From: Thomas and Patti Bond (lpbond@coiinc.com)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2000 - 06:07:51 EDT
<x-charset iso-8859-1>Longish. And I think doulos should be translated "slave."
Indeed there are differences between slavery, for insatance, in the more
recent history of the United States, and Roman slavery. But, in nuancing
our understanding of Roman slavery, we are missing the point if we take away
from the more harsh realities of Roman slavery.
>I appreciate John Stendahl's note about the harsh modern connotation of the
>word slave. It reminded me that Greek slaves often held important positions
>in Roman households.
A similar thing could be said about modern slavery.
Not only Greek slaves, but slaves of many ethnicities were in, and had some
status in, Roman households. Importantly, they were in "Roman households."
M. I. Finley defines the slave in the Roma world as the "deracinated
outsider." Furthermore, part and parcel of Roman slavery is the tremendous
growth in the Roman slave population through violent subjugation.
>They often could purchase their own freedom.
"Often" here is misleading. That a large number of Roman slaves were
manumitted and the assumption that a large percentage of slaves found
freedom are different. According to Keith Bradley, most did not. And in
the late Republic/early Empire there were efforts made to limit the number
of manumissions, as well as limit the political power of slaves by making
them enroll as citizens in only a few tribes. When slaves made up, perhaps,
35 percent of the total population of Italy, even a small percentage of
slaves being manumitted amounted to a large number. And when a slave became
"free," he/she became "client," going from something like "Happy" or
"Useful" to taking the name of the former owner.
The few slaves who could purchase their freedom did so, not with their own
money, but with a fund placed in their charge. Slaves could not marry or
own property; they were property.
>Among other things, Greek slaves were responsible for much education of the
young
>in Roman households.
The nutrix, even, was a wet nurse. And slaves were part of the Roman
"family."
>Apparently one's condition as a slave depended on the
>master and could vary within a household.
Indeed, if anything, slavery in Roman life was varied. Admittedly, some
slaves had status within a household and the control of some wealth, but not
most slaves. And we are loosing the point if we are taking away the fact
that Roman slavery, by early in the Republic, was chattel slavery. At
his/her best the slave still occupied the lowest level of the social
hierarchy. The evidence of beatings and harsh, arbitrary treatment, as well
as defeated peoples partitipating in suicide all testify to the difficulties
of slave life, not the least of which was being uprooted from ancestral
land, kinship ties, and the control over one's own person.
>As a practice with worldwide
>acceptance, slavery must have had different connotations than at present.
I'm not sure what this is driving at.
Thomas Bond
lpbond@coiinc.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu</x-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:05 EDT