The former were selected with great care, the purchaser having regard to their proximity to the city or other resorts of fashion, their healthfulness, and the natural beauty of their scenery. They were maintained upon the most extravagant scale. There were villas and pleasure grounds, parks, game preserves, fish ponds and artificial lakes, everything that ministered to open air luxury. Great numbers of slaves were required to keep these places in order, and many of them were slaves of the highest cla.s.s: landscape gardeners, experts in the culture of fruits and flowers, experts even in the breeding and keeping of the birds, game, and fish, of which the Romans were inordinately fond. These had under them a.s.sistants and laborers of every sort, and all were subject to the authority of a superintendent or steward (_vilicus_), who had been put in charge of the estate by the master.
--146. Farm Slaves.--But the name _familia rustica_ is more characteristically used of the drudges upon the farms, because the slaves employed upon the country seats were more directly in the personal service of the master and can hardly be said to have been kept for profit. The raising of grain for the market had long ceased to be profitable, but various industries had taken its place upon the farms. Wine and oil had become the most important products of the soil, and vineyards and olive orchards were found wherever climate and other conditions were favorable. Cattle and swine were raised in countless numbers, the former more for draft purposes and the products of the dairy than for beef. Sheep were kept for the wool, and woolen garments were worn by the rich and poor alike. Cheese was made in large quant.i.ties, all the larger because b.u.t.ter was unknown. The keeping of bees was an important industry, because honey served, so far as it could, the purposes for which sugar is used in modern times.
Besides these things that we are even now accustomed to a.s.sociate with farming, there were others that are now looked upon as distinct and separate businesses. Of these the most important, perhaps, as it was undoubtedly the most laborious, was the quarrying of stone; another was the cutting of timber and working it up into rough lumber, and finally the preparing of sand for the use of the builder. This last was of much greater importance relatively then than now, on account of the extensive use of concrete at Rome.
--147. In some of these tasks intelligence and skill were required as they are to-day, but in many of them the most necessary qualifications were strength and endurance, as the slaves took the place of much of the machinery of modern times. This was especially true of the men employed in the quarries, who were usually of the rudest and most ungovernable cla.s.s, and were worked in chains by day and housed in dungeons by night, as convicts have been housed and worked in much later times.
--148. The Vilicus.--The management of such an estate was also intrusted to a _vilicus_ (--145), who was proverbially a hard taskmaster, simply because his hopes of freedom depended upon the amount of profits he could turn into his master"s coffers at the end of the year. His task was no easy one. Besides planning for and overseeing the gangs of slaves already mentioned, he had under his charge another body of slaves only less numerous, employed in providing for the wants of the others. Everything necessary for the farm was produced or manufactured on the farm. Enough grain was raised for food, and this grain was ground in the farm mills and baked in the farm ovens by millers and bakers who were slaves on the farm. The task of turning the mill was usually given to a horse or mule, but slaves were often made to do the grinding as a punishment. Wool was carded, spun, and woven into cloth, and this cloth was made into clothes by the female slaves under the eye of the steward"s consort, the _vilica_. Buildings were erected, and the tools and implements necessary for the work of the farm were made and repaired. These things required a number of carpenters, smiths, and masons, though they were not necessarily workmen of the highest cla.s.s. It was the touchstone of a good _vilicus_ to keep his men always busy, and it is to be understood that the slaves were alternately plowmen and reapers, vinedressers and treaders of the grapes, perhaps even quarrymen and lumbermen, according to the season of the year and the place of their toiling.
--149. The Familia Urbana.--The number of slaves kept by the wealthy Roman in his city mansion was measured not by his needs, but by the demands of fashion and his means. In the early days a sort of butler (_atriensis_), or major domo, had relieved the master of his household cares, had done the buying, had kept the accounts, had seen that the house and furniture were in order, and had looked after the few servants who did the actual work. Even under the Republic all this was changed. Other slaves, the _procurator_ and _dispensator_, relieved the _atriensis_ of the purchasing of the supplies and the keeping of the accounts, and left to him merely the supervision of the house and its furniture. The duties of the slaves under him were, in the same way, distributed among a number many times greater. Every part of the house had its special staff of servants, often so numerous as to be distributed into _decuriae_ (--133), with a separate superintendent for each division: one for the kitchen, another for the dining-rooms, another for the bedrooms, etc.
--150. The very entrance door had a.s.signed to it its special slave (_ostiarius_ or _ianitor_), who was often chained to it like a watchdog, in order to keep him literally at his post. And the duties of the several sets were again divided and subdivided, each slave having some one office to perform, and only one. The names of the various functionaries of the kitchen, the dining-rooms, and the bedchambers are too numerous to mention, but an idea of the complexity of the service may be gained from the number of attendants that a.s.sisted the master and mistress with their toilets. The former had his _ornator_, _tonsor_, and _calceator_ (who cared for the feet); the latter her hairdressers (_ciniflones_ or _cinerarii_) and _ornatrix_; and besides these each had no less than three or four more to a.s.sist with the bath. The children, too, had each his or her own attendants, beginning with the _nutrix_, and continuing in the case of the boy with the _paedagogus_ and _pedisequi_ (--123).
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 31. LECTICA]
--151. When the master or mistress left the house a numerous retinue was deemed necessary. If they walked, slaves went before to clear the way (_anteambulones_), and pages and lackeys followed carrying wraps or the sunshade and fan of the mistress, and ready to perform any little service that might be necessary. The master was always accompanied out of the house by his _nomenclator_, who prompted him in case he had forgotten the name of any one who greeted him. If they did not walk, they were carried in litters (_lecticae_, Fig. 31), something like sedan chairs. The bearers were strong men, by preference Syrians or Cappadocians (--136), all carefully matched in size (--140) and dressed in gorgeous liveries. As each member of the household had his own litter and bearers, this one cla.s.s of slaves made an important item in the family budget. And even when they rode in this way the same attendants accompanied them as when they walked.
--152. When the master dined at the house of a friend his slaves attended him as far as the door at least. Some remained with him to care for his sandals, and others (_adversitores_) returned at the appointed hour to see him home. A journey out of the city was a more serious matter and called for more pomp and display. In addition to the horses and mules that drew the carts of those who rode, there were mounted outriders and beasts of burden loaded with baggage and supplies. Numerous slaves followed on foot, and a band of gladiators not infrequently acted as escort and bodyguard. It is not too much to say that the ordinary train of a wealthy traveler included scores, perhaps hundreds, of slaves.
--153. Among the _familia urbana_ must be numbered also those who furnished amus.e.m.e.nt and entertainment for the master and his guests, especially during and after meals. There were musicians and readers, and for persons of less refined tastes, dancers, jesters, dwarfs, and even misshapen freaks. Under the Empire little children were kept for the same purpose.
--154. Lastly may be mentioned the slaves of the highest cla.s.s, the confidential a.s.sistants of the master, the amanuenses who wrote his letters, the secretaries who kept his accounts, and the agents through whom he collected his income, audited the reports of his stewards and managers, made his investments, and transacted all sorts of business matters. The greater the luxury and extravagance of the house, the more the master would need these trained and experienced men to relieve him of cares which he detested, and by their fidelity and skill to make possible the gratification of his tastes and pa.s.sions.
--155. Such a staff as has been described belonged, of course, to a wealthy and fashionable man. Persons with more good sense had only such slaves as could be profitably employed. Atticus, the friend of Cicero, a man of sufficient wealth and social position to defy the demands of fashion, kept in his service only _vernae_ (--138), and had them so carefully trained that the meanest could read and write for him. Cicero, on the other hand, could not think it good form to have a slave do more than one kind of work, and Cicero was not to be considered a rich man.
--156. Legal Status of Slaves.--The power of the master over the slave, called _dominium_ (--37), was absolute. He could a.s.sign him the most laborious and degrading tasks, punish him even unto death at his sole discretion, sell him, and kill him (or turn him out in the street to die) when age or illness had made him incapable of labor. Slaves were mere chattels in the eyes of the law, like oxen or horses. They could not hold property, they could not make contracts, they could testify in the courts only on the rack, they could not marry. The free person _in potestate_ was little better off legally (--31), but there were two important differences between the son, for example, and the slave. The son was relieved of the _potestas_ on the death of the _pater familias_ (--34), but the death of the master did not make the slave free. Again, the condition of the son was ameliorated by _pietas_ (--73) and public opinion (----32, 33), but there was no _pietas_ for the slave and public opinion hardly operated in his behalf. It did enable him to hold as his own his scanty savings (--162), and it gave a sort of sanction to the permanent unions of male and female slaves called _contubernium_, but in other respects it did little for his benefit.
--157. Under the Empire various laws were pa.s.sed that seemed to recognize the slave as a person, not a thing: it was forbidden to sell him for the purpose of fighting with wild beasts in the amphitheater; it was provided that the slave should not be put to death by the master simply because he was too old or too ill to work, and that a slave "exposed" (--95) should become free by the act; at last the master was forbidden to kill the slave at all without due process of law. As a matter of fact these laws were very generally disregarded, much as are our laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and it may be said that it was only the influence of Christianity that at last changed the condition of the slave for the better.
--158. The Treatment of Slaves.--There is nothing in the stern and selfish character of the Roman that would lead us to expect from him gentleness or mercy in the treatment of his slaves. At the same time he was too shrewd and sharp in all matters of business to forget that a slave was a piece of valuable property, and to run the risk of the loss or injury of that property by wanton cruelty. Much depended, of course, upon the character and temper of the individual owner, and Juvenal gives us to understand that the mistress was likely to be more spiteful and unreasonable than the master. But the case of Vedius Pollio, in the time of Augustus, who ordered a slave to be thrown alive into a pond as food for the fish because he had broken a goblet, may be balanced by that of Cicero, whose letters to his slave Tiro disclose real affection and tenderness of feeling. The pa.s.sionate man nowadays may kill or maim the dog or horse, although it has a money value and he needs its services, and most of us know of worn-out horses turned out upon the common to die. But these things are exceptional, and if we consider the age in which the Roman lived and pa.s.s for a moment the matter of punishments, we may say that he was rather pitiless as a taskmaster than habitually cruel to his slaves.
--159. Of the daily life of the town slave we know but little except that his work was light and he was the envy of the drudge upon the farm. Of the treatment of the latter we get some knowledge from the writings of the elder Cato, who may be taken as a fair specimen of the rugged farmer of his time (234-149 B.C.). He held that slaves should always be at work except in the hours, few enough at best, allowed them for sleep, and he took pains to find plenty for his to do even on the public holidays. He advised farmers to sell immediately worn-out draft cattle, diseased sheep, broken implements, aged and feeble slaves, "and other useless things."
--160. Food and Dress.--Slaves were fed on coa.r.s.e food, but when Cato tells us that in addition to the monthly allowance of grain (about a bushel) they were to have merely the fallen olives, or, failing these, a little salt fish and vinegar, we must remember that this was no less and no worse than the common food of the poorer Romans. Every schoolboy knows that grain was the only ration of the st.u.r.dy soldiers that won Caesar"s battles for him. A slave was furnished a tunic every year, and a cloak and a pair of wooden shoes every two years. Worn-out clothes were returned to the _vilicus_ to be made up into patchwork quilts. We are told that this same _vilicus_ often cheated the slaves by stinting their allowance for his own benefit, and we can not doubt that he, a slave himself, was more likely to be brutal and cruel than the master would have been.
--161. But entirely apart from the grinding toil and the harshness and insolence of the master and the overseer, the mere restraint from liberty was torture enough in itself. There was little chance of escape by flight. The Greek slave might hope to cross the boundary of the little princ.i.p.ality in which he served, to find freedom and refuge under the protection of an adjoining power. But Italy was not cut up into hostile communities, and should the slave by a miracle reach the Rubicon or the sea, no neighboring state would dare defend him or even hide him from his Roman master. If he attempted flight, he must live the life of an outlaw, with organized bands of slave hunters on his track, with a reward offered for his return, and unspeakable tortures awaiting him as a warning for others. It is no wonder, then, that vast numbers of slaves sought rest from their labors by a voluntary death (--140). It must be remembered that many of them were men of good birth and high position in the countries from which they came, some of them even soldiers, taken on the field of battle with weapons in their hands.
--162. The Peculium.--We have seen that the free man _in potestate_ could not legally hold property, that all that he acquired belonged strictly to his _pater familias_ (--31). We have also seen that he was allowed to hold, manage and use property a.s.signed to him by the _pater familias_, just as if it had been his own (--33). The same thing was true in the case of a slave, and the property was called by the same name (_peculium_). His claim to it could not be maintained by law, but was confirmed by public opinion and by inviolable custom. If the master respected these, there were several ways in which an industrious and frugal slave could sc.r.a.pe together bit by bit a little fund of his own, depending in great measure, of course, upon the generosity of his master and his own position in the _familia_.
--163. If he belonged to the _familia rustica_, the opportunities were not so good, but by stinting himself he might save something from his monthly allowance of food (--160), and he might, perhaps, do a little work for himself in the hours allowed for sleep and rest, tilling, for example, a few square yards of garden for his own benefit. If he were a city slave there were besides these chances the tips from his master"s friends and guests, and perhaps a bribe for some little piece of knavery or a reward for its success. We have already seen that a slave teacher received presents from his pupils (--121). It was no uncommon thing either, as has been said, for a shrewd master to teach a slave a trade and allow him to keep a portion of the increased earnings which his deftness and skill would bring. More rarely the master would furnish the capital and allow the slave to start in business and retain a portion of the profits (--144).
--164. For the master the custom was undoubtedly profitable in the long run. It stimulated the slave"s energy and made him more contented and cheerful. It also furnished a means of control more effective than the severest corporal punishment, and that without physical injury to the chattel. To the ambitious slave the _peculium_ gave at least a chance of freedom, for he hoped to save enough in time to buy himself from his master. Many, of course, preferred to use their earnings to purchase little comforts and luxuries nearer than distant liberty.
Some upon whom a high price was set by their owners used their _peculium_ to buy for themselves cheaper slaves, whom they hired out to the employers of laborers already mentioned (--143). In this way they hoped to increase their savings more rapidly. The slave"s slave was called _vicarius_, and legally belonged to the owner of his master, but public opinion regarded him as a part of the slave-master"s _peculium_. The slave had a life interest only in his savings, that is, they did not pa.s.s to his heirs on his death, for a slave could have no "heirs," and he could not dispose of them by will.
If he died in slavery his property went to his master. Public slaves (--141) were allowed as one of their greatest privileges to dispose of one-half of their property by will.
--165. At the best the acc.u.mulation of a sum large enough (--140) to buy his liberty was pitifully slow and painful for the slave, all the more because the more energetic and industrious he was, the higher the price that would be set upon him. We can not help feeling a great respect for the man who at so great a price obtained his freedom. We can sympathize, too, with the poor fellows who had to take from their little h.o.a.rds to make to the members of their masters" families the presents that were expected on such great occasions as the marriage of one of them, the naming of a child (--98), or the birthday of the mistress (--91).
--166. Punishments.--It is not the purpose of the following sections to catalogue the fiendish tortures sometimes inflicted upon slaves by their masters. They were not very common for the reason suggested in --158, and were no more characteristic of the ordinary correction of slaves than lynching and whitecapping are characteristic of the administration of justice in Georgia and Indiana. Certain punishments, however, are so frequently mentioned in Latin literature, that a description of them is necessary in order that the pa.s.sages in which they occur may be understood by the reader.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 32. FLAGELLUM]
--167. The most common punishment for neglect of duty or petty misconduct was a beating with a stick or flogging with a lash. If the picture of a Roman school already referred to (--119) gives a correct idea of the punishments inflicted upon a schoolboy with the consent of his parents, we should expect that of a slave to be as severe as regard for his usefulness afterwards would permit. Hence we find that for the single rod or stick was often subst.i.tuted a bundle of rods, usually elm (_ulmi_) corresponding to the birch of England and the hickory of America. For the lash or rawhide (_scutica_ or _lorum_) was often used a sort of cat-o"-nine-tails, made of cords or thongs of leather. When the offense was more serious, bits of bone were attached to this, and even metal b.u.t.tons, to tear the flesh, and the instrument was called a _flagrum_ or _flagellum_ (Fig. 32). It could not have been less severe than the knout of Russia, and we may well believe that slaves died beneath its blows. To render the victim incapable of resistance he was sometimes drawn up to a beam by the arms, and weights were even attached to his feet, so that he could not so much as writhe under the torture.
--168. In the comedies are many references to these punishments, and the slaves make grim jests on the rods and the scourge, taunting each other with the beatings they have had or deserve to have. Sometimes the rods are parasites, who shave close the person to whom they attach themselves; sometimes they are pens, the back of the culprit being the copybook; sometimes they are catapults, dealing darts and death.
Sometimes the victim is a bottomless abyss of rods; sometimes he has absorbed so much essence of elm that he is in danger of himself becoming a tree; sometimes he is an anvil; sometimes he is a solid melting under the blows; sometimes he is a garden well watered by blows. Sometimes an entertainment is being prepared scot-free for his back; and sometimes his back is a beautifully embroidered carpet.
--169. Another punishment for offenses of the same trivial nature resembled the stocks of old New England days. The offender was exposed to the derision of his fellows with his limbs so confined that he could make no motion at all, could not so much as brush a fly from his face. Variations of this form of punishment are seen in the _furca_ and in the "making a quadruped out of a man." The latter must have been something like the "bucking and gagging" used as a punishment in the militia; the former was so common that _furcifer_ became a mere term of abuse. The culprit carried upon his shoulders a log of wood, shaped like a V, and had his arms stretched out before him with his hands fastened to the ends of the fork. This log he had to carry around in order that the other members of the _familia_ might see him and take warning. Sometimes to this punishment was added a lashing as he moved painfully along.
--170. Less painful and degrading for the moment, but far more dreaded by the slave, was a sentence to harder labor than he had been accustomed to perform. The final penalty for misconduct on the part of a city slave, for whom the rod had been spoiled in vain, was banishment to the farm, and to this might be added at a stroke the odious task of grinding at the mill (--148), or the crushing toil of labor in the quarries. The last were the punishments of the better cla.s.s of farm slaves, while the desperate and dangerous cla.s.s of slaves who regularly worked in the quarries paid for their misdeeds under the scourge and in heavier shackles by day and fewer hours of rest by night. These may be compared to the galley slaves of later times. Those utterly incorrigible might be sold for gladiators.
--171. For actual crimes, not mere faults or offenses, the punishments were far more severe. Slaves were so numerous (--131) and their various employments gave them such free access to the person of the master, that his property and very life were always at their mercy. It was indeed a just and gentle master that did not sometimes dream of a slave holding a dagger at his throat. There was nothing within the confines of Italy so much dreaded as an uprising of the slaves. It was simply this haunting fear that led to the inhuman tortures inflicted upon the slave guilty of an attempt upon the life of his master or of the destruction of his property. The Romans had not learned twenty centuries ago, as some of our own citizens have not yet learned, that crimes are not lessened by increasing the sufferings of the criminals.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 33. SLAVE"S COLLAR--_Servus sum dom(i)ni mei Scholastici v(iri) sp(ectabilis). Tene me ne fugiam de domo Pulverata._]
--172. The runaway slave was a criminal: he had stolen himself. He was also guilty of setting a bad example to his fellow slaves; and, worst of all, runaway slaves always became bandits (--161) and they might find a Spartacus to lead them (--132). There were, therefore, standing rewards for the capture of _fugitivi_, and there were men who made it their business to track them down and return them to their masters.
The _fugitivus_ was brought back in shackles, and was sure to be flogged within an inch of his life and sent to the quarries for the rest of his miserable days. Besides this, he was branded on the forehead with the letter F, for _fugitivus_, and sometimes had a metal collar riveted about his neck. One such, still preserved at Rome, is shown in Fig. 33, and another has the inscription:
FUGI. TENE ME. c.u.m REVOCAVERIS ME D. M.
ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM.[1]
[Footnote 1: I have run away. Catch me. If you take me back to my master Zoninus you"ll be rewarded.]
--173. For an attempt upon the life of the master the penalty was death in its most agonizing form, by crucifixion. This was also the penalty for taking part in an insurrection, witness the twenty thousand crucified in Sicily (--132) and the six thousand crosses that Pompeius erected along the road to Rome, each bearing the body of one of the survivors of the final battle in which Spartacus fell. And the punishment was inflicted not only upon the slave guilty of his master"s life, but also upon the family of the slave, if he had wife (--156) and children. If the guilty man could not be found, his punishment was made certain by the crucifixion of all the slaves of the murdered man. Tacitus tells us that in the reign of Nero four hundred slaves were executed for the murder of their master, Pedia.n.u.s Secundus, by one of their number undetected.
--174. The cross stood to the slave as the horror of horrors. The very word (_crux_) was used among them as a curse, especially in the form _ad (malam) crucem_. The various minor punishments were inflicted at the order of the master or his representative by some fellow slave called for the time _carnifex_ or _lorarius_, though these words by no means imply that he was regularly or even commonly designated for the disagreeable duty. Still, the administration of punishment to a fellow slave was felt to be degrading, and the word _carnifex_ was apt to attach itself to such a person and finally came to be a standing term of abuse and taunt. It is applied to each other by quarreling slaves, apparently with no notion of its literal meaning, as many vulgar epithets are applied to-day. The actual execution of a death sentence was carried out by one of the _servi publici_ (--141) at a fixed place of execution outside of the city walls.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 34. COIN, SHOWING THE PILLEUS]
--175. Manumission.--The slave might purchase his freedom from his master by means of his savings, as we have seen (--164), or he might be set free as a reward for faithful service or some special act of devotion. In either case it was only necessary for the master to p.r.o.nounce him free in the presence of witnesses, though a formal act of manumission often took place before a praetor. The new-made freedman set proudly on his head the cap of liberty (_pilleus_), often seen on Roman coins (Fig. 34). He was now called _libertus_ in reference to his master, _libertinus_ in reference to others; his master was no longer _dominus_, but _patronus_. The relation that now existed between them was one of mutual helpfulness. The patron a.s.sisted the freedman in business, often supplying the means with which he was to make a start in his new life. It the freedman died first, the patron paid the expenses of a decent funeral and had the body buried near the spot where his own ashes would be laid. He became the guardian of the freedman"s children, or if no heirs were left, he himself inherited the property. The freedman was bound to show his patron marked deference and respect on all occasions, to attend him upon public occasions, to a.s.sist him in case of reverse of fortune, and in short to stand to him in the same relation as the client had stood to the patron in the brave days of old.
--176. The Clients.--The word _cliens_ (from _clueo_; therefore "hearer," "one who obeys") is used in Roman history of two very different cla.s.ses of dependents, who are separated by a considerable interval of time and may be roughly distinguished as the Old Clients and the New. The former played an important part under the Kings, and especially in the struggles between the patricians and plebeians in the early days of the Republic, but had practically disappeared by the time of Cicero. The latter are first heard of after the Empire was well advanced, and never had any political significance. Between the two cla.s.ses there is absolutely no connection, and the student must be careful to notice that the later is not a development of the earlier cla.s.s.
--177. The Old Clients.--Clientage (_clientela_) goes back beyond the founding of Rome to the most ancient social inst.i.tutions of the Italian communities. The _gentes_ who settled on the hills along the Tiber (--22) had brought with them as a part of their _familiae_ (--21) numerous free retainers, who seem to have farmed their lands, tended their flocks, and done them certain personal services in return for protection against cattle thieves, raiders, and open enemies. These retainers were regarded as inferior members of the _gens_ to which they had severally attached themselves, had a share in the increase of the flocks and herds (--33, _peculia_), and were given the clan name (--47), but they had no right of marriage with persons of the higher cla.s.s and no voice in the government. They were the original _plebs_, while the _gentiles_ (--22) were the _populus_ of Rome.
--178. Rome"s policy of expansion soon brought within the city a third element, distinct from both _gentiles_ and _clientes_. Conquered communities, especially those dangerously near, were made to destroy their own strongholds (_oppida_) and move in ma.s.s to the city. Those who possessed already the gentile organization were allowed to become a part of the _populus_, or governing body, and these, too, brought their _clientes_ with them. Those who had no such organization either attached themselves to the _gentes_ as clients, or preferring personal independence settled here and there, in and about the city, to make a living as best they might. Some were possessed of means as large perhaps as those of the patricians; others were artisans and laborers, hewers of wood and drawers of water; but all alike were without political rights and occupied the lowest position in the new state.
Their numbers increased rapidly with the expansion of Roman territory, and they soon outnumbered the patricians with their retainers, with whom, of course, as conquered people they could have no sympathies or social ties. To them also the name of _plebs_ was given, and the old _plebs_, the _clientes_, began to occupy an intermediate position in the state, though politically included with the plebeians. Many of them, owing perhaps to the dying out of ancient patrician families, gradually lost their dependent relation and became identified in interests with the newer element.
--179. Mutual Obligations.--The relation between the patrician patrons and the plebeian clients is not now thoroughly understood; the problems connected with it seem beyond solution. We know that it was hereditary and that the great houses boasted of the number of their clients and were eager to increase them from generation to generation.
We know that it was regarded as something peculiarly sacred, that the client stood to the patron as little less than a son. Vergil tells us that a special punishment in the underworld awaited the patron who defrauded a client. We read, too, of instances of splendid loyalty to their patrons on the part of clients, a loyalty to which we can only compare in modern times that of Highlanders to the chief of their clan. But when we try to get an idea of the reciprocal duties and obligations we find little in our authorities that is definite (--12, end). The patron furnished means of support for the client and his family (--177), gave him the benefit of his advice and counsel, and a.s.sisted him in his transactions with third parties, representing him if necessary in the courts. On the other hand the client was bound to advance the interests of his patron in every possible way. He tilled his fields, herded his flocks, attended him in war, and a.s.sisted him in special emergencies with money.
--180. It is evident that the mutuality of this relation depended solely upon the predominant position of the patron in the state. So long as the patricians were the only full citizens, so long, that is, as the plebeians had no civil rights, the client might well afford to sacrifice his personal independence for the sake of the countenance and protection of one of the mighty. In the case of disputes over property, for example, the support of his patron would a.s.sure him justice even against a patrician, and might secure more than justice were his opponent a plebeian without another such advocate. It is evident, too, that the relation could not long endure after the equalization of the orders. For a generation or two the patron and the client might stand together against their old adversaries, but sooner or later the client would see that he was getting no equivalent for the service he rendered, and his children or his children"s children would throw off the yoke. The introduction of slavery, on the other hand, helped to make the patron independent of the client, and while we can hardly tell whether its rapid growth (--129) was the cause or the effect of declining clientage, it is nevertheless significant that the new relation of _patronus_ and _libertus_ (--175) marks the disappearance of that of _patronus_ and _cliens_ in the old and better sense of the words.
--181. The New Clients.--The new clients need not detain us long. They came in with the upstart rich, who counted a long train of dependents as necessary to their state as a string of high-sounding names (--50), or a mansion crowded with useless slaves (--155). These dependents were simply obscure and needy men who toadied to the rich and great for the sake of the crumbs that fell from their tables. There might be among them men of perverted talents, philosophers or poets like Martial and Statius, but they were all at best a swarm of cringing, fawning, time-serving flatterers and parasites. It is important to understand that there was no personal tie between the new patron and the new client, no bond of hereditary a.s.sociation. No sacrifice was involved on either side. The client did not attach himself for life to one patron for better or for worse; he frequently paid his court to several at a time and changed his masters as often as he could hope for better things. The patron in like manner dismissed a client when he had tired of him.
--182. Duties and Rewards.--The service, however mean and degrading, was easy enough. The chief duty was the _salutatio_: the clients arrayed in the toga, the formal dress for all social functions, a.s.sembled early in the morning in the great man"s hall to greet him when he first appeared. This might be all required of them for the day, and there might be time to hurry through the streets to another house to pay similar homage to another patron, perhaps to others still, for the rich slept late. On the other hand the patron might command their attendance in the house or by his litter (--151), if he was going out, and keep them at his side the whole day long. Then there was no chance to wait upon the second patron, but every chance to be forgotten by him. And the rewards were no greater than the services. A few coins for a clever witticism or a fulsome compliment; a cast-off toga occasionally, for a shabby dress disgraced the levee; or an invitation to the dinner table if the patron was particularly gracious. One meal a day was always expected, and felt to be the due of the client. But sometimes the patron did not receive and the clients were sent empty away. Sometimes, too, after a day"s attendance the hungry and tired train were dismissed with a gift of cold food distributed in little baskets (_sportulae_), a poor and sorry subst.i.tute for the good cheer they had hoped for. From these baskets the "dole," as we should call it now, came to be called _sportula_ itself, and in the course of time an equivalent in money, fixed finally at about thirty cents, took the place of this. But it was something to be admitted to the familiar presence of the rich and fashionable, there was always the hope of a little legacy, if the flattery was adroit, and even the dole would enable one to live more easily than by work, especially if one could stand well with several patrons and draw the dole from each of them.
--183. The Hospites.--Finally we come to the _hospites_, though these in strictness ought not to be reckoned among the dependents. It is true that they were often dependent on others for protection and help, but it is also true that they were equally ready and able to extend like help and protection to others who had the right to claim a.s.sistance from them. It is important to observe that _hospitium_ differed from clientship in this respect, that the parties to it were actually on the footing of absolute equality. Although at some particular time one might be dependent upon the other for food or shelter, at another time the relations might be reversed and the protector and the protected change places.
--184. _Hospitium_, in its technical sense, goes back to a time when there were no international relations, to the time when stranger and enemy were not merely synonymous words, but absolutely the same word.
In this early stage of society, when distinct communities were numerous, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion, and the traveler in a state not his own found it difficult to get his wants supplied, even if his life was not actually in danger. Hence the custom arose for a man engaged in commerce or in any other occupation that might compel him to visit a foreign country to form previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who would be ready to receive him as a friend, to supply his needs, to vouch for his good intentions, and to act if necessary as his protector. Such a relationship, called _hospitium_, was always strictly reciprocal: if A agreed to entertain and protect B, when B visited A"s country, then B was bound to entertain and protect A, if A visited B"s country. The parties to an agreement of this sort were called _hospites_, and hence the word _hospes_ has a double signification, at one time denoting the entertainer, at another the guest.