The Legal Status of Roman Slaves

Slaves were an integral part of Roman society. Historians estimate that between 10-20% of the population of the Roman empire were enslaved — meaning in a population of 50 million, between 5 and 10 million of those people were enslaved. 

The enslaved worked across the urban and rural landscape in business, agriculture and industry. Anyone could own a slave — from the emperor to the most humble citizen. Some slaves were employed in skilled occupations such as teaching, accounting, hairdressing, cooking, or as overseers. Others worked as manual labourers on farms or in industry or were condemned to a bleak, dangerous existence in the mines and quarries — or the arena.

However, what united all of Rome’s slaves was their place in Roman society. While the archaeological record preserves glimpses of the lives of Roman slaves, the Roman laws that survive as the Corpus Juris Civilis are a rich source that gives us a deeper insight into the social status of the enslaved and how they could be treated.

Relief with prisoners or slaves from Miletus (2nd-3rd century AD). Picture by: Giovanni Dall’Orto, May 28 2006. Wikimedia Commons. Use permitted.

Who Could Become Enslaved?

According to the Justinian Code, most slaves were initially captured enemies who were sold instead of executed (Book 1, Title III, The Law of Persons, 3). For this reason, the Code also mentions that these types of slaves could also be referred to as mancipia because they were taken and sold. Individuals could also be born as slaves if their mother was enslaved (Justinian, Bk 1, Title III, 4).

However, free citizens could also become slaves, either by selling themselves into slavery or by declaring themself a slave before the tribunal of a governor (Opinions of Paulus, BK V, Title I, 4). Freebornwomen who lived with the slave of another without their consent could also be enslaved (Opinion of Paulus, BK II, Title XXI) and children could become slaves ifa parent sold them. 

Then there were “slaves of punishment” — usually a precursor to death in the arena as the result of a terrible crime. (Justinian, BK1, Title XVI, Of Loss of Status).

Roman marble slab, mid 2nd century AD, World Museum Liverpool, England. The scene shows a couple on the left with huge vats of wine, slaves carrying amphorae and an accountant at a counter. Picture Credit: Reptonix free Creative Commons licensed photos. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Wikimedia Commons

Property, not People

However, they came to be enslaved; once a person became a slave, they were a piece of property rather than a person with rights. Like a domestic animal or an inanimate object, they could be bought and sold at whim, punished, maimed or killed. They could not marry, and nor were their children regarded as their own. Slaves were “articulate instruments’, according to Varro (On Agriculture, I, XVII, 1)—human tools.

A slave had no identity or status outside of their master. If they acquired any money, it technically belonged to their owner. If they committed a crime, the law held their master accountable and they would pay a fine — or hand the slave over as compensation or for retribution.

The exact status of a slave as a non-person is brought sharply into focus when looking at the Lex Aquilia, a third-century BC law regarding unlawful damage to property. This law states that if a person killed someone else’s slave, the slave’s owner could claim compensation for the slave’s death as a loss of property, usually for “a sum equal to the highest value of the property during that year.”(Institutes of Gaius, Third Commentary, 210, 213) — although alternatively, they could also bring a prosecution for the slave’s death as a capital crime if they wished.

Even when dead, a slave’s status as “not quite a person” was emphasised. While they were allowed a funeral, the Twelve Tables (Table X, Law X) stipulates that their bodies were not to be anointed and there was to be no funeral feast as there would be for a free citizen. It was enough to dispose of the body and inter it. Usually, the grave would be unmarked, although favoured slaves might secure a place or a plaque in the tomb of their master.

Roman collared slaves. — Marble relief, from Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey), 200 CE. Collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England. Picture Credit: Jun. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Wikimedia Commons

 The Abuse of Slaves

Slaves are in the power of their masters and that power is acknowledged by the laws of Nations as in all nations it was acknowledged that a master had the power of life and death over his slaves…” (The Institutes of Gaius, First Commentary, VIII, 52)

Archaeological remains and ancient sources can give a taste of the physical and sexual abuse that Roman slaves could suffer. However, the types of legislation instigated to cover damage to slaves also indicate the exact nature of the indignities and abuse they could experience. According to the Institutes of Gaius, a slave could not be injured as an individual; rather, it was his master who was injured indirectly by the nature of the violence done to the slave — for instance, individuals holding a grudge (Commentary 3, 222). 

So, slaves could be subjected to abuse as a way of attacking their owner; they could be insulted, scourged or struck in lew of their master. They could also be subject to more severe injury, for which their owner could claim compensation for damage to the slave as property. Under the Twelve Tables, penalties payable for injuries to a damaged slave included “For a broken limb, retaliation; for a broken bone or crushed, …a hundred and fifty [asses]; and for all other injuries, 25 asses”. By the second century AD, the praetor decided the level of compensation(Commentaries 223)

The laws also legislated against the sexual exploitation of slaves — but only in so far as inconvenience to the owner. The Opinions of Julius Paulus (Book 1, Title XI, Concerning all Criminal cases) stipulates that anyone who “corrupted” another person’s female slave was obliged to replace her. 

Legislation Protecting Slaves

However, legislation did exist that gave slaves some protection in law from mistreatment by their masters. In the second century AD, under the Emperor Antoninus, legislation was passed to protect slaves so that “Roman citizens nor any other persons …are permitted to employ excessive or causeless severity against their slaves.” 

Under this law, anyone who killed their slave “without good reason” would be liable in the same way as if they had killed someone else’s slave. Provision was also made for slaves who ran away due to excessive ill-treatment, taking refuge in temples or at statues of the emperor. In these cases, if the case for cruelty were proven, the slave would be sold on (Commentary I, VIII, 53)

However, while some in Roman society, such as the first century AD philosopher Seneca recommended humane treatment for slaves on moral grounds (Seneca, Clem. 1.18.2), this legislation was not motivated by a growing social concern for the rights of slaves but to protect their worth as economic commodities. In the same way that “the administration of their own property is forbidden to spendthrifts” (The Institutes of Gaius, First commentary, VIII, 53), excessively cruel masters would be prevented from causing unnecessary damage that devalued an otherwise valuable slave.

A Roman matron and her slaves, Carthage Museum. Picture Credit: Natasha Sheldon (2006) All rights reserved.

Punishments and Rewards for Slaves 

However, it was permissible to punish slaves harshly — even kill them — if they were found guilty of a crime — especially against their master. Legislation was designed to make the penalties for such crimes a deterrent to prevent rebellion and ensure compliance with the status quo.

Slaves were expected to be loyal — even to the point of risking their own safety. Any slave who ran away to save themselves if they were with their master if he was set upon and robbed would be arrested, tortured and put to death. If an owner were killed by one of his slaves, all of those under the same roof as their dead master would be tortured — undoubtedly to prevent widespread conspiracy amongst the enslaved. (Opinions of Julius Paulus, Title V, On the Silanian Decree of the Senate).

Loyalty, however—whether genuine or pretended—could win freedom for the favoured few—either within their master’s lifetime or through his will. However, the extent of this freedom—or manumission—and the conditions under which it could occur were also strictly controlled by law.

Resources

Cato and Varro “On Agriculture”. Trans W D Hooper and H B Ash, Loeb Classical Library

Moyle, J.B (trans) (2021) “The Justinian Code”. Western Classical Library

Scott, S.P, (trans) (2014) “Roman Civil Law — including The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The Rules of Ulpian and The Opinions of Paulus”. R A Sites Books: Clearwater, Florida.

Leave a Reply