The Roman Guide to Slave Management by Jerry Toner

owns him. But the slave asked what ‘full rights of ownership’ meant. After all, there were many people who appeared to own a house or a horse or something when it actually transpired that they had no legal right to them. In the same way, a man or woman might be owned unjustly. The first slaves must have been captured in war because they could not have been born to slaves. In other words, they had been free, and were then forced into servitude, which hardly seems very moral and is hard to defend at all. It certainly isn’t possible to say that such people were naturally slaves to start with because they weren’t – they were free. And if they had managed to run away they would have been free again so would have returned to their former status.
    Someone who was watching the argument suggested that although these people were clearly not slaves, their children and grandchildren were because they were bornslaves. ‘But how?’ replied the slave. ‘If it is being captured that makes a man a slave, then shouldn’t the term be applied to those who are captured themselves much more than to the descendants? If it is not that but birth which is the criterion, then it is clear that since those who were captured were free men, their children could not be slaves either.’
    Perhaps, the slave went on, the word ‘slave’ originally just meant someone with a servile character. For we all know free men who have the traits of slaves and slaves who have a noble disposition. It’s like the terms ‘noble’ and ‘well born’: people first used them to refer to those who were well born in terms of virtue and their behaviour, not in reference to who their parents were. Slaves are not naturally bad or worthless any more than free men are naturally good. People have simply stopped thinking about what they are saying and use the terms wrongly. In fact it is those who behave in a morally worthless way who are the true slaves, whether they are actually slaves or have been born free.
    The Greeks could have argued all night. What
we
have to realise is that while free is to slave as good is to bad, that does not necessarily imply that all slaves are bad – they can only be so regarded when they behave slavishly. The moral status of a person is a reflection of the quality of their soul. Their social status is irrelevant to this question. For it is vital that
we
understand this one fact: that slaves are human beings and should be treated as such.
    Those masters who have both wisdom and learning realise that they must live on close terms with their slaves. They are, after all, the people with whom you share yourroof. The vagaries of chance are so great that you should remember that it could easily have been you who ended up enslaved instead of being the master. That is why it is ridiculous when people say they would be ashamed to have dinner with a slave. Why? What reason is there to be so arrogant other than the dreadful practice of most masters nowadays, that they must be surrounded by a whole crowd of slaves. The master today stuffs his face until his stomach is so bloated and distended that it can barely digest the vast quantities of rich delicacies which have been crammed into it. Then in a great effort of straining he vomits it all back out again.
    While he does this, his wretched slaves aren’t allowed to so much as utter a sound but have to stand silently or else get thrashed. Not even an unintentional hiccough is permitted in case it distracts the master from his huge feat of gormandising. Any noise from the slaves will bring the most severe punishment. All evening, while the master repeatedly fills and empties his stomach, they stand there, silently shivering in hunger and fear lest their grumbling stomachs disturb their master from his table.
    When masters treat their slaves like this, is it any surprise that they go round gossiping about him behind his back? By contrast, those slaves who were allowed to speak not just in front of