Often they would be killed.
Their mother's owner might not
want to pay for the cost of bringing up a child, or might not want the mother
to be taken away from her work by the distraction of looking after an infant.
There are even cases of slaves
choosing to kill their own children rather than let them grow up in slavery.
The death of a child in these
circumstances was legal if ordered by the paterfamilias, the male head of the
family. In the case of slaves, that would be their owner (or their owner's
family head).
The usual way to perform the deed
would be expositio, or exposure. The baby would be abandoned somewhere out
of town, or on a rubbish heap or in a gutter, and left to die of cold, hunger,
or scavenging animals.
Sometimes, the baby would not
die; they would be found and adopted by a passing stranger. This was not
necessarily all that much better for them, however, since whoever took them in
was entitled to treat them as their own slave. Indeed, according to ancient
authors it seems that in some times and places, slave merchants could acquire a
significant proportion of their stock of new slaves by trawling the city's
rubbish heaps for babies.
We have evidence from Roman Egypt
of slave dealers signing contracts with wetnurses to breastfeed the babies that
would be sent to them.
Of course, many children remained
with their mother, were raised by her, and became part of the slave-owner's
household.
Under Roman law, the child of a
slave mother was automatically a slave, from birth. The status of the child's
father was irrelevant — in fact, under Roman law the child had no
father.
Slaves were not allowed to get
married — they lacked the right of connubium — which meant that the
putative father had no rights or responsibilities or legal relationship to any
child that a woman he lived with might give birth to.
Slave children could be put to
work, or sold for profit. There was a law that slaves under five years old had
no financial value, which presumably implies that they remained under the care
of their mother until that age. However, there is plenty of evidence of
children over five being put to work, or sold in the slave markets.
The Romans considered it to be
cruel to separate children from their parents in this way — they called
it dura separatio, a 'harsh separation' — but that doesn't mean it never
happened.
On the other hand, we do have
evidence that slave children were sometimes regarded with affection by their
owners, and considered to be part of the family. The word verna (plural vernae)
referred to a slave who was "born in his master's house", and they
were often well-treated. Some might even be given their freedom.
We have evidence of children
being put to work in farming and agricultural work, and in domestic service.
Others might have a worse fate, working in mines or in brothels (the latter
being the common fate of babies found exposed and taken in by slavers).
Typical jobs for children on the
farm included picking up stones and breaking the soil, weeding, trimming vines,
beating olive trees with sticks to harvest the fruit, gathering firewood, and
tending animals of all kinds — chickens, sheep, cows, donkeys.
Domestic service would typically
include cleaning and sweeping, fetching and carrying, watching over younger
children, waiting on tables, and other such jobs. However, wealthy Romans would
often employ many slaves, including children, each for extremely specialised
tasks as a way of showing off their wealth.
A cursor was a
messenger, who could be sent running to take a letter somewhere.
A nomenculator was a
servant who stood in the doorway and called out the name of each guest as he or
she arrived. They might also announce each course of a banquet.
A capsarius was a
slaveboy who accompanied a freeborn boy to school, carrying his books and
writing supplies.
An ornatrix was a girl
trained to be a hairdresser. We have records of girls as young as nine
performing this role.
A tonsor was a boy
trained to be a barber, in the same way.
A gymnicus was a
gymnast: the sources aren't entirely clear but these seem to have been acrobats
or entertainers. Children could also be trained as dancers, singers, mimes,
jugglers, or actors.
An unguentaria was a
masseuse (literally, someone who applies oils or ointments)
A delicium was a child
sex slave. There's no real way to say that more gently.
Slaves could also be taught a
craft or trade. Some learned to read and write and do arithmetic, so they could
become bookkeepers or scribes. Some learned to craft metalwork or jewellery, or
become carpenters or weavers.
This was little different to an
apprenticeship served by a free person: children learned by watching their
parents or other adults at work, and were expected to start helping with tasks
within their capability as soon as they could. Of course, for a slave owner,
teaching a child a craft was an investment. They could be put to work and would
earn money for their master.
A skilled slave who had learned a
trade might even be given his freedom: though by law he had to be at least 30
years old for that (there were some exceptions to that rule, especially in the
case of vernae who could be freed earlier.) A freed slave became a
Roman citizen, but he still owed obligations to his former master who now
became his patronus.
As an illustration, here are
accounts of two child slaves whose lives are known to us:
In 79 CE, the volcano Vesuvius
erupted, destroying the town of Pompeii. One of the victims was a girl of about
14 years old, who died almost instantly from inhaling sulphuric fumes. She had
an 11-month old baby in her arms when she died: the baby was of course killed
at the same moment.
Despite her age, the girl had not
yet reached puberty: it was not her own child she was holding. The baby was
wearing expensive brass ornaments, while the girl's skeleton showed evidence of
severe malnutrition during her early childhood. In addition, there were clear
signs that she had frequently engaged in heavy physical labour, lifting and
carrying heavy weights, to the extent that her skeleton showed signs of damage.
Clearly, this was a slave girl
ordered to look after her mistress's baby. The state of her bones implies that
she had already been worked hard, worn down by heavy labour before she even
reached puberty. The archaeologists speculated that she had been given
childcare duties because she was no longer capable of anything more strenuous.
On the other hand, her owners seemed to trust her enough to leave her alone in
a room with their baby, so there's that.
Another example: a memorial
tablet from 2nd century CE Rome now held by the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.
These tablets were made to commemorate family members who died; this one was
commissioned by a woman named Annaia Ferusa, not for a blood relation but for
one of her vernae, a young boy who had died.
(Some of the words have been
reconstructed from fragmentary text)
Dis Manibus.
Lucio Annaio Firmio, vixit annis V mensibus II diebus VI horis VI, qui natus
est nonis Iuliis defunctus est IIII idus Septembres. Annaia Ferusa vernae suo
karissimo.
To the
spirits of the departed. For Lucius Annaius Firmius, who lived 5 years 2 months
6 days 6 hours, who was born on 7 July and died on 10 September. Annaia Ferusa
set this up for her dearest verna.
We don't know what the
relationship was between mistress and slave, but she was so overcome by his
death that not only did she know his birthday, but the exact number of days and
even hours he lived was branded into her mind.
Furthermore, the little boy who
died is given three names on his memorial stone. Only Roman citizens were
entitled to the tria nomina — which means that Annaia Ferusa must
have freed her slave at some point before his death. Perhaps even on his
deathbed, so he could die free.
His name as a slave would
presumably have been just Firmius: his memorial gives him the same family name
(Annaius) as his mistress, which is proof that she freed him. (Or to be
strictly accurate, unless she was sui iuris, she asked her paterfamilias or tutor to
authorise his manumission.)
