4 ms·

I have a simple question: Is it possible that they were servants and not slaves? I'm not very knowledgeable about ancient Roman history but it seems somewhat pr

I have a simple question: Is it possible that they were servants and not slaves? I'm not very knowledgeable about ancient Roman history but it seems somewhat presumptuous to assume these are slave rooms. Was there no such thing as a lower economic class of free people that were working as either attendants or servants? This is after all, a villa in a resort area. Its not as if people throughout the annals of history didn't work as attendants alongside slaves. All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
No, there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome. Incidentally, even today, "servants" (domestic workers) are often enslaved or work in conditions that are only nominally not slavery. Many are children at an age that is too young to work legally. https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/child_domestic_work.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antisl... >> All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline. The actual headline is not clickbait, if that's what you're suggesting, neither is it spiced up to make it more "enticing", or anything like that. Rather, the headline you propose is an anachronism because there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome. The role of "household servants" (domestic workers) was fulfilled by slaves.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> Is it possible that they were servants and not slaves? Fun Fact: This interpretive problem comes up in translations of the New Testament, where the same word is very frequently used in the context of [servant|slave] of [Christ|God]. See different translations of Romans 1:1. The Greek word, δοῦλος (doulos) literally means "slave", and is a reference to the contemporaneous Roman practice as can also be seen in other Roman works written in Greek. But this then creates all sorts of translation issues for English readers: * if you use the word "slave", then people think of slavery of Africans (people chained, working in fields, being constantly whipped, living in large group quarters). This is way too harsh. The key point of doulos is that he was forced to do something by another will. The emphasis is on the powerless and passive nature of the slave, not on harsh treatment. A slave might be treated well, but if he was, it was only because his Lord decided to treat him that way. But in practice, they were household slaves with better treatment than African slaves. * if you use the word "servant", then people perhaps think of a butler, which is way too soft. A Butler can decide to leave. He may not have the means to leave, but he has his own will. So some translations use the term "bondservant" as a compromise, given the fact that this refers to something between our modern conception of slavery and our modern conception of servanthood. Fun-Fact 2: One of the related words is diakoneo which means "to serve", so one "serves as a slave". From this we get the English word deacon, who is supposed to be a slave/servant of a local church, again with the ambiguity that this is between African slavery and being a butler. Therefore if you really wanted to remain ambiguous (and mess with your readers) you could call them deacon's quarters. From the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament entry for doulos[1]: Hence we have a service which is not a matter of choice for the one who renders it, which he has to perform whether he likes or not, because he is subject as a slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner. → οἰκέτης is almost exactly synonymous, but in δοῦλος the stress is rather on the slave’s dependence on his lord, while οἰκέτης emphasises the position of the slave in relation to the world outside and in human society. This shows us again how strong is the passive element in δοῦλος, and in the whole word group to which it belongs. - - - source: [1] Rengstorf, K. H. (1964–). δοῦλος, σύνδουλος, δούλη, δουλέυω, δουλεία, δουλόω, καταδουλόω, δουλαγωγέω, ὀφθαλμοδουλία. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

No, there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome. Incidentally, even today, "servants" (domestic workers) are often enslaved or work in conditions that are only nominally not slavery. Many are children at an age that is too young to work legally. https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/child_domestic_work.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antisl... >> All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline. The actual headline is not clickbait, if that's what you're suggesting, neither is it spiced up to make it more "enticing", or anything like that. Rather, the headline you propose is an anachronism because there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome. The role of "household servants" (domestic workers) was fulfilled by slaves.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> Is it possible that they were servants and not slaves? Fun Fact: This interpretive problem comes up in translations of the New Testament, where the same word is very frequently used in the context of [servant|slave] of [Christ|God]. See different translations of Romans 1:1. The Greek word, δοῦλος (doulos) literally means "slave", and is a reference to the contemporaneous Roman practice as can also be seen in other Roman works written in Greek. But this then creates all sorts of translation issues for English readers: * if you use the word "slave", then people think of slavery of Africans (people chained, working in fields, being constantly whipped, living in large group quarters). This is way too harsh. The key point of doulos is that he was forced to do something by another will. The emphasis is on the powerless and passive nature of the slave, not on harsh treatment. A slave might be treated well, but if he was, it was only because his Lord decided to treat him that way. But in practice, they were household slaves with better treatment than African slaves. * if you use the word "servant", then people perhaps think of a butler, which is way too soft. A Butler can decide to leave. He may not have the means to leave, but he has his own will. So some translations use the term "bondservant" as a compromise, given the fact that this refers to something between our modern conception of slavery and our modern conception of servanthood. Fun-Fact 2: One of the related words is diakoneo which means "to serve", so one "serves as a slave". From this we get the English word deacon, who is supposed to be a slave/servant of a local church, again with the ambiguity that this is between African slavery and being a butler. Therefore if you really wanted to remain ambiguous (and mess with your readers) you could call them deacon's quarters. From the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament entry for doulos[1]: Hence we have a service which is not a matter of choice for the one who renders it, which he has to perform whether he likes or not, because he is subject as a slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner. → οἰκέτης is almost exactly synonymous, but in δοῦλος the stress is rather on the slave’s dependence on his lord, while οἰκέτης emphasises the position of the slave in relation to the world outside and in human society. This shows us again how strong is the passive element in δοῦλος, and in the whole word group to which it belongs. - - - source: [1] Rengstorf, K. H. (1964–). δοῦλος, σύνδουλος, δούλη, δουλέυω, δουλεία, δουλόω, καταδουλόω, δουλαγωγέω, ὀφθαλμοδουλία. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.