In my last post I summarized some of the ways that scholars have insisted that we treat the text of the Deipnosophists. I was particularly intrigued by how we should approach the characters in the text because in the section on slavery in the Deipnosophists does connect to the unfolding banquet. In particular, the diner Democritus is inspired to discourse on slaves because he notes some slaves coming in with a number of small plates. Their presence inspires him to comment on how to be a slave and cook requires one to have a great deal of will power as you are not allowed to indulge in what you cook or bake. This comment firmly grounds the discussion of slaves as part of the banquet, similar to their discussions of wine, lentil soup and figs.
On the other hand, slaves are not simply commodities: note how Democritus’ initial comment is launched from the perspective of a slave cook. Indeed, I argue that this passage in Athenaeus actually contains one of the more sensitive accounts to the perspective of slaves in Greek literature. Sensitivity is not the same as articulating an anti-slave position. Another piece of Greek literature that evinces a great deal of sympathy for slaves is Homer’s Odyssey. However, Homer doesn’t even present freedom as the reward for slave loyalty: instead, Odysseus gives a number of commodities to the slaves that were loyal to him in his absence. Athenaeus’ sympathy for slaves is similarly limited but is therefore greater than other writers on slavery, such as Seneca, whose epistle on slavery is written entirely from the perspective of a slave-owner.
In contrast, Athenaeus writes on issues such as the laws that the Athenians passed to protect slaves from the violence of other citizens. More radically he reproduces the exploits of the slave-rebel Drimacus. Indeed, he assembles a little dossier of slave revolts in antiquity, mentioning not only the great slave revolts on Sicily but also the smaller revolts in Sounion.
On the other hand, slaves are not simply commodities: note how Democritus’ initial comment is launched from the perspective of a slave cook. Indeed, I argue that this passage in Athenaeus actually contains one of the more sensitive accounts to the perspective of slaves in Greek literature. Sensitivity is not the same as articulating an anti-slave position. Another piece of Greek literature that evinces a great deal of sympathy for slaves is Homer’s Odyssey. However, Homer doesn’t even present freedom as the reward for slave loyalty: instead, Odysseus gives a number of commodities to the slaves that were loyal to him in his absence. Athenaeus’ sympathy for slaves is similarly limited but is therefore greater than other writers on slavery, such as Seneca, whose epistle on slavery is written entirely from the perspective of a slave-owner.
In contrast, Athenaeus writes on issues such as the laws that the Athenians passed to protect slaves from the violence of other citizens. More radically he reproduces the exploits of the slave-rebel Drimacus. Indeed, he assembles a little dossier of slave revolts in antiquity, mentioning not only the great slave revolts on Sicily but also the smaller revolts in Sounion.