gratitude or vengeance.26

  The Excerpt even more explicitly lays the blame with the masters, and acquits the slaves of responsibility. They were exacting their own justice for intolerable treatment; when they were well treated, they responded in kind.

  Photius has more precise details on the course of the war, with the names of the Roman generals sent out against the slaves, the victories of the slave army and the siege of Tauromenium, which, he says, reduced the slaves to eating their own children and then their wives. We also learn from the patriarch about the strategies of the slaves: how they killed their masters or put them to work to make weapons.

  The simultaneous outbreak under Aristonicus in Asia Minor is recorded in the Excerpts. Generally, the narrative preserved in Constantine’s Excerpts is more discursive than Photius’ account. There are some general comments on the disasters suffered by the free people of Sicily at the hands of the slaves. We read that if one judged the situation realistically, however, one would see that these things happened with good reason and then the narrative goes into the terrible conditions suffered by the slaves and the cruel treatment they received from their arrogant masters: “Since the maltreatment of the slaves increased in equal proportion to their alienation from their masters, when the first opportunity presented itself, there was a sudden violent outburst of hatred on the part of the slaves”.27 Rather more dramatically than the account in Photius, there is the assertion that without any communication between themselves, “tens of thousands of slaves joined forces to kill their masters”.28

  So the masters bore joint responsibility for the war. He adds that the same thing happened in Asia when Aristonicus claimed the kingship. In the next sentence, he states explicitly that the slaves were treated terribly in Asia as well, so the reader is led to conclude that this was not a specifically Sicilian problem. Following on from this description of the situation in Sicily in the Excerpts, there are some generalizations about empire, including:

  Not only in the public realm of power should those in superior positions treat those who are humble and lowly with consideration. But similarly, in their private lives, if they understand their own situation accurately, they should treat their slaves considerately. Just as arrogance and brutal treatment in states leads to social upheaval and strife among the freeborn citizens, in the same way maltreatment procures plots against the masters by the slaves within the household. From this same source, fearsome rebellions are plotted against the state itself. To the degree that cruelty and lawlessness pervert the basic elements of power, to that same degree the characters of subject persons are made savage to the point of despair. For every person who has been made humble by chance or fate and who has willingly treated his superiors with goodness and respect, but who has been deprived of the expected human consideration in return, will become an enemy to those who savagely lord it over him.29

  Diodorus could hardly be clearer in his expression of his views and it coincides very well with sentiments expressed elsewhere in his work, as discussed earlier. This clear moral tone continues as this excerptor describes how the first rebels set loose slaves in chains, collected 400 others from the vicinity and armed themselves as well as they could. Diodorus, as related by the Excerpts, adds one of the most striking sentences: “All of them donned the most powerful weapon of all: a rage that was directed at the destruction of their arrogant and overbearing masters”.30 What gives them most power is their rage at their ill treatment.31 Treat slaves well and they are disarmed. As we saw with the narrative in the Excerpts, Eunus remembered those who had been kind to him as a slave and the slaves also remembered the kindness of the daughter of Damophilus and returned good for good.

  As mentioned earlier, while describing the capture of Acragas, Diodorus tells us that outside the city walls, so that the inhabitants of the city could see, the slaves put on mimes from their own recent past depicting them taking their vengeance on their masters. He says that the slaves abused their masters for their hybris, for which they were now being punished.32 He follows this with the following lines about religion:

  As for sudden and unexpected blows of misfortune, there are those who are persuaded that the divine has nothing at all to do with such occurrences. Yet, even so, it is surely to the advantage of the common good of society that fear of the gods should be inculcated in the minds of the great majority of ordinary people. For those who do the right thing because of their personal moral excellence are few in number. The vast majority of humankind refrain from doing wrong only because of the penalties exacted by the laws and the punishments coming from the gods.33

  This is a slightly unexpected passage; the rather cynical observation being made here is that religion is useful for keeping people in check. However, the broader point seems to be that although Diodorus’ readers might consider that the slave war had nothing to do with divine justice, it is not helpful to think that. It is much better for society if one expects to be punished for wrongdoing, because otherwise most people would act criminally. He thinks that the slaves took their own vengeance but is perhaps also suggesting there may be a touch of divine vengeance, which allowed the slaves their success. Clearly, on his point of view there would have been no war if the owners had treated the slaves well, but they were arrogant in the assumption of their superior power, and they showed their hybris in relation to their slaves. If they had feared the gods they would not have been tempted to make this error.

  One of the Excerpts has a mysterious passage that reports that those who ate the sacred fish were punished for their impiety.34 It is thought that this refers to the fish of the fountain of Arethusa at Syracuse, and that the eaters were the slaves, although the passage does not make this explicit. Di
odorus describes this place at some length in Book 5 of his history, which is about the myths of Sicily, and later, in Book 14, describes its desecration by the Carthaginians and their subsequent punishment for this impiety.35 The passage about the sacred fish appears to have some relation to the slave wars. It says that those who ate the fish were punished by the gods, and that they have also been punished by being abused in the pages of history, and thus have received their just payment for their wrongdoing, echoing his thoughts in the prologue to his whole work, where he says that historians are ministers of divine providence. Such a statement would seem far more consistent with his view of the masters than the slaves, at least from the pages we have extant.

  Diodorus, then, is a most unusual historian, showing sympathy for rebellious slaves and critical of the harsh treatment they received at the hands of their Sicilian and Roman masters. He takes the moralistic view that the damaging wars were the result of the selfishness of their wealthy owners, a theory to which we might not subscribe today. Whatever his analysis, however, he gave us an account of episodes about which we would otherwise know very little. Like other historians looking at the Republic, he saw the troubles the Romans suffered from their slaves as connected to their growing wealth. In Chapter 7 I consider briefly some of the views of other writers.