Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:44:14.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Animalizing the Slave: the Truth of Fiction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Keith Bradley
Affiliation:
University of Victoria

Extract

In his discussion of natural slavery in the first book of the Politics (1254a17–1254b39), Aristotle notoriously assimilates human slaves to non-human animals. Natural slaves, Aristotle maintains (1254b16–20), are those who differ from others in the way that the body differs from the soul, or in the way that an animal differs from a human being; and into this category fall ‘all whose function is bodily service, and who produce their best when they supply such service’. The point is made more explicit in the argument (1254b20–4) that the capacity to be owned as property and the inability fully to participate in reason are defining characteristics of the natural slave: ‘Other animals do not apprehend reason but obey their instincts. Even so there is little divergence in the way they are used; both of them (slaves and tame animals) provide bodily assistance in satisfying essential needs’ (1254b24–6). Slaves and animals are not actually equated in Aristotle's views, but the inclination of the slave-owner in classical antiquity, or at least a representative of the slave-owning classes, to associate the slave with the animal is made evident enough. It appears again in Aristotle's later statement (1256b22–6) that the slave was as appropriate a target of hunting as the wild animal.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Keith Bradley 2000. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 cf. also Arist., Met. 1075a20–2: in the household slaves and animals show little responsibility and generally act at random. Quotations: trans. Barker. For discussion of Aristotle's views, see Brunt, P. A., ‘Aristotle and slavery’, in Studies in Greek History and Thought (1993), 342–88Google Scholar; Garnsey, P. D. A., Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (1996), 110–15.Google Scholar

2 Xenophon: Pomeroy, S. B., Xenophon Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary (1994), 319Google Scholar, compares Cyrop. 8.43–4. Columella quotation: trans. Ash. Andrapodon: Finley, M. I., Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (1980), 99Google Scholar; Harvey, F. D., ‘Herodotus and the man-footed creature’, in Archer, L. (ed.), Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labour (1988), 4252, at 42.Google Scholar

3 Aristotle's evidence: cf. Pol. 1253b: ‘the slave is an animate article of property’ (Barker). Note also Pl, Plt. 289b; Chrys., Dio, Or. 15.24Google Scholar. Lex Aquilia: see Crawford, M. H. (ed.), Roman Statutes (1996), 723–6Google Scholar (J. A. Crook). First provision: translation as in Crawford (loc. cit.) from the reconstructed text (cf. Crook, J. A., ‘Lex Aquilia’, Athenaeum 62 (1984), 6777Google Scholar, especially 72 for the inclusion of pecudem in the first provision); whether the third provision originally specified damage to slaves and animals is unknown (Crawford, op. cit., 726), but note Gai., , Inst. 3.217Google Scholar (cf. 3.212, 3.219); Dig. 9.2.27.6. Compilers: see Dig. 9.2 passim. Edict of the Aediles: Dig. 21.1.1.1, 21.1.38 pr. For criticism of treating slaves as beasts of burden, see Plut., Cato Maior 5.

4 Common phenomenon: Jacoby, K., ‘Slaves by nature? Domestic animals and human slaves’, Slavery & Abolition 15 (1994), 8999CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 89–90, followed by D. B. Davis, ‘The problem of slavery’, Introduction to Drescher, S. and Engermann, S. L., A Historical Guide to World Slavery (1998), ixxviiiGoogle Scholar (first published as ‘At the heart of slavery’, New York Review of Books 43.16 (October 17, 1996), 51–4). Arab poet: al Mutannabi, quoted by Lewis, B., Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry (1990), 5960Google Scholar. David Cooper: quoted from Jordan, W. D., White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro 1550–1812 (1973), 276Google Scholar.

5 See Jordan, op. cit. (n. 4), 3–43, 232–4, 482–511; Davis, D. B., The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1966), 453–64Google Scholar. For animalizing views of Blacks in Muslim sources, see Lewis, op. cit. (n. 4), 52–3.

6 Origins: Lovejoy, A. O., The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea (1936), 52–8Google Scholar. Racial prejudice: Sherwin-White, A. N., Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (1967)Google Scholar; Snowden, F. M. Jr., Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (1983)Google Scholar; Thompson, L. A., Romans and Blacks (1989)Google Scholar. Natural world: cf. Beagon, M., Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder (1992), esp. 124–58Google Scholar. Hierarchically ordered: for texts on the theme of the supposed superiority of animals to human beings, predicated on the opposite starting assumption, see Lovejoy, A. O. and Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (1935), 389420Google Scholar. Commodification: also present in later European attitudes towards Africans but inextricably enmeshed with racial views. Caesar's capture: Plut., , Caes. 1.4–2.4Google Scholar; Suet., , Jul. 74.1Google Scholar.

7 Opening pages: Met. 1.6–8. Major themes: Schlam, C. C., The Metamorphoses of Apuleius: On Making an Ass of Oneself (1992), 5866Google Scholar. On slavery in the Metamorphoses, see also Annequin, J., ‘Métaphore de l'esclavage et esclavage comme métaphore’, in Brulé, P. and Oulhen, J. (eds), Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne: Hommages à Yvon Garlan (1997), 101–19Google Scholar; cf. also Fitzgerald, W., Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination (2000), 87114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Transformation: Gianotti, G. F., ‘Asini e schiavi: zoologia filosofica e ideologie della dipendenza nelle “Metamorfosi” apuleiane’, Quaderni di storia 9 no. 18 (1983), 121–53Google Scholar, draws attention (127–8) to relevant Platonic correspondences (e.g. Phdr. 249b, Ti. 91d–92c, Phd. 81c (especially interesting for its reference to the ass)). Firmly established: a comprehensive portrait of Lucius is not given at the beginning of the Metamorphoses but is only revealed gradually through various passing references; for the relevant details up to the moment of transformation, see Met. 1.1, 1.2, 1.20, 1.23, 1.24, 1.26, 2.2, 2.3, 2.31, 3.11, 315. ‘Quis ille?’: on the fundamental theme of identity, see Bakhtin, M. M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, edited by Holquist, M. (1981), 111–29Google Scholar; for a summary of the problem of who is speaking at the beginning of the novel, see Harrison, S. J., Apuleius: A Latin Sophist (2000), 228Google Scholar, with references. Decurial sector: Lucius is never so identified, but it is clear that he belongs to the same social level as, for instance, the decurion introduced at Met. 10.1 or the Corinthian magistrate Thiasus, introduced at Met. 10.18; see Mason, H. J., ‘The distinction of Lucius in ApuleiusMetamorphoses', Phoenix 37 (1983), 135–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who makes the suggestion that Lucius may even have been of senatorial origin, and cf. Harrison, op. cit., 215–20, who sees Lucius as an aspirant sophist. Background: Millar, F. G. B., ‘The world of the Golden Ass’, JRS 71 (1981), 6375Google Scholar = Harrison, S. J. (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Roman Novel (1999), 247–68Google Scholar (a fundamental study).

9 Asinine form: Met. 3.24: ‘sed plane pili mei crassantur in setas, et cutis tenella duratur in corium, et in extimis palmulis perdito numero toti digiti coguntur in singulas ungulas et de spinae meae termino grandis cauda procedit. Iam facies enormis et os prolixum et nares hiantes et labiae pendulae; sic et aures inmodicis horripilant auctibus. Nec ullum miserae reformationis uideo solacium, nisi quod mihi iam nequeunti tenere Photidem natura crescebat.’ See Schlam, op. cit. (n. 7), 99–112, on the theme of animal and human in the Metamorphoses, but with no reference to slavery (cf. 7 briefly). Gianotti, art. cit. (n. 8), maintains that loss of freedom is a key ethical theme in the novel. Ugliness: cf. Hopkins, K., ‘Novel evidence for Roman slavery’, P&P 138 (1993), 327Google Scholar, at 13, 15, on the appearance of Aesop; and for some examples of a Roman taste for deformed slaves, see Garland, R., The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (1995), 46–8.Google Scholar

10 Met. 3.26–9 (note especially 3.25, ‘humano gestu simul et uoce priuatus’; 3.26, ‘perfectus asinus et pro Lucio iumentum’). Descent: cf. the literary use of animal metaphors to connote an absence of civilization observed by T. Wiedemann, ‘Between men and beasts: barbarians in Ammianus Marcellinus’, in Moxon, I., Smart, J. D. and Woodman, A. J. (eds), Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing (1986), 189229Google Scholar; the connection made by Dupont, F., The Invention of Literature: From Greek Intoxication to the Latin Book (1999), 190–1Google Scholar, between Lucius' change of form and a putative abandonment of erotic interest for storytelling seems to me highly implausible. Topical: cf. Bradley, K. R., Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (1987), 123–6Google Scholar. Tamed: confirmed at Met. 4.2, ‘pecori’; cf. 7.13, ‘iumentorum’.

11 Unrecognizable: Met. 3.26, ‘agnitione’. Isolated: Met. 3.27, ‘in solitudinem’; cf. 4.1, ‘solitudo’. Aware: Met. 3.26, ‘pro Lucio iumentum’. Shaming: Met. 3.26, ‘contumelia’. Learns: Met. 3.26, ‘melior me sententia reuocauit’. Resign: Met. 3.29, ‘casum praesentem tolerans’. Ability: cf. Sen., , Ep. 47.3Google Scholar; on loss of voice and loss of identity, see Finkelpearl, E. D., Metamorphosis of Language in Apuleius: A Study of Allusion in the Novel (1998), 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the effect is not the same in Ovid's Metamorphoses; see Solodow, J. B., The World of Ovid's Metamorphoses (1988), 190–1.Google Scholar

12 Met. 7.17 (cruel boy), cf. 7.18, 7.20; 8.15 (herdsmen), cf. 8.16; 8.27 (Syrian priests), cf. 8.28, 8.30, 9.4; 9.32 (market-gardener), cf. 9.33; 9.39 (swaggering soldier), cf. 10.1; 10.13 (slave chefs); 7.15, 9.11 (mill). Long understood: see Moritz, L. A., Grain-Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity (1958), 65Google Scholar, for a list of passages from Plautus connecting slaves with punishment in the mill; cf. Millar, F. G. B., ‘Condemnation to hard labour in the Roman Empire, from the Julio Claudians to Constantine’, PBSR 52 (1984), 124–47Google Scholar, at 143–4. Cf. Schlam, op. cit. (n. 7), 99.

13 Met. 6.25 (lame); 7.17, 7.28, 8.30, 9.15 (sadistic); 6.28 (Charite); 7.23–4 (castration); 7.21–2 (bestiality); 7.27 (mother). See also Met. 3.29, 4.3, 4.4, 7.15, 7.25, 9.11. Cf. Schlam, op. cit (n. 7), 72–3: ‘Being beaten is the Ass's most frequent experience.’ Answerable: on the association between beating and servitude, see Finley, op. cit. (n. 2), 93–5; cf. Saller, R. P., ‘Corporal punishment, authority, and obedience in the Roman household’, in Rawson, B. M. (ed.), Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (1991), 144–65.Google Scholar

14 Syrian priests: Met. 8.26; cf. Hopkins, art. cit. (n. 9), 16–17, on the sale of Aesop. Corinthian noblewoman: Met. 10.19–22. Willing victim: cf. the reference in Lewis, op. cit. (n. 4), 97, to ‘a Persian manuscript of the famous Masnavi of Rumi, completed in Tabriz in about 1530, illustrating an episode in the poem in which a woman discovers her maidservant copulating with an ass and tries, with disastrous results, to do the same’ (Illus. 22). It is notable that scenes of sexual union between women and quadrupeds (perhaps asses) appear on Greek lamps of the imperial age from Athens and Corinth, and may have a connection with a pre-Apuleian version of the ass story; see Ph. Bruneau, ‘Illustrations antiques du coq et de l'ane de Lucien’, BCH (1965), 349–57. Publicly exhibiting: Met. 10.23, 10.29 (note ‘ingentique angore oppido suspensus’, ‘clades ultimas’), 10.34–5 (note ‘praeter pudorem obeundi publice concubitus’). Cf. Schlam, op. cit. (n. 7), 72–3. For sources on the sexual exploitation of slaves, see Kolendo, J., ‘L'esclavage et la vie sexuelle des hommes libres à Rome’, Index 10 (1981), 288–97Google Scholar.

15 Times: Met. 8.23–5, 9.10, 9.31, 10.13, 10.17. Unrealistically: Duncan-Jones, R., The Economy of the Roman Empire (1974), 249Google Scholar. Protest: Met. 7.3. Vent: Met. 8.29. Fable: Phaedr. 1.15. Suicide: Met. 7.24, 10.29. Pleasure: Met. 7.26, ‘tacitus licet serae uindictae gratulabar’. On the pyschological effects of sale, note the response of the Tolpuddle martyr James Hammet when asked why he refused to talk about his experiences as a convict labourer: ‘If you'd been sold like a sheep for £1 would you want to talk about it?’ (Thompson, E. P., Making History: Writings on History and Cultur (1994), 191)Google Scholar.

16 Met. 7.3, 7.27 (fellow-slave); 9.11 (mill); 9.32 (new owner); 11.15 (Mithras, ‘servile pleasures’ (on which see the Appendix)); 7.12 (non-existent: ‘contempta mea praesentia quasi uere mortui’; cf. 3.29, ‘nihil a mortuo differebam’). For the notion of slavery as social death, see Patterson, O., Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (1982)Google Scholar; cf. in a different sense Gianotti, art. cit. (n. 8), 136–7. Bowersock, G. W., Fiction as History: Nero to Julian (1994), 109Google Scholar, draws a connection between death and ‘the servility of a captive’ through Apuleius’ use of the phrase ‘postliminio mortis’ at Met. 10.12 (cf. 2.28, 3–25).

17 ‘Cappadocian’: Met. 8.24 (cf. Mart. 6.77, 10.76). ‘Novice servant’: Met. 8.26. Servile vocabulary: Met. 8.24, ‘ciuem Romanum pro seruo’, ‘bonum et frugi mancipium’; 8.26, ‘seruum … pulchellum’, ‘hominem seruulum’, ‘seruum’, ‘uicarius’. Sales documents: for a catalogue of 157 attestations of donkey sales from Egypt (mid-second century B.C.–sixth/seventh century A.D.), see Litinas, N., ‘P. Lond. III 1 128: sale of a donkey’, ZPE 124 (1999), 195204Google Scholar. Familia: Met. 9.13 (which to my mind resolves the doubts of Millar, art. cit. (n. 12), 129–30, on the workers' servile status). Iconographic sources: Moritz, op. cit. (n. 12), 78–9; cf. 100. Tomb: E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1981), II, 329–32.

18 Varro: Rust. 2.1.14, 2.6.1–6, 3.17.6. Columella: Rust. 7.1.1–3. Pliny, : NH 8.167–70Google Scholar. On the ordinary ass, see White, K. D., Roman Farming (1970), 293–4, 299–300Google Scholar; Toynbee, J. M. C., Animals in Roman Life and Art (1973), 192–7Google Scholar; cf. at great length RE VI, 1 s.v. ‘Esel’ (Olck). Agents: asses are required of the city of Sagalassus in Pisidia for official imperial use, in the event of an absence of mules, in an inscription from the early reign of Tiberius published by Mitchell, S., ‘Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: a new inscription from Pisidia’, JRS 66 (1976), 106–31Google Scholar; with the common abuse of local facilities (Mitchell, art. cit., 114–15) cf. Met. 9.39. Graffito: CLE 1978, shown in Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (1977), 123 (fig. 12)Google Scholar; cf. Moritz, op. cit. (n. 12), 83. Terracotta: shown in Bonner, op. cit., 124 (fig. 13). Poor food: for references to the Ass's food supply, see Met. 3.29, 4.3, 7.14, 7.15, 9.32, 10.13, 10.16; cf. Heath, J. R., ‘Narration and nutrition in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses', Ramus 11 (1982), 5777Google Scholar. Very symbol: Artem. 1.24, 1.37; cf. Gianotti, art. cit. (n. 8), 131–2.

19 Docility: Met. 8.24, ‘de mansuetudine’; cf. 10.35, ‘tam mansuetum … asinum’. Other instruments: Bradley, op. cit. (n. 10), passim. Note that Jacoby, art cit. (n. 4), draws a parallel between the domestication of animals following the Neolithic Revolution and the rise of slavery (especially in Mesopotamia), thereby characterizing slavery as a domestication of human beings in which the urge to control was as strong as in the domestication of wild beasts. The parallel has much appeal, but the overall argument, covering an enormous amount of time and space, is clearly very speculative. It is accepted wholeheartedly by Davis, art. cit. (n. 4). Significantly the ‘progressive juvenilization’ morphologically visible in domesticated animals is not evident in historical slave populations.

20 Harriet Jacobs: Yellin, J. F. (ed.), Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself, by Harriet A. Jacobs (1987), 44, 28Google Scholar (my emphasis; cf. 52 ‘She selected the most brutalized, over whom her authority could be exercised with less fear of exposure’). Frederick Douglass: Gates, H. L. Jr., The Classic Slave Narratives (1987), 282Google Scholar. Cowper, H. Augustus: Conrad, R. E., Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Back Slavery in Brazil (1983), 71–6.Google Scholar

21 Bolted: cf. Dig. 9.2.27.34. Proverbial: Plaut., Pseud. 135; Ov., , Am. 2.7.1516Google Scholar. Gardener, : Met. 4.3Google Scholar. Photis, : Met. 3.26Google Scholar. Many occasions: Met. 3.29 (emperor), 4.4 (rooted), 6.26 (run away; cf. also 6.27), 7.24, 10.29 (suicide), 7.28 (dung), 8.16 (hide), 9.1 (slave cook), 9.2 (bolts again), 9.11 (mill), 9.26–7 (takes revenge), 10.13–14 (pilfers), 10.35 (once more), 4.5 (tricks, schemes, dissembling); cf. also 8.25.

22 Human mind: see Schlam, op. cit. (n. 7), 153 n. 5 for passages stressing the Ass's ‘sensus humanus’. Sleep: cf. Met. 9.2. Human responses: K. R. Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (1994), 107–31, with reference to comparative material. Acquiescent: Met. 4.5; 3.29.

23 Reality: cf. Davis, art. cit. (n. 4), xv. Enticed: Bradley, op. cit. (n. 10), passim. Reward: Met. 7.15; cf. 7.16 (‘liber asinus laetus’). Quadruped: Met. 4.1, 6.27, 6.28, 7.3 (note ‘in bestiam et extremae sortis quadripedem’ with Bakhtin, op. cit. (n. 8), 121 for the notion that the condition of the ass was lower than that of the slave); cf. also 7.27, 11.12. Forms of behaviour: Bradley, op. cit. (n. 22), 107–31; cf. Cartledge, P. A., ‘Rebels and Sambos in Classical Greece: a comparative view’, in Cartledge, P. A. and Harvey, F. D. (eds), Crux: Essays Presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th Birthday (1985), 1646Google Scholar. Valued: cf. Met. 8.29: the Ass as a valuable piece of livestock to be tracked down if stolen.

24 Influential view: Winkler, J. J., Auctor & Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius's The Golden Ass (1985)Google Scholar. Another: Shumate, N., Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius' Metamorphoses (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Bradley, K. R., ‘Contending with conversion: reflections on the reformation of Lucius the Ass’, Phoenix 52 (1998), 315–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Yet another: Finkelpearl, op. cit. (n. 11). Full complexity: Bakhtin, op. cit. (n. 8), 115 (for a sound introductory study, see Schlam, op. cit. (n. 7, 1992); cf. Harrison, op. cit. (n. 8), stressing the importance of ‘literary entertainment and cultural display’ (259) in the work). Fundamental pattern: Bakhtin, op. cit. (n. 8), 118; cf. 121 (the Christianizing terminology is problematical, but that may be the responsibility of the translators rather than the author ipse). Faced squarely: for discussion of the problem of slavery in antiquity, see Garnsey, op. cit. (n. 1); cf. Bradley, K. R., ‘The problem of slavery in classical culture’, CP 92 (1997), 273–82Google Scholar.

25 Domestic entourages: Met. 2.19; 4.24, 7.13; 8.31, 9.2; 10.13, 10.15, 10.16, 10.17, 10.20. Rural slaves: Met. 7.15–16, 7.17–28, 8.1, 8.15–23; 9.10–13. Lucius himself: Met. 2.31, 3.27; cf. 11.18, 11.20. Milo: Met. 1.21, 1.23, 1.26. For a list of slave personnel in the Metamorphoses and Apuleius' other writings, see Norden, F., Apulejus von Madaura und das römische Privatrecht (1912), 72 n. 1Google Scholar. Adulterous steward: Met. 8.22. Herdsmen: Met. 8.15–23. Terrified cook: Met. 8.31. Note how at Met. 9.2 Myrmex is depicted as a typical thieving slave — one who will steal shoes at the baths, and who becomes the object of violence from a free citizen without any discomfiture on his owner's part (cf. Glancy, J. A., ‘Slaves and slavery in the Matthaean parables’, Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000), 6790CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 80). Called: Bakhtin, op. cit. (n. 8), III. Commit suicide: Bradley, op. cit. (n. 22), 44, 48, 110, 111–12. Run away: Bradley, op. cit. (n. 22), 117–21, 126–8. Vedius Pollio: Syme, R., ‘Who was Vedius Pollio?’, JRS 51 (1961), 2330Google Scholar (= Roman Papers II (1979), 518–29Google Scholar), at 23–4, 29; cf. Bradley, op. cit. (n. 10), 121, 126. Cowper: Conrad, op. cit. (n. 20), 73–5.

26 Date of composition: Schlam, op. cit. (n. 7), 12. Adapted: Schlam, op. cit., 22–8. Aspects: Onos 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 29, 30, 42 (beatings); 16, 19, 28, 34, 37, 39, 41 (labour); 35, 42, 43, 46, 48 (disposal). Mirrors: Millar, art. cit. (n. 8).

27 Maturity: for details of Apuleius' biography, see Sandy, G. M., The Greek World of Apuleius: Apuleius and the Second Sophistic (1997), 136Google Scholar; Harrison, op. cit. (n. 8), 1–10. Slave-owner: Apul., Apol. 17; cf. Hunink, V. (ed.), Apuleius of Madauros Pro Se De Magia (1997), II, 6871Google Scholar. Four hundred: Apul., Apol. 93–4.

28 Trade: Law, R. C. C., ‘The Garamantes and trans Saharan enterprise in classical times’, Journal of African History 2 (1967), 181200CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is worth noting that slaves are mentioned together with with various animals (and other commodities) — horses, mules, asses, cows, bulls, pigs, sheep, goats — in the Zarai tariff inscription (CIL VIII.4508); cf. T. Frank (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Volume IV (1938), 80–2 (R. M. Haywood). Epigram: Anth. Lat. 183; cf. Snowden, op. cit. (n. 6), 83–4; Thompson, op. cit. (n. 6), 36–8. Mosaics, objects of art: Desanges, J., ‘The iconography of the Black in ancient North Africa’, in Vercoulter, J., Leclant, J., Snowden, F. M. Jr., and Desanges, J. (eds), The Image of the Black in Western Art (1976), I, 260–5Google Scholar; Dunbabin, K. M. D., The Mosaics of Roman North Africa (1978), 274, 275 (cf. 162)Google Scholar; Snowden, op. cit. (n. 6), 88. Blásquez, J. M., ‘Representaciones de esclavos en mosaicos africanos’, L'Africa romana 12 (1998), 1029–36Google Scholar. Perpetual appeal: it is enough to refer in general to relevant scenes from the Column of Trajan and the Column of Marcus Aurelius (see Hannestad, N., Roman Art and Imperial Policy (1988), 160–1, 238–41Google Scholar), and for local manifestations of the image in Tripolitania to the Arch of Marcus Aurelius at Oea and the Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna. Extent: Desanges, op. cit., 254, 257 (highly sceptical); cf. Snowden, op. cit., 123 n. 71. Nineteenth century: Wright, J., ‘Murzuk and the Saharan slave trade in the 19th century’, Libyan Studies 29 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Lewis, op. cit. (n. 4), 11–13, 41, 57–9, 72–3. Slave witnesses: Apul., , Apol. 44.6–7Google Scholar, 45.1. Trial: cf. Bradley, K. R., ‘Law, magic, and culture in the Apologia of Apuleius’, Phoenix 51 (1997), 203–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Daily life: cf. Plin., , HN 17.41Google Scholar on the ass used for ploughing in Byzacium.

29 Novel evidence; cf. Hopkins, art. cit. (n. 8). Tamed animals: Yellin, op. cit. (n. 20), 21, 22, 48, 76, 92, 106, 156; cf. 161, on considerate treatment from sympathetic Northerners: ‘How gratifying this was, can be fully understood only by those who have been accustomed to be treated as if they were not included within the pale of human beings.’ ‘Wild beast of Slavery’: Yellin, op. cit., 35. Tiger: Yellin, op. cit., 199, Jacobs writing in reference to her daughter: ‘I thought of what I had suffered in slavery at her age, and my heart was like a tiger's when a hunter tries to seize her young.’ Rose, : Met. 3.29Google Scholar, ‘spe salutis alacer’; 4.1, ‘candens … rosarium’; 11.13, ‘rosis amoenis’.

30 Suggestion: Davis, art. cit. (n. 4), xviii (quoted), Issue: Bradley, art. cit. (n. 24), 282.