【翻譯】古羅馬奴隸制
前言
原文來自http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml
原本是想翻別篇，偶然看到這個BBC的文章覺得更有探討的價值，文章大約簡介了羅馬奴隸的生活及地位，同時也提到了「羅馬沒有人為了廢止奴隸制而努力」，這是很有意思的現象，羅馬強大的背後也有慘無人道的行徑，這是學習羅馬史不得不面對的課題。
前陣子看了經典的老電影《賓漢》，講述了主角賓漢被陷害成為奴隸的故事，雖然它內裡是個神學電影，但描述了有關羅馬社會的百態，其中有幕讓人印象深刻：賓漢淪落成划槳奴隸後，費盡千辛萬苦，終於得到執政官幫助逃離悲慘的生活，那時剛被解放的賓漢從小小的窗子望向過去受奴役的划槳區，看見那些划船奴隸依然被鞭打著，痛苦地划著船，但賓漢甚麼也沒做，便轉身離開了。
賓漢深知奴隸的痛苦，但他不認為奴隸制不對，也沒設想要去改變，如同這篇文章點出的「沒有奴隸為消滅奴隸制奮鬥」。但那些我們習以為常的不合理，正是世界改變的關鍵。
由於這個教授撰文很愛拆句子，為了方便閱讀，我做了不少句順上的調動，個人翻譯能力不佳，還請大家多多鞭斥。
※此篇文章感謝Friedrich Tu協助校對
Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome
古羅馬奴隸的抵抗
The idea of resistance
反抗的念頭
A Roman senator named Pupius Piso once ordered his slaves not to speak unless spoken to. He had no time for idle talk. He also arranged an elegant dinner-party at which the guest of honour was to be a dignitary named Clodius
一位名為普比烏斯‧皮索(Pupius Piso)的羅馬元老命令他的奴隸：「除非主人開口，否則不准說話。他可沒有時間浪費在無意義的談話。」皮索同時安排一場優雅晚宴，招待名為克洛迪烏斯(Clodius)的高官。
At the appropriate time all the guests arrived except Clodius. So Piso sent the slave responsible for having invited the guest of honour to see where he was – several times – but still Clodius did not appear. In despair Piso finally questioned the slave: ‘Did you send Clodius an invitation?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘So why hasn’t he come?’ ‘Because he declined’. ‘Then why didn’t you tell me earlier? ‘Because you didn’t ask.’
到了開宴時間，除了克洛迪烏斯外的客人都到齊了。皮索派盡責的奴隸去邀請那尊貴的賓客數次，但克洛迪烏斯依然沒出現。最後皮索絕望地質問奴隸：「你有去邀請克洛迪烏斯嗎？ 」「是的。」「那麼他為何不來？」「因為他拒絕了。 」「那你為什麼不早點告訴我！？」 「因為你沒問。」。
This anecdote was recorded, about AD 100, by the Greek moralist Plutarch. It is a story that presupposes a constant tension between slave and master in the ancient Roman world, and is a striking illustration of how a lowly Roman slave could outwit his superior master.
公元100年左右的希臘道德家普魯塔克記錄了這個趣聞。這個故事揭示古羅馬的主人與奴隸間持續性的緊張關係，鮮活地描繪出卑微的奴隸如何取勝他的高高在上的主人。
- 註：普魯塔克：羅馬作家，最有名的作品是《希臘羅馬名人列傳》
Technically Roman slaves were the property, the chattels, of their owners, held in a state of total subjection. But to outwit an owner as Piso’s slave did was to win a victory in the game of psychological warfare that always existed between master and slave.
嚴格來說，羅馬奴隸是奴隸主的財產，是永遠順從的。但是在主人與奴隸的心理戰中，像皮索的奴隸般智取主人的狀況卻經常出現。
For unlike other forms of property, slaves were human beings with minds of their own, and they didn’t always their owners as unthinkingly as they were supposed to. They had the capacity to resist the absolute authority their owners formally exercised, and when Piso’s slave crushingly embarrassed his master by obeying his instructions to the letter, for a moment (at least) he placed Piso in the inferior position that he normally occupied himself.
He found, in other words, a way to assert himself, to exert power against the powerful, so that the asymmetrical roles of master and slave were suddenly inverted.
不同於其他形式的財產，奴隸是有自我思考的人，他們不會永遠不假思索地服從主人。他們有反抗奴隸主威權的能力，皮索的奴隸透過”分毫不差地服從指令”給他難堪，至少有那麼片刻，他置皮索於他平常位於的劣勢。
換句話說，他發現了一個方法去發揮力量，對抗強權以維護自己，使得這個主人與奴隸的不對等關係被突然翻轉了。
The realities of slavery
奴隸制的情況
In Plutarch’s day Rome had been the predominant political power in the ancient Mediterranean world for roughly 500 years, and was to remain so for three centuries more. Throughout this span of time Rome was a slave-owning society, acquiring its slaves through its wars of conquest and through trade beyond the borders of its empire.
在普魯塔克的時代，羅馬已稱霸地中海將近500年，而且將會再持續三個世紀以上。這時期的羅馬是一個奴隸制社會，透過戰爭征服和帝國邊界的交易獲得奴隸。
In Rome and Italy, in the four centuries between 200 BC and 200 AD, perhaps a quarter or even a third of the population was made up of slaves. Over time millions of men, women, and children lived their lives in a state of legal and social non-existence with no rights of any kind. They were non-persons – notice that in Plutarch’s story the slave does not even have a name – and they couldn’t own anything, marry, or have legitimate families.
從公元前200年到和公元200年四個世紀間，在羅馬和義大利大約有四分之一或三分之一的人口是由奴隸所構成。這段期間數以百萬的男人、女人和孩子們過著不具有任何法律和社會權利的生活，他們”非人” ─請注意普魯塔克的故事裡，奴隸沒有名字 – 他們不能擁有任何東西，例如結婚，或有合法的家庭。
- 註：羅馬公民的權利由三部分組成：自由，家庭權力，公民權利。
Their role was to provide labour, or to add to their owners’ social standing as visible symbols of wealth, or both. Some slaves were treated well, but there were few restraints on their owners’ powers, and physical punishment and sexual abuse were common. Owners thought of their slaves as enemies. By definition slavery was a brutal, violent and dehumanising institution, where slaves were seen as akin to animals.
奴隸角色是提供勞動，或是做為顯耀奴隸主地位財富的可見象徵，亦兩者兼有之。有些奴隸得到不錯的待遇，但仍部分被主人的權力限制。體罰和性虐待是司空見慣的事。奴隸主視奴隸為敵人。根據定義，奴隸制是一個野蠻，暴力和毫無尊嚴的制度，奴隸被當做家畜。
Few records have survived from Roman slaves to allow modern historians to deduce from them a slave’s perception of his or her life of servitude. Rome produced no slaves-turned-abolitionist such as the African-Americans Frederick Douglass or Harriet Jacobs.
很少有羅馬奴隸留下的記錄，以至於現代歷史學家難以推論他們對身為奴隸或處於奴役生活的看法。羅馬沒有誕生奴隸出身的廢奴主義者，如非裔美國人弗德里克‧道格拉斯和哈里特‧雅各布斯。
Instead the evidence available comes overwhelmingly from people such as Plutarch, who represented the slave-owning classes. But that evidence does show that Roman slaves managed to demonstrate their opposition to slavery in various ways.
除了這些壓倒性地來自普魯塔克等代表奴隸主階級的事例，仍有其他證據表明羅馬奴隸曾以不同的方式去反對奴隸制。
Slave rebellions
奴隸起義
The most obvious way was through open rebellion. In 73-71 BC the gladiator Spartacus famously led an uprising of thousands of slaves in central Italy, formed an army that defeated several Roman legions, and at one point threatened Rome itself.
Earlier there had been similar large-scale rebellions on the island of Sicily. But open rebellion was also the most dangerous form of resistance, because the stakes were enormously high. The greater the size of the rebellion, the greater the likelihood was of betrayal from within, and the greater the threat was of serious retaliation, re-enslavement or death.
最明顯的例子是公開起義。公元前73~71年，著名的角鬥士斯巴達克斯領導數千名義大利中部的奴隸起義，並數次擊敗羅馬軍團，一度威脅羅馬。早些時候，在西西里島也發生類似的大規模叛亂。但公開起義也是抵抗方式中最危險的一種，因為風險極高。叛亂的規模越大，內部的異心越大，而更大的威脅是殘酷的報復，重被奴役或死亡。
Spartacus himself died in battle, and thousands of his captured followers were crucified. The slave rebels in Sicily were likewise thoroughly suppressed. It isn’t surprising that they had no successors, or that their rebellions achieved nothing of lasting value for Roman slaves.
斯巴達克戰死，數以千計的追隨者被釘在十字架上。西西里島的奴隸起義同樣被敉平。他們沒有繼承者並不令人意外，或者說，起義沒有為羅馬奴隸帶來甚麼長遠的意義。
Still, the Romans always feared another Spartacus. The philosopher Seneca tells of a proposal that was once made in the Roman senate requiring slaves to wear distinctive clothing so that they could be easily recognised. But once the senators realised that the slaves might then become conscious of their strength, and make common cause against their masters, they abandoned the idea.
儘管如此，羅馬人總擔憂出現另一位斯巴達克斯。哲學家塞內卡曾提到某個元老提出的法案─要求奴隸穿著能夠輕易辨識他們身分的衣服，但元老們發覺這樣會讓奴隸們意識到他們的力量，反集結起來對付主人，於是他們放棄了這個念頭。
Alternatives to rebellion
替代叛亂的方案
Those who fought against Rome knew that they could be sent to the slave-market if taken as a prisoner-of-war. They are often said to have killed themselves rather than face the prospect of enslavement – a clear indictment of the horrors involved in the sudden transition from freedom to slavery. Images of the vanquished committing suicide are still visible on the Column of Trajan in Rome.
反抗羅馬的人知道，他們若成為戰俘會被送到奴隸市場拍賣，他們寧可自殺，也不願為奴─羅馬的圖拉真柱上可以看到戰敗者自殺的圖像，鮮明地控訴從自由人成為奴隸的身分轉變有多麼可怖。
At other times, slaves who were unable to tolerate their conditions assaulted their owners. In the mid-first century AD an anonymous slave murdered his master, a high official in the imperial administration, either because the master had reneged on a promise to set the slave free or because the two were rivals in a sexual intrigue.
有時候不能忍受自身境況的奴隸會攻擊奴隸主。公元一世紀中，一位無名奴隸謀殺了身為政府高級官員的奴隸主， 可能是因為奴隸主違背了要讓這名奴隸自由的允諾，或是這兩人有情感上的糾葛。
The aftermath was disastrous. Roman law required a man’s slaves to come to his aid if he were attacked, under penalty of death. The law was enforced against those slaves who had not come to the victim’s aid in this case, and all the slaves in the household – allegedly 400 of them – were executed, even though most of them could not possibly have known anything about the murder.
後果是災難性的。羅馬法規定主人若被攻擊，或處於死亡的威脅。他的奴隸要去援助他。該法被強制實施在此案中沒有提供受害者援助的奴隸，和所有的家庭奴隸，據稱有400人被處決，儘管大部分的奴隸對此謀殺一無所知。
There were other ways to alleviate the burdens of slavery. One was to try to escape, either to return to an original homeland or simply to find safe refuge somewhere. Romans labelled runaway slaves ‘fugitives’, and as the greatest modern historian of ancient slavery, Moses Finley, has remarked, ‘fugitive slaves are almost an obsession in the sources’. This suggests that the incidence of running away was always high.
還有其他的方式來緩解奴隸制的負擔。奴隸會試圖逃跑，要麼返回原來的家園，不然就是尋找安全的地方避難。羅馬人會在逃亡奴隸身上標記「逃亡者」，如同現代最偉大的古代奴隸制學者─摩西‧芬利所評論：「逃亡奴隸是令人執著的資源。」這表明了逃跑率始終居高不下。
To deal with the problem, the Romans hired professional slave-catchers to hunt down runaways, and posted advertisements in public places giving precise descriptions of fugitives and offering rewards for their capture. Around the necks of slaves who were recovered they also attached iron collars, giving instructions on what to do with the slaves who wore them if they happened to escape again. Examples can still be seen in museums.
為了解決這個問題，羅馬人雇用的專業奴隸捕手搜索逃跑奴隸，並在公共場所張貼廣告，描述逃跑者的特徵，並提供獎金。被抓回來的奴隸脖子會圍上鐵製項圈，上頭標註若這名奴隸再度逃跑時的該如何做的指示。我們現在可以在博物館看到這類項圈。
There is no way of knowing how many Roman slaves successfully escaped slavery by running away. But it was possible. And it helped that skin colour was no impediment.
我們沒辦法知道有多少羅馬奴隸成功脫逃。但應該有成功的案例，畢竟膚色並不構成甚麼障礙。
- 註：原作者應該是說美國南北戰爭的黑奴逃跑很容易因為膚色被發現。
The great orator Cicero can be heard grumbling in his correspondence about a slave named Dionysius, who was well-educated enough to have supervised Cicero’s personal library and who must have been relatively well-treated. He ran away anyway. Cicero used all his considerable influence to find the man, but to no avail: Dionysius slipped away across the Adriatic and is last heard of well out of Cicero’s reach – somewhere in the Balkans.
偉大的演說家西塞羅在信件中曾抱怨一名為狄奧尼修斯的奴隸，狄奧尼修斯受過良好教育，並負責管理西塞羅私人圖書館，待遇相對較好。但他跑了。
西塞羅運用一切的影響力以期找到該奴隸，但無濟於事，西賽羅最後一次得到他的消息是在巴爾幹，狄奧尼修斯溜過亞得里亞海，再無影蹤
Day-to day resistance
日常的抵制
Running away was less dangerous than rebellion, but it was still a hazardous enterprise. Slave-catchers apart, Roman law forbade the harbouring of fugitives, so slaves on the run were always in danger and if caught could be savagely punished. To many therefore it must have made sense not to risk life and limb by running away, but to carry out acts of wilful obstruction or sabotage that harmed slave-owners’ interests at minimal risk to themselves.
逃跑雖然比叛亂的風險低，但仍然是個冒險的計畫。除了要逃避奴隸捕手外，羅馬法禁止窩藏逃犯，所以奴隸逃跑時總是處於危險中，如果被抓到，可能會被殘忍地處罰。大部分人都能明瞭逃跑會危害身體和性命，對他們來說，蓄意妨礙或怠工去傷害奴隸主的利益才是風險最低的。
Slaves, for example, might steal food or other supplies from the household. Those in positions of responsibility might falsify record books, and embezzle money from their owners, or arrange for their own manumission (setting free). Ordinary farm labourers might deliberately go slow on the job, or injure the animals they worked with to avoid work – or they might pretend to be ill, destroy equipment, or damage buildings. If your job was to make wine and you had to produce a certain quota, why not add in some sea-water to help things along? Almost any slave could play truant or simply waste time.
舉例來說，奴隸可以偷走自家的食物或其他物資。任職於管理階層的奴隸可能會偽造記錄，污走主人的錢，或安排解放自己（成為自由人）。務農的奴隸可能故意拖進度，傷害畜產以便偷懶，他們也會裝病、破壞設備或損壞建築。如果你的工作是製作葡萄酒，且每日都要達到固定的產量，那為何不添加些海水以幫助產出更順利？幾乎所有的奴隸都會曠工或瞎摸魚。
All these petty forms of day-to-day resistance appealed to Roman slaves. They allowed slaves to frustrate and annoy their owners, and offered the satisfaction of knowing that their owners’ powers were not absolute – that even the most humble of human beings could take action to empower themselves.
這些日常的瑣事反映出奴隸的控訴。他們允許奴隸阻撓和騷擾主人，即使是最卑微的人也能採取行動，給予自己力量，讓奴隸主的認知他的權力不是絕對的。
Owners complained that their slaves were lazy and troublesome – instead of working they were always pilfering food or clothing or valuables (even the silverware), setting fire to property (villas included), or wandering around the city’s art galleries and public entertainments.
奴隸主抱怨他們的奴隸都不工作、懶惰、愛製造麻煩，偷走食物、衣服或貴重物品（甚至是銀器），放火燒毀地產（包括別墅），徘徊於城市的藝廊和公共娛樂場所。
But it was in the decisions they made to cause vexation that slaves most forcefully expressed their humanity, and their opposition to the institution that oppressed them. Their sporadic acts of defiance created a permanent undercurrent of low-level resistance to slavery that was deeply embedded in Roman society.
但這是奴隸主所做的決定令人惱怒，反引起奴隸強烈地表現出他們的人性。他們反抗壓迫他們的機構，這些零星的抵制行為讓根植羅馬的奴隸制湧現了反抗的暗流。
The slaves were motivated not by a sense of class solidarity – Rome’s slave population was far too heterogeneous for that – but by the desire to find ways in which, as individuals, they could find relief from their subject status, if only temporarily.
羅馬的奴隸人口組成相當複雜，奴隸並非因階級意識團結行動，但他們都渴求找到方法成為「人」以解除他們服從的境況，即使只是暫時也好。
The relationship between slaves and masters at Rome was a contest fought in the arena of the mind. Masters could draw on all the weapons of law, status and established authority – there was never in Roman history any movement to abolish slavery – whereas slaves had little more to fight with than their wits.
But as Plutarch’s story symbolically shows, the lines of battle had to be constantly redrawn, as slaves matched their will against the will of those who owned them. And it was not always the masters who won.
羅馬史上未曾有任何廢除奴隸制的舉動。羅馬奴隸和奴隸主間的關係是種心理擂台的較量。奴隸主可以動用法律、地位和絕對的權威作為武器；反之，奴隸除了自己的那點小聰明，別無所有。
但如普魯塔克的經典案例所顯示，奴隸會順從自己的意願去抗衡奴隸主。如同戰線常被重新界定，勝利者並不永遠是主人。
參考書籍
Slavery in the Roman Empre by RH Barrow (Barnes & Noble, 1998)
Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary edited by KR Bradley (Collection Latomus, Brussels, 1978)
Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control by KR Bradley (Oxford University Press, 1987)
Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 BC – 70 BC by KR Bradley (Batsford, 1989; reprint 1998)
Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology by MI Finley (Chatto and Windus, 1980)
Slavery and Society at Rome by KR Bradley (Cambridge University Press, 1994; Spanish translation 1998)
Suetonius edited and translated by JC Rolfe; revised edition with a new introduction by KR Bradley (Harvard University Press, 1998)
Conquerors and Slaves by K Hopkins (Cambridge, 1978)
Spartacus and the Slave Wars by BD Shaw (Boston, 2001)
關於作者
吉思·布拉德
Keith Bradley is the Eli J Shaheen Professor of Classics, Concurrent Professor of History, and Chair of the Department of Classics at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. His special interests are in Roman social and cultural history, particularly the history of slavery and of the family.
譯後亂講堂
這篇文章提到了幾本跟奴隸有關的羅馬著作，列舉各種中文翻譯如下，若需原文網路上都找的到公開資料：
《De re rustica》《論農業》M.T.瓦羅/大陸商務
《De Agricultura》《農業志》加圖/大陸商務
《Vitae parallelae》《希臘羅馬名人傳》普魯塔克/聯經出版，有收錄一些加圖對待奴隸的方式。
《De Vita Beata》《麵包裡的幸福人生》塞涅卡/中國宇航出版社，此書有提到對奴隸的看法(塞涅卡認為人是平等的)。
文章所提到的芬利學者曾寫了《古代奴隸制度與現代詮釋》一書，可惜沒有中文版，但芬利的老師威廉‧威斯特曼有推出一本《古希臘羅馬奴隸制》(中文由大象出版社翻譯)，不過這兩人後來在學術上有所爭執，芬利還批評這本書是大災難，但我自己看是是覺得還不錯沒那麼糟吧。
順帶一提，塞涅卡曾記述一個關於奧古斯都與奴隸的故事，史家迪奧也有記載，我很喜歡這則軼事，簡述如下：
維狄烏斯‧波利奧(Vedius Pollio)曾邀請奧古斯都來作客，席間波利奧的奴隸不慎打破了水晶琉璃酒杯，波利奧大怒嚷著要把他丟進魚池被七鰓魚吃掉，害怕的奴隸求生不得，只好跪在奧古斯都面前乞求活路。
奧古斯都對如此殘忍的刑罰感到震驚，於是他把所有的酒器打破，然後問波利奧：「你也要對我如此做嗎？」
波利奧當然不敢，而後奧古斯都命人填平魚池，並且釋放了該名奴隸。
奧古斯都這性格難測、善於偽裝的人，竟然因奴隸求情做出這麼暴走的事實屬難得，小說《豔后的女兒》重現了屋大維面無表情摔破所有杯子的的場景，貼切地表現出屋大維如何運用權力而非蠻力壓制對方的手段，卻又帶著一絲人性的憐憫，雖然這個故事當初並非為了奴隸制而記，但以現代角度來說，奧古斯都打破的酒杯，或許也象徵著千百年來奴隸無言的控訴吧。
以上純個人心得分享，若有任何問題請留言給我，懇請大家指正（鞠躬）
