by Jerry Toner
We were in the middle of all these starters when Trimalchio himself was carried in, to the accompaniment of music. He was then placed on a pile of small cushions. His shaved head stuck out from a scarlet cloak and he had a napkin with a broad purple stripe, as if he were a senator, tucked around his neck. On the little finger of his left hand he wore a massive gold ring, and on the next finger, a slightly smaller one into which iron stars had been soldered. And then, in case all of this finery would not be visible, he bared his right arm, which was adorned with a golden armband and an ivory circlet clasped with a plate of shining gold.
The worst thing of all about this gaudy display was how proud he was of it. When Trimalchio caught sight of me smirking slightly at the excesses of his dinner, he was clearly very annoyed.
‘What are you laughing at?’ he said. ‘You might be a Roman gentleman but I can walk among free men with my head held up high. I don’t owe anyone a penny. I’ve never been taken to court and I’ve got no debts. Now I’ve bought some property and some silverware and have a household that has twenty slaves and a dog. I’ve been made a member of the College of the Six Priests of Augustus. I’ve even bought the slave woman I used to live with so that no one else can get their grubby hands on her.’
‘Quite,’ said I.
But he was in full flow now and was not to be stopped.
‘You don’t know what it was like to be a slave. What I hated was when you stuck-up Romans called me over shouting “boy, boy”, especially when it was some teenager who hadn’t grown a beard yet. Or when you’re expected to bring them their chamber pot. Or when you’re starving and you have to look at half-eaten cream cakes and chicken lying uneaten on the table but are told that it isn’t right for a slave to eat any of these leftovers. But what made me really angry was when fat Romans called us slaves greedy gluttons, when we didn’t get to eat any of these things. You know as well as I do, Falx, that all Romans just buy slaves to show off – it’s not just us freedmen. We all buy as many as we can, not because they make us money but because they show people how rich and important we are.’
COMMENTARY
Freed slaves did not leave their former masters for a life of pure freedom. They were expected to display deference to the man who was now known as their patron, and, as his clients, they were obliged to carry out certain services for his benefit. The provision of such services could be enforced through the courts if the client failed to deliver them. Legally the master could no longer punish the slave physically but there is one example of a judge throwing out a complaint from a freedman who had suffered such an indignity at the hands of his patron. Cicero’s letters to his intelligent former slave, Tiro, contain a number of joking references to how he will have to give him a good beating for failing to reply to his letters. It seems that masters continued to use a certain way of speaking to their freedmen, which they no doubt thought was hilarious but we can imagine was less so for those on the receiving end of it. See Mary Beard’s article ‘Ciceronian Correspondences: Making a Book out of Letters’, In T. P. Wiseman (ed.), Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome, pp. 103–44.
Once freed from servitude, many former slaves worked hard to achieve what they had been unable to as slaves. Their pride at their achievements is best seen in the many tombstones that survive showing them in their togas, which they could wear only once they had become citizens. Numbers of them attained extraordinary wealth and power. Of course, these lucky few represent only the tip of the iceberg. But there were also countless more who managed to inch their way up the social ladder and improve their quality of life and that of their families to some small degree.
It was this kind of social mobility that distinguished Roman from Athenian slavery, where the citizen body was more fixed and less porous. By manumitting large numbers of slaves, Roman society was able to assimilate many new citizens. But that does not mean that their social success did not cause resentment. One document that is full of mockery for what it sees as these social upstarts is Petronius’s Satyricon. Written in the mid-first century ad, the novel describes the misadventures of a man called Encolpius and his sixteen-year-old boyfriend, Giton. A long section of the work deals with a dinner they attend at the house of a fabulously wealthy freedman called Trimalchio. The meal is a catalogue of over-the-top extravagance and vulgarity, with the freedman making every effort to impress his guests through sheer ostentation. The text maintains a mocking sneer at such behaviour as well as ridiculing the lower-class speech and attitudes of Trimalchio and his circle of freedmen friends. But the Satyricon is a work of fiction; everything is deliberately exaggerated in order to make it funnier. Yet it is probably fair to see in it a reflection, albeit in grossly embellished form, of the resentment that high Roman society had towards those who managed to move up its social hierarchy.
Not all freedmen were the same, just as not all slaves were. Some had positions of great influence, such as those in the imperial household. Their proximity to the centre of power meant that they were treated as a special case in law. Others were gifted scholars and writers who achieved literary success. Most were nowhere near as successful as Trimalchio. Nor should we assume that there was a natural hostility between freedmen and their former masters. Many mention their gratitude towards their former owners for helping them in their later careers. Or they took advantage of the privilege to be buried in the tombs of their patron’s family.
The legal rights of patrons can be found in Digest 37.14. On the different legal treatment of imperial freedmen see the Theodosian Code 4.12. The story of Acilius Sthenelus is in Pliny the Elder Natural History 14.5. For the accusations of magic against Furius Chresimus see Pliny the Elder Natural History 18.8.41–3. The slave Maximus who became quaestor is in Dio Cassius 48.34, and the slave Barbarius Philippus who was illegally elected as praetor at Rome is mentioned in Digest 1.14.3. The feast of Trimalchio is to be found in Petronius Satyricon 26–78.
CHAPTER XI
CHRISTIANS AND THEIR SLAVES
IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE FACT of the world we now live in that there is an ever-growing number of Christians. This wicked superstition was once held in check by the vigorous actions of emperors such as Nero, who killed many of them for their hatred of humanity. But the evil again broke out in Judaea and soon found its way back to Rome, where all things hideous and shameful seem to find a home and become popular. I felt I should add some final comments upon this strange sect in case any of you barbarian readers have been so foolish as to fall under its thrall.
It is a superstition that appeals to slaves, with its talk of the meek inheriting the earth. I can assure you that the only thing my slaves will inherit when I die is a modest sum and perhaps their freedom if they deserve it! Christians want to see themselves as slaves, for some inexplicable reason. They say they are the slaves of their Christ and they call their god ‘master’. But for all their talk of charity and alms-giving you should not imagine that Christians treat their slaves much differently to us worshippers of the true pagan gods.
Indeed, every wealthy Christian I have ever come across owns slaves in just the same way as a normal Roman of the same status would. Their church also owns slaves just as municipal councils do. And do not imagine that Christians let their slaves run riot. They tell slaves to obey their masters. And if they do not, then they beat them just as hard. I heard of one Christian woman who actually went so far as to beat her slave girl to death. Her punishment from the church authorities was to be excommunicated for five years, seven if it could be established that she carried out the act deliberately. Christians also accept the obligation to return a runaway slave to his owner. One of their leaders, a man called Paul, sent a fleeing slave who had come to him back to his owner Philemon. I believe that Paul sought to persuade the slave’s legitimate owner to treat him gently (whether or not he did I have no idea and is, in any case, an irrelevance), but the important point to realise is that Paul fulfilled his legal obligation not to harbour a fugitive.
Christians are, in truth, often slaves themselves. Or they come from a servile background. Even one of their supreme leaders, whom they call pope, was once nothing more than a fraudulent slave. Apparently, there was a certain slave called Callistus, who happened to be the slave of a wealthy man called Carpophorus. Carpophorus was a Christian believer but also belonged to the emperor’s household, to which he owed his fortune. One day he handed over a large sum of money to Callistus, since he believed him to be a reliable person. He instructed him to set up in business as a banker in the public fish market. Before long, various Christians had deposited substantial deposits with him, since he was backed by the financial might of the emperor’s associate Carpophorus. But Callistus secretly spent it all, and, having no money of his own, found himself in a dreadful fix.
But someone found out and told Carpophorus, who came to Callistus and demanded that he present his accounts for inspection. Callistus, seeing the danger he was in, was terrified and so decided to run away by escaping across the sea. He found a ship at Portus ready to set sail and went on board happy to go wherever the ship was heading. But someone spotted him and told Carpophorus what had happened. Carpophorus hurried down to the harbour and tried to board the ship. Fearing the dreadful punishments that would await him if he were recaptured, Callistus threw himself into the sea to kill himself. But everybody on the shore started shouting and the sailors jumped into their small boats and pulled him out reluctantly. He was handed back to his rightful owner and carted off to Rome.
Furious at his fraudulent incompetence, his master put him to work on the treadmill. But after a while some fellow Christians approached Carpophorus and pleaded with him to release the runaway from his punishment. A kindly man, he eventually relented and released him on condition that Callistus pay back the money he had lost. But Callistus had no money and since he was unable to escape again, as he was being kept under guard, he decided again to try to kill himself. Or rather he decided to get himself executed. So one Saturday he went to the synagogue where the Jews assemble and started causing a commotion. The Jews were upset by his behaviour and started insulting and beating him. Then they dragged him off to the urban prefect Fuscianus, complaining that this Christian had caused a public disturbance. The judge was furious but, again, someone told Carpophorus, who came to the court and informed the judge that the slave was simply a fraudster who wanted to get himself killed because he had stolen a lot of money. But the Jews assumed that this was a trick on the part of Carpophorus to have his slave released. So they appealed to the prefect in an even more hostile manner. He gave in to them, had Callistus whipped and sentenced to be sent to the mines in Sardinia.
Even here this slave’s tricks did not stop. There were other Christians in the mines, who had high connections in the imperial household. Callistus managed to get in with them and they all got their freedom. But the bishop of Rome, who had arranged the release, was so embarrassed when he discovered that he had unwittingly freed a known criminal that he sent Callistus off to Antium with a monthly allowance. And they say crime doesn’t pay! In the end, this wicked and deceitful slave became an administrator in the Christian church and finally the pope himself. This is the kind of person who leads the Christians: a man of the lowest social rank, matched only by the baseness of his morals.
I understand that the Christians want to change a few things about how slaves are treated. They believe it is wrong that, when slaves are sold, families can be broken up. They say that if a Christian ever became emperor – as if! – he would decree that when slaves are sold, then the husband and wife, parents and children, would have to be sold together. And he would outlaw the practice of branding runaway slaves on the face. But you should note that the reason for wanting to do this is not out of sympathy with the fugitives, for they are criminals, but so that the face, which is, in the Christian view, made in the image of the countenance of their one god, should not be scarred or disfigured. So Christians would prefer that slaves be branded on the foot or leg instead. I believe they also wish to decree that any slave forced into prostitution by her master should automatically become free.
Christians certainly do not believe that there should be no slaves, unlike that squeamish Alan who caused me to write this book. But they share with us the view that it is only right that slaves who have given many years of good service deserve to be freed. I understand that their practice is to do this at their Easter festival, after a slave has served them for six years. The Christian church often helps in facilitating manumission. For in the eyes of most Christians the ecclesiastical court of a bishop has the same, if not more, authority as the law courts of the Roman state.
Christians always seem to be obsessed with sex and the same is true when it comes to slaves. Some of them seem to think it is wrong for a master to share the beds of his slaves. They argue that when the head of the household behaves like the husband of the slave girls, his wife is not far removed from the status of a slave. They say that when the head of the household behaves in an immoral way then he corrupts the morals of the slaves also. They rightly state that the master’s position within his household is like that of the head to the body: his own lifestyle sets a standard of behaviour for everyone. But they go on to argue that in sleeping with their slaves, masters force slave women to behave wickedly since they have no option but to obey their masters against their will. They become slaves to another’s lust. It is the usual Christian nonsense. And you would be very naive if, in reality, you believed that wealthy Christian slave owners did not also behave like that. And why shouldn’t they? After all, was there any whose slave girls did not enjoy their master’s visits?
COMMENTARY
Early Christian writing is full of imagery drawn from slavery. The Latin word for Lord (Dominus) is the same as that used for ‘master’. The word for ‘redemption’ is the same as that used in Latin for ‘buying one’s freedom’. The New Testament also has many sections relating to the treatment of slaves. This may reflect the fact that early Christianity was a religion of the oppressed and so had greater appeal to slaves. Alternatively, it may show that slavery was so pervasive an institution that its language got into all forms of social life, even new forms of religious expression. It may also show that many slave owners were adherents to Christianity and influenced the way it expressed itself. We must not assume that Christianity was inherently better disposed towards slaves than other earlier forms of ancient thought, such as Stoicism.
We would like to think that Christian teachings improved the conditions of slaves. But it is not clear from the evidence that Christian owners treated their slaves any better than did pagan masters. Many Christian writers seem to be as oblivious to their slaves as were pagan writers. In Luke 7:1–10 Christ heals a centurion’s slave and praises the former’s faith. He makes no comment on the status of the latter. And Christian authors assume that slaves will behave immorally. We therefore find numerous examples where Christian writers compare the bad behaviour of their flock to the kind of behaviour you would normally expect from a slave. But, like Stoic writers, Christian texts often emphasise that slaves were also capable of acting morally.
St Paul took great care not to fall foul of the Roman law by harbouring a fugitive. He sent back a runaway slave to his owner Philemon. Paul’s concern is to ensure that Philemo
n acts leniently towards his slave. This does at least show that there was a Christian ideal that a master should behave decently towards his slaves. Yet this kind of ideal also existed in the sort of pagan philosophy we saw in Chapter IV. Did this have much influence on the lived reality on the ground? It’s impossible to say.
Paul also told slaves that they should obey their masters. But he said, too, that their suffering was comparable with that of Christ. This emphasised how good were their prospects of future salvation. There is no hint that slaves should rebel or even resist their condition. Instead they are told ‘to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity’ (Paul’s Letter to Titus 2: 9–10). Some later Christian writers, such as John Chrysostom, interpreted Paul’s sending back of the slave to Philemon as meaning that slavery should not be abolished.
The conversion of the emperor Constantine to Christianity in AD 312 did not make much difference to the plight of slaves. He did pass laws preventing the splitting-up of slave families at sale (Theodosian Code 2.25), forbidding the branding of slaves on the face, and prohibiting slaves being used as prostitutes by their masters. This last law reflects the Christian concern with the body as a site of morality. This meant that a master’s sexual behaviour towards his slaves acquired a significance it had not held for a Roman audience.