[This is very important. Mary Beard is a British academic. I can't find any proof that she is Jewish. But she is lying. She's talking a bunch of crap about the Romans. The theme being that the Romans, who were Pagans, didn't know about charity and kindness. The text that is written as a counter to her is from an academic in North America, possibly a Canadian, named Richard Carrier. He is also an expert on Ancient history and he tears Mary Beard's lies to shreds. Beard also FALSELY claims that slaves only had a use for the Romans for sex. This disgusting woman is totally distorting Roman values. The Romans were very fine people actually. We will study them in more detail later. Jan]

Mary Beard, Professor of Ancient History at Cambridge University, England, in her TV doc about Rome said that beggars in Rome would starve due to lack of charity. The only way to avoid this fate would be to offer yourself as a slave. And we know that slaves were often thrown out by their masters when they ceased to be young and physically attractive. Sexual satisfaction being one of a slave’s main functions for their masters. See Mary Beards TV series on Rome,(2016). Beard also appeared on the BBC radio 4 programme “In Our Time” earlier in the year in a discussion about Seneca. She said that there was a dichotomy between Seneca’s noble and high minded philosophy, and the fact that he was a slave owner in Ancient Rome. A criticism that could apply to any of the classical moralists, probably including Aristotle.

Reply

Richard Carrier May 29, 2017, 10:00 am

Seneca was indeed just like every Christian leader after him: not a loyal adherent of his own teachings. I made that point already in my article. Again, no difference. The pagans and the Christians were just alike in this regard.

But Beard is wrong about beggars. Indeed, her claim is illogical. There could not have been ubiquitous reports of there being beggars, if begging never worked. If they all starved, there wouldn’t be any. But we know there were. So someone was giving them food or cash. And all our sources that discuss the matter, report everyone agreed on moral obligations to give beggars coins or bread; it was so fundamental, the sources indicate shock that anyone wouldn’t do that.

But indeed being a slave was better than being a beggar, for many at least. Slavery was actually a job. You’d be paid in free medical care, clothing, room and board, possibly even an education funded by your owner. If you were already educated, a slave position could actually be rather posh, and substantially improve your social status and influence. It’s no surprise many would prefer it to begging in the streets. But alas, a lot chose the begging instead. As the sources all show. Which, again, means beggars didn’t starve.

I should note that selling oneself into slavery wasn’t in fact the only option. The industrious would attach themselves as a client to a patron. They’d receive money, meals, possibly a room, and other benefits, in exchange for being a lackey. The entire Roman social system was built on the client-patron relationship and it was the number one form of work-for-welfare in the Empire. And then there was the usual option besides even that: getting a job (most commonly, as a laborer, always in demand; or apprenticing to a craftsman).

Beggars were thus more usually infirm or insane, just like today. Thus they couldn’t get work or a cliency. And might not have even been able to sell themselves into slavery, for want of anyone who’d buy them. Although the evidence shows the Roman economy easily employed the disabled. And there was no cure for the insane; so I suspect the typical beggar was either insane or in between securing any of the other options and thus securing gap funds until they got a better situation. Both conditions the pagans had sympathy for and readily tossed coins to, as the sources attest.

Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12453

xxxxx Sign Up