A Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

by William Smith

SERTA. [[Corona].]

SERVUS (δοῦλος), a slave. (1) Greek. Slavery existed almost throughout the whole of Greece; and Aristotle says that a complete household is that which consists of slaves and freemen, and he defines a slave to be a living working-tool and possession. None of the Greek philosophers ever seem to have objected to slavery as a thing morally wrong; Plato in his perfect state only desires that no Greeks should be made slaves by Greeks, and Aristotle defends the justice of the institution on the ground of a diversity of race, and divides mankind into the free and those who are slaves by nature; under the latter description he appears to have regarded all barbarians in the Greek sense of the word, and therefore considers their slavery justifiable. In the most ancient times there are said to have been no slaves in Greece, but we find them in the Homeric poems, though by no means so generally as in later times. They are usually prisoners taken in war, who serve their conquerors: but we also read as well of the purchase and sale of slaves. They were, however, at that time mostly confined to the houses of the wealthy. There were two kinds of slavery among the Greeks. One species arose when the inhabitants of a country were subdued by an invading tribe, and reduced to the condition of serfs or bondsmen. They lived upon and cultivated the land which their masters had appropriated to themselves, and paid them a certain rent. They also attended their masters in war. They could not be sold out of the country or separated from their families, and could acquire property. Such were the Helots of Sparta [[Helotes]], and the Penestae of Thessaly [[Penestae]]. The other species of slavery consisted of domestic slaves acquired by purchase, who were entirely the property of their masters, and could be disposed of like any other goods and chattels: these were the δοῦλοι properly so called, and were the kind of slaves that existed at Athens and Corinth. In commercial cities slaves were very numerous, as they performed the work of the artisans and manufacturers of modern towns. In poorer republics, which had little or no capital, and which subsisted wholly by agriculture, they would be few: thus in Phocis and Locris there are said to have been originally no domestic slaves. The majority of slaves was purchased; few comparatively were born in the family of the master, partly because the number of female slaves was very small in comparison with the male, and partly because the cohabitation of slaves was discouraged, as it was considered cheaper to purchase than to rear slaves. It was a recognised rule of Greek national law that the persons of those who were taken prisoners in war became the property of the conqueror, but it was the practice for Greeks to give liberty to those of their own nation on payment of a ransom. Consequently almost all slaves in Greece, with the exception of the serfs above-mentioned, were barbarians. The chief supply seems to have come from the Greek colonies in Asia Minor, which had abundant opportunities of obtaining them from their own neighbourhood and the interior of Asia. A considerable number of slaves also came from Thrace, where the parents frequently sold their children.—At Athens, as well as in other states, there was a regular slave-market, called the κύκλος, because the slaves stood round in a circle. They were also sometimes sold by auction, and were then placed on a stone, as is now done when slaves are sold in the United States of North America: the same was also the practice in Rome, whence the phrase homo de lapide emtus. [[Auctio].] At Athens the number of slaves was far greater than the free population. Even the poorest citizen had a slave for the care of his household, and in every moderate establishment many were employed for all possible occupations, as bakers, cooks, tailors, &c.—Slaves either worked on their masters’ account or their own (in the latter case they paid their masters a certain sum a day); or they were let out by their master on hire, either for the mines or any other kind of labour, or as hired servants for wages. The rowers on board the ships were usually slaves, who either belonged to the state or to private persons, who let them out to the state on payment of a certain sum. It appears that a considerable number of persons kept large gangs of slaves merely for the purpose of letting out, and found this a profitable mode of investing their capital. Great numbers were required for the mines, and in most cases the mine-lessees would be obliged to hire some, as they would not have sufficient capital to purchase as many as they wanted. The rights of possession with regard to slaves differed in no respect from any other property; they could be given or taken as pledges. The condition, however, of Greek slaves was upon the whole better than that of Roman ones, with the exception perhaps of Sparta, where, according to Plutarch, it is the best place in the world to be a freeman, and the worst to be a slave. At Athens especially the slaves seem to have been allowed a degree of liberty and indulgence which was never granted to them at Rome. The life and person of a slave at Athens were also protected by the law: a person who struck or maltreated a slave was liable to an action; a slave too could not be put to death without legal sentence. He could even take shelter from the cruelty of his master in the temple of Theseus, and there claim the privilege of being sold by him. The person of a slave was, of course, not considered so sacred as that of a freeman: his offences were punished with corporal chastisement, which was the last mode of punishment inflicted on a freeman; he was not believed upon his oath, but his evidence in courts of justice was always taken with torture. Notwithstanding the generally mild treatment of slaves in Greece, their insurrection was not unfrequent: but these insurrections in Attica were usually confined to the mining slaves, who were treated with more severity than the others. Slaves were sometimes manumitted at Athens, though not so frequently as at Rome. Those who were manumitted (ἀπελεύθεροι) did not become citizens, as they might at Rome, but passed into the condition of metoici. They were obliged to honour their former master as their patron (προστάτης), and to fulfil certain duties towards him, the neglect of which rendered them liable to the δίκη ἀποστασίου, by which they might again be sold into slavery. Respecting the public slaves at Athens, see [Demosii]. It appears that there was a tax upon slaves at Athens, which was probably three oboli a year for each slave.—(2) Roman. The Romans viewed liberty as the natural state, and slavery as a condition which was contrary to the natural state. The mutual relation of slave and master among the Romans was expressed by the terms Servus and Dominus; and the power and interest which the dominus had over and in the slave was expressed by Dominium. Slaves existed at Rome in the earliest times of which we have any record; but they do not appear to have been numerous under the kings and in the earliest ages of the republic. The different trades and the mechanical arts were chiefly carried on by the clients of the patricians, and the small farms in the country were cultivated for the most part by the labours of the proprietor and of his own family. But as the territories of the Roman state were extended, the patricians obtained possession of large estates out of the ager publicus, since it was the practice of the Romans to deprive a conquered people of part of their land. These estates probably required a larger number of hands for their cultivation than could readily be obtained among the free population, and since the freemen were constantly liable to be called away from their work to serve in the armies, the lands began to be cultivated almost entirely by slave labour. Through war and commerce slaves could easily be obtained, and at a cheap rate, and their number soon became so great, that the poorer class of freemen was thrown almost entirely out of employment. This state of things was one of the chief arguments used by Licinius and the Gracchi for limiting the quantity of public land which a person might possess. In Sicily, which supplied Rome with so great a quantity of corn, the number of agricultural slaves was immense: the oppressions to which they were exposed drove them twice to open rebellion, and their numbers enabled them to defy for a time the Roman power. The first of these servile wars began in B.C. 134 and ended in B.C. 132, and the second commenced in B.C. 102 and lasted almost four years. Long, however, after it had become the custom to employ large gangs of slaves in the cultivation of the land, the number of those who served as personal attendants still continued to be small. Persons in good circumstances seem usually to have had one only to wait upon them, who was generally called by the name of his master with the word por (that is, puer) affixed to it, as Caipor, Lucipor, Marcipor, Publipor, Quintipor, &c. But during the latter times of the republic and under the empire the number of domestic slaves greatly increased, and in every family of importance there were separate slaves to attend to all the necessities of domestic life. It was considered a reproach to a man not to keep a considerable number of slaves. The first question asked respecting a person’s fortune was Quot pascit servos, “How many slaves does he keep?” Ten slaves seem to have been the lowest number which a person could keep in the age of Augustus, with a proper regard to respectability in society. The immense number of prisoners taken in the constant wars of the republic, and the increase of wealth and luxury, augmented the number of slaves to a prodigious extent. A freedman under Augustus, who had lost much property in the civil wars, left at his death as many as 4,116. Two hundred was no uncommon number for one person to keep. The mechanical arts, which were formerly in the hands of the clients, were now entirely exercised by slaves: a natural growth of things, for where slaves perform certain duties or practise certain arts, such duties or arts are thought degrading to a freeman. It must not be forgotten, that the games of the amphitheatre required an immense number of slaves trained for the purpose. [[Gladiatores].] Like the slaves in Sicily, the gladiators in Italy rose in B.C. 73 against their oppressors, and under the able generalship of Spartacus, defeated a Roman consular army, and were not subdued till B.C. 71, when 60,000 of them are said to have fallen in battle.—A slave could not contract a marriage. His cohabitation with a woman was contubernium; and no legal relation between him and his children was recognized. A slave could have no property. He was not incapable of acquiring property, but his acquisitions belonged to his master. Slaves were not only employed in the usual domestic offices and in the labours of the field, but also as factors or agents for their masters in the management of business, and as mechanics, artisans, and in every branch of industry. It may easily be conceived that, under these circumstances, especially as they were often entrusted with property to a large amount, there must have arisen a practice of allowing the slave to consider part of his gains as his own; this was his Peculium, a term also applicable to such acquisitions of a filius-familias as his father allowed him to consider as his own. [[Patria Potestas].] According to strict law, the peculium was the property of the master, but according to usage, it was considered to be the property of the slave. Sometimes it was agreed between master and slave, that the slave should purchase his freedom with his peculium when it amounted to a certain sum. A runaway slave (fugitivus) could not lawfully be received or harboured. The master was entitled to pursue him wherever he pleased; and it was the duty of all authorities to give him aid in recovering the slave. It was the object of various laws to check the running away of slaves in every way, and accordingly a runaway slave could not legally be an object of sale. A class of persons called Fugitivarii made it their business to recover runaway slaves. A person was a slave either jure gentium or jure civili. Under the republic, the chief supply of slaves arose from prisoners taken in war, who were sold by the quaestors with a crown on their heads (sub corona venire, vendere), and usually on the spot where they were taken, as the care of a large number of captives was inconvenient. Consequently slave-dealers usually accompanied an army, and frequently after a great battle had been gained many thousands were sold at once, when the slave-dealers obtained them for a mere nothing. The slave trade was also carried on to a great extent, and after the fall of Corinth and Carthage, Delos was the chief mart for this traffic. When the Cilician pirates had possession of the Mediterranean, as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been imported and sold there in one day. A large number came from Thrace and the countries in the north of Europe, but the chief supply was from Africa, and more especially Asia, whence we frequently read of Phrygians, Lycians, Cappadocians, &c. as slaves. The trade of slave-dealers (mangones) was considered disreputable; but it was very lucrative, and great fortunes were frequently realised from it. Slaves were usually sold by auction at Rome. They were placed either on a raised stone (hence de lapide emtus), or a raised platform (catasta), so that every one might see and handle them, even if they did not wish to purchase them. Purchasers usually took care to have them stripped naked, for slave-dealers had recourse to as many tricks to conceal personal defects as the horse-jockeys of modern times: sometimes purchasers called in the advice of medical men. Newly imported slaves had their feet whitened with chalk, and those that came from the East had their ears bored, which we know was a sign of slavery among many eastern nations. The slave-market, like all other markets, was under the jurisdiction of the aediles, who made many regulations by edicts respecting the sale of slaves. The character of the slave was set forth in a scroll (titulus) hanging around his neck, which was a warranty to the purchaser: the vendor was bound to announce fairly all his defects, and if he gave a false account had to take him back within six months from the time of his sale, or make up to the purchaser what the latter had lost through obtaining an inferior kind of slave to what had been warranted. The chief points which the vendor had to warrant, were the health of the slave, especially freedom from epilepsy, and that he had not a tendency to thievery, running away, or committing suicide. Slaves sold without any warranty wore at the time of sale a cap (pileus) upon their head. Slaves newly imported were generally preferred for common work: those who had served long were considered artful (veteratores); and the pertness and impudence of those born in their master’s house, called vernae, were proverbial. The value of slaves depended of course upon their qualifications; but under the empire the increase of luxury and the corruption of morals led purchasers to pay immense sums for beautiful slaves, or such as ministered to the caprice or whim of the purchaser. Eunuchs always fetched a very high price, and Martial speaks of beautiful boys who sold for as much as 100,000 or 200,000 sesterces each (885l. 8s. 4d. and 1770l. 16s. 8d.). Slaves who possessed a knowledge of any art which might bring profit to their owners, also sold for a large sum. Thus literary men and doctors frequently fetched a high price, and also slaves fitted for the stage.—Slaves were divided into many various classes: the first division was into public or private. The former belonged to the state and public bodies, and their condition was preferable to that of the common slaves. They were less liable to be sold, and under less control, than ordinary slaves: they also possessed the privilege of the testamenti factio to the amount of one half of their property, which shows that they were regarded in a different light from other slaves. Public slaves were employed to take care of the public buildings, and to attend upon magistrates and priests. A body of slaves belonging to one person was called familia, but two were not considered sufficient to constitute a familia. Private slaves were divided into urban (familia urbana) and rustic (familia rustica); but the name of urban was given to those slaves who served in the villa or country residence as well as in the town house; so that the words urban and rustic rather characterised the nature of their occupations than the place where they served. Slaves were also arranged in certain classes, which held a higher or a lower rank according to the nature of their occupation. These classes are ordinarii, vulgares, and mediastini.—Ordinarii seem to have been those slaves who had the superintendence of certain parts of the housekeeping. They were always chosen from those who had the confidence of their master, and they generally had certain slaves under them. To this class the actores, procuratores, and dispensatores belong, who occur in the familia rustica as well as the familia urbana, but in the former are almost the same as the villici. They were stewards or bailiffs. To the same class also belong the slaves who had the charge of the different stores, and who correspond to our house-keepers and butlers: they are called cellarii, promi, condi, procuratores peni, &c.—Vulgares included the great body of slaves in a house who had to attend to any particular duty in the house, and to minister to the domestic wants of their master. As there were distinct slaves or a distinct slave for almost every department of household economy, as bakers (pistores), cooks (coqui), confectioners (dulciarii), picklers (salmentarii), &c., it is unnecessary to mention these more particularly. This class also included the porters (ostiarii), the bed-chamber slaves (cubicularii), the litter-bearers (lecticarii), and all personal attendants of any kind.—Mediastini, the name given to slaves used for any common purpose, was chiefly applied to certain slaves belonging to the familia rustica.—The treatment of slaves of course varied greatly, according to the disposition of their masters, but they were upon the whole, as has been already remarked, treated with greater severity and cruelty than among the Athenians. Originally the master could use the slave as he pleased; under the republic the law does not seem to have protected the person or life of the slave at all; but the cruelty of masters was to some extent restrained under the empire by various enactments. In early times, when the number of slaves was small, they were treated with more indulgence, and more like members of the family: they joined their masters in offering up prayers and thanksgivings to the gods, and partook of their meals in common with their masters, though not at the same table with them, but upon benches (subsellia) placed at the foot of the lectus. But with the increase of numbers and of luxury among masters, the ancient simplicity of manners was changed: a certain quantity of food was allowed them (dimensum or demensum), which was granted to them either monthly (menstruum) or daily (diarium). Their chief food was the corn called far, of which either four or five modii were granted them a month, or one Roman pound (libra) a day. They also obtained an allowance of salt and oil: Cato allowed his slaves a sextarius of oil a month and a modius of salt a year. They also got a small quantity of wine, with an additional allowance on the Saturnalia and Compitalia, and sometimes fruit, but seldom vegetables. Butcher’s meat seems to have been hardly ever given them. Under the republic they were not allowed to serve in the army, though after the battle of Cannae, when the state was in imminent danger, 8000 slaves were purchased by the state for the army, and subsequently manumitted on account of their bravery. The offences of slaves were punished with severity, and frequently with the utmost barbarity. One of the mildest punishments was the removal from the familia urbana to the rustica, where they were obliged to work in chains or fetters. They were frequently beaten with sticks or scourged with the whip. Runaway slaves (fugitivi) and thieves (fures) were branded on the forehead with a mark (stigma), whence they are said to be notati or inscripti. Slaves were also punished by being hung up by their hands with weights suspended to their feet, or by being sent to work in the Ergastulum or Pistrinum. [[Ergastulum].] The carrying of the furca was a very common mode of punishment. [[Furca].] The toilet of the Roman ladies was a dreadful ordeal to the female slaves, who were often barbarously punished by their mistresses for the slightest mistake in the arrangement of the hair or a part of the dress. Masters might work their slaves as many hours in the day as they pleased, but they usually allowed them holidays on the public festivals. At the festival of Saturnus, in particular, special indulgences were granted to all slaves, of which an account is given under [Saturnalia]. There was no distinctive dress for slaves. It was once proposed in the senate to give slaves a distinctive costume, but it was rejected, since it was considered dangerous to show them their number. Male slaves were not allowed to wear the toga or bulla, nor females the stola, but otherwise they were dressed nearly in the same way as poor people, in clothes of a dark colour (pullati) and slippers (crepidae). The rights of burial, however, were not denied to slaves, for, as the Romans regarded slavery as an institution of society, death was considered to put an end to the distinction between slaves and freemen. Slaves were sometimes even buried with their masters, and we find funeral inscriptions addressed to the Dii Manes of slaves (Dis Manibus).

SESCUNX. [[As].]

SESTERTĬUS, a Roman coin, which properly belonged to the silver coinage, in which it was one-fourth of the denarius, and therefore equal to 2½ asses. Hence the name, which is an abbreviation of semis tertius (sc. nummus), the Roman mode of expressing 2½. The word nummus is often expressed with sestertius, and often it stands alone, meaning sestertius. Hence the symbol HS or IIS, which is used to designate the sestertius. It stands either for LLS (Libra Libra et Semis), or for IIS, the two I’s merely forming the numeral two (sc. asses or librae), and the whole being in either case equivalent to dupondius et semis. When the as was reduced to half an ounce, and the number of asses in the denarius was made sixteen instead of ten [[As], [Denarius]], the sestertius was still ¼ of the denarius, and therefore contained no longer 2½, but 4 asses. The old reckoning of 10 asses to the denarius was kept, however, in paying the troops. After this change the sestertius was coined in brass as well as in silver; the metal used for it was that called aurichalcum, which was much finer than the common aes, of which the asses were made. The sum of 1000 sestertii was called sestertium. This was also denoted by the symbol HS, the obvious explanation of which is “IIS (2½ millia).” The sestertium was always a sum of money, never a coin; the coin used in the payment of large sums was the denarius. According to the value we have assigned to the [Denarius], up to the time of Augustus, we have—

			£.	s.	d.	farth.
	the sestertius	=	0	0	2	·5
	the sestertium	=	8	17	1
After the reign of Augustus—
	the sestertius	=	0	0	1	3·5
	the sestertium	=	7	16	3

The sestertius was the denomination of money almost always used in reckoning considerable amounts. There are a very few examples of the use of the denarius for this purpose. The mode of reckoning was as follows:—Sestertius = sestertius nummus = nummus. Sums below 1000 sestertii were expressed by the numeral adjectives joined with either of these forms. The sum of 1000 sestertii = mille sestertii = M sestertium (for sestertiorum) = M nummi = M nummum (for nummorum) = M sestertii nummi = M sestertium nummum = sestertium. These forms are used with the numeral adjectives below 1000: sometimes millia is used instead of sestertia: sometimes both words are omitted: sometimes nummum or sestertium is added. For example, 600,000 sestertii = sescenta sestertia = sescenta millia = sescenta = sescenta sestertia nummum. For sums of a thousand sestertia (i.e. a million sestertii) and upwards, the numeral adverbs in ies (decies, undecies, vicies, &c.) are used, with which the words centena millia (a hundred thousand) must be understood. With these adverbs the neuter singular sestertium is joined in the case required by the construction. Thus, decies sestertium = decies centena millia sestertium = ten times a hundred thousand sestertii = 1,000,000 sestertii = 1000 sestertia: millies HS = millies centena millia sestertium = a thousand times one hundred thousand sestertii = 100,000,000 sestertii = 100,000 sestertia. When the numbers are written in cypher, it is often difficult to know whether sestertii or sestertia are meant. A distinction is sometimes made by a line placed over the numeral when sestertia are intended, or in other words, when the numeral is an adverb in ies. Thus

HS. M.C.	=	1100 sestertii, but
HS. M̄.C̄.	=	HS millies centies
	=	110,000 sestertia
	=	110,000,000 sestertii.

Sesterce is sometimes used as an English word. If so, it ought to be used only as the translation of sestertius, never of sestertium.

SĒVIR. [[Equites].]