Roman slaves. Legal status of slaves in ancient Rome How slaves lived in ancient Rome story

Slavery Recently, in the center of Moscow, opposite the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, a monument to Emperor Alexander II was erected, on which the following words are inscribed: “He abolished serfdom in Russia in 1861 and freed millions of peasants from centuries-old slavery.”

In Ancient Rome, between the 3rd century. BC e. and II century. n. e. The slave system reached its greatest development. Therefore, the emergence, flourishing and decline of slave society can best be traced by studying the history of Ancient Rome.

Slaves appeared in Rome from time immemorial, when it was a small city, the center of a primitive agricultural people. The Romans then lived in large families - surnames. The family was headed by the “father of the family.” He controlled all the family's property, as well as the labor, fate and very lives of his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and the few slaves who belonged to the family. Slaves were not yet very different in status from free members of the family, subordinate to its head. Both of them could not have their own property, they were represented before the law by the “father of the family”, they all participated in the cult of the patrons of the family - the Larov gods. At the altar that existed in every house, Larov the slave sought salvation from the wrath of his master.

The difference between free and unfree members of a family appeared only after the death of its head: the free themselves became the full-fledged “fathers” of their families, and slaves, along with other property, passed to the heirs of the deceased head of the family. At that time, slaves were still recognized to some extent as people. They themselves were responsible for crimes committed against strangers, even if done on the orders of the owner. In a subsistence economy, when each family provided for its own economic needs and rarely bought anything from the outside, there was no need to over-exploit the slaves who worked together with the master and his family. However, gradually the situation changed. Continuous victorious wars for land and spoils turned Rome into the center of a huge power.

The influx of material wealth, exposure to the high culture and more refined lifestyle of ancient Greece and the eastern states over time changed the old peasant Rome. Wars and participation in the exploitation of conquered provinces enriched many Romans. They bought land, built new city houses and rural villas for themselves, acquired works of art and luxury goods, and gave their children a good education.

All this required money. They could make money by selling agricultural and handicraft products. The strength of family members for its growing production was no longer enough, and besides, rich people began to despise physical labor. The free poor people preferred to enlist in the army, work on large construction projects undertaken by the state, or live on state benefits, which were paid to poor citizens from military booty and tribute from the provinces. Therefore, slaves became the main labor force in agriculture and crafts, and their number was increasing. It was in these industries that the bulk of Roman slaves were used.

But slaves were needed not only for the production of goods. The Romans' passion for spectacle, especially gladiator fights, grew, and gladiator schools were replenished with slaves. Rich Romans acquired numerous servants, among whom were not only cooks, pastry chefs, barbers, maids, grooms, gardeners, etc., but also artisans, librarians, doctors, teachers, actors, musicians. Politicians needed sufficiently dexterous and educated trusted agents who were entirely dependent on them. Slaves penetrated into all spheres of life, their numbers grew, and their professions multiplied.

The children of slaves became slaves. Provincials who owed money to Roman businessmen fell into slavery. Slaves were bought in the provinces and brought from abroad. They were supplied to special markets by pirates who captured people on ships and in coastal villages. In slave markets, natives of Greece and Asia Minor, trained in crafts and sometimes sciences, were most valued. They paid for them several tens of thousands of sesterces.

But the main number of slaves in the III-I centuries. BC e. Rome received as a result of wars of conquest and punitive expeditions. Captives captured in battle and residents of rebellious provinces were enslaved. Thus, during the reprisal against the rebel Epirus, 150 thousand people were simultaneously sold into slavery. Italics, Gauls, Thracians and Macedonians worked in agriculture. On average, a simple slave cost 500 sesterces, about the same as the cost of 1/8 hectares of land.

In the 3rd century. BC e. a law was passed equating a slave to a domestic animal. The slave was called a “talking instrument.” From now on, his master was responsible for any actions of the slave. The slave was obliged to obey him blindly, even if the master ordered him to commit murder or robbery. The owner could kill him, put him in chains, imprison him in a home prison (ergastul), turn him into a gladiator, or send him to work in the mines. And, of course, only the owner himself determined how many hours a day a slave should work and how he should be maintained. The situation of rural slaves was especially difficult. Famous figure of the 2nd century. BC e. Cato the Censor, who created a guide to farming, reduced the diet of slaves to the necessary minimum. He believed that a slave should work enough during the day to fall asleep dead in the evening: then unwanted thoughts would not come into his head. The slave was forbidden to go beyond the boundaries of the estate, communicate with strangers, or even participate in religious ceremonies. According to the law, a slave could not have a family; his family ties were not recognized. Only as a special favor could the master allow the slave to start some kind of family and raise his children.

The position of slaves in urban crafts was somewhat different. Skilled craftsmen, whose products met the tastes of the discerning buyer, could not be forced to work only under pressure. They were often given some independence and were given the opportunity to raise money for ransom. Urban slaves interacted with free artisans and the working poor on a daily basis, sometimes joining their professional and religious associations - collegiums.

Educated slaves occupied a special place. They were well maintained, often released, and in the last two centuries of the republic, many figures of Roman culture emerged from their number. Thus, the freed slaves were the first Roman playwright and organizer of the Roman theater of Libya, Andronicus, and the famous comedian Terence. The majority of doctors and teachers of grammar (including literary criticism) and oratory were freedmen.

The position of this or that group of slaves also determined its place in the class struggle. Urban slaves usually performed together with the free poor. Rural slaves had no allies, but, as the most oppressed, they were the most active participants in the uprisings of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. In these centuries of rapid development of slavery and especially cruel exploitation of slaves, the class struggle was very acute. Slaves fled beyond the borders of the Roman state, killed their masters, during wars they went over to the side of the opponents of Rome, which they hated, and in the 2nd century. BC e. there were rebellions more than once.

In 138 BC. e. in Sicily, where at that time there were many captive slaves from Syria and Asia Minor, the first great slave war began. The rebels chose Eunus as their king, who took the name Antiochus, usual for Syrian kings. Their second leader was a native of Cilicia, Cleon. The leaders had an elected council. The rebels managed to capture a significant part of Sicily and within six years, until 132 BC. e., successfully repel the onslaught of the Roman legions. Only with great difficulty did the Romans capture the rebel fortresses of Enna and Tauromenium, suppress the uprising and deal with its leaders.

Remains of an ancient Roman mill.

But already in 104 BC. e. A new slave revolt broke out in Sicily. A council and two leaders were again elected - Tryphon and Athenion, who was proclaimed king. They captured a vast territory. Only in 101 BC. e. The rebels were defeated and their capital, Triokalo, was captured. The Sicilian uprisings also caused an echo among the slaves of Italy, who rebelled in several cities.

Agricultural work. Roman mosaic. North Africa. III century n. e.

The struggle of the slaves reached its highest tension in the uprising of Spartacus. In 74 BC. e. 78 gladiators, among whom was the Thracian Spartacus, fled from the gladiator school in Capua; The fugitives managed to capture carts with weapons for the gladiators. They settled on the Vesuvius volcano, where slaves who had fled from the surrounding estates began to flock. Soon their detachment reached 10 thousand people. Spartak, a most talented organizer and commander, was elected leader. When a detachment of three thousand under the command of Clodius marched against the slaves, occupying the approaches to Vesuvius, Spartacus’ warriors wove ropes from vines and unexpectedly descended along them from an impregnable steep slope to Clodius’s rear, from where they dealt him a crushing blow. New victories allowed Spartak to take possession of a large part of southern Italy. In 72 BC. e., already having 200 thousand people, he moved north. Armies under the command of both Roman consuls were sent against the rebels. Spartacus defeated them and reached the city of Mutina in northern Italy.

Interior view of the Roman Colosseum. The service premises for gladiators and cages for wild animals located under the arena are visible.

Some historians believe that Spartacus sought to cross the Alps and lead slaves to lands still free from the Roman yoke. Others believe that he intended, increasing his army even more, to march on Rome. And indeed, although the path to the Alps was open from Mutina, and the Roman government did not yet have the forces to block Spartacus’ path to the north, he turned south again. He planned to go through all of Italy, attracting new rebels, then cross on pirate ships to Sicily and raise numerous slaves there. Meanwhile, the government managed to assemble an army, headed by Crassus, a prominent politician and the richest man in Rome. With cruel punishments, resorting to decimation - the execution of every tenth soldier in units that turned out to be unstable, Crassus restored discipline in his troops. Moving after Spartacus, he pushed the rebels back to the Bruttian Peninsula. They found themselves between the sea and the Roman army. The pirates deceived Spartacus, did not provide ships and thwarted the plan to cross to Sicily. In a heroic outburst, Spartacus managed to break through the fortifications of Crassus into Lucania. Here the last battle with Crassus took place. Spartacus was killed and his army was destroyed. Thousands of rebels were crucified on crosses. Only a few escaped; they continued to fight for several more years and were eventually killed. V.I. Lenin called Spartacus one of the most outstanding heroes of one of the largest slave uprisings. Why couldn't the slaves win? A victorious revolution is possible only when the existing method of production has already become obsolete, when it is replaced by a new, more advanced one. The slave-owning mode of production was then in its prime and was still developing. The slaves did not have any program for the reconstruction of society. Rome was at the height of its military and political power. And although there was a sharp struggle between the Roman poor and the rich nobility (see article “Struggle for land in Ancient Rome”), rural slaves did not find allies among Roman citizens. The uprisings of rural slaves, on whose labor the main branch of the Roman economy was based, frightened not only the rich, but also the poor. Finally, the slaves themselves, placed outside the law, outside the society of citizens, disunited, without any organization, natives of different countries, could not recognize themselves as a single class.

Gladiators. Roman mosaic.

After the death of Spartacus, Rome no longer saw major slave uprisings. But the slaves never stopped their struggle, which took place in different forms. Repression against slaves intensified at the end of the 1st century. BC e., when, after civil wars, the sole ruler of the state in 27 BC. e. became Emperor Augustus. Under him, slaves who escaped during civil wars were executed or returned to their masters; on pain of death, slaves were forbidden to enlist in military units, which was sometimes allowed during civil wars. A law was passed: if a master was killed, all the slaves of the murdered man who were under the same roof or within shouting distance were tortured and executed for not coming to the rescue. “For,” the law said, “a slave must put the life and good of the master above his own.”

The events of the last years of the republic showed that individual masters were no longer powerless to resist the slaves. With the establishment of the empire, the state took upon itself the function of suppressing them. At the same time, fearing the protests of slaves driven to despair, the emperors were forced to increasingly limit the arbitrariness of their masters. Slaves of particularly cruel masters could ask imperial officials to be forcibly sold to more humane owners. The masters were deprived of the right to kill slaves, give them to gladiators and mines, and constantly keep them in ergastuls and shackles. From now on, only the court could impose such punishments.

In the 1st century BC e.-I century n. e. Agriculture and crafts in Italy reached a very high level. However, the heyday of slave production was short-lived. Despite all the efforts of the owners, the productivity of slave labor increased little. Slaves still hated their masters, killed them on occasion, joined bands of robbers, fled beyond the borders of the empire, and went over to its enemies. “Agility and intelligence are in the slave,” wrote the 4th century agronomist. n. e. Palladium, “are always close to disobedience and malicious intent, while stupidity and slowness are always close to good nature and humility.” And another agronomist of the 1st century AD. - Columella, advising not to spare 8,000 sesterces to buy a learned winegrower, notes that such winegrowers, due to their more lively minds and obstinacy, have to be kept in ergastuli at night and driven out to work in stocks. Slaves could not be forced to work with the care dictated by agronomic experience. Agriculture stopped progressing. The same Columella wrote: “The point is not in heavenly wrath, but in our guilt. We hand over agriculture like an executioner to the most worthless of slaves.”

The larger the estate, the more difficult it was to keep track of the slaves, so large farms - latifundia - fell into decline earlier than others. It is not surprising that in the II-III centuries. n. e. Vast expanses of land in the latifundia remained uncultivated and fell into disrepair.

Life forced the slave owners themselves to change the living and working conditions of slaves not only in crafts, but also in agriculture. To interest a slave in the results of his labor, landowners often allocated him his own farm - peculium, which included land, tools of production, and sometimes other slaves. Formally, the master remained the owner of the peculium, but the slave, the owner of the peculium, gave him only part of the product, saving the rest for his family. Even more often, the slave was released free of charge or for a ransom, but with the intention that the freed person would work for the master part of the time. In the II-III centuries. n. e. Most of the land in the latifundia was divided into small plots, leased to slaves, freedmen and freemen. Such tenants were called colones. Large workshops were also split into parts and rented out.

By the end of the Roman Empire, slaves did not disappear, but were pushed into the background by the colonists. At the same time, the colons became increasingly dependent on the landowner, and at the beginning of the 4th century. n. e. they were attached to the ground. And regardless of whether the colon (holder of the plot, planted on the land) was a slave or freeborn, he was sold along with his plot.

Colonies now became the main participants in the class struggle. They raised uprisings that lasted from the 3rd to the 5th centuries. n. e. By weakening the empire, these uprisings made it easier for the peoples neighboring the empire to defeat it.

Colonies were already the predecessors of medieval serfs. With the crisis of the slave-owning mode of production, new feudal relations arose (for more information on this, see the article “Europe at the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages”). Slavery, which initially contributed to the flourishing of agriculture, crafts, political power and culture of Rome, ultimately, due to irreconcilable contradictions between slaves and slave owners, led to the final decline and death of the Roman state.

Development of slavery in Rome. Land concentration and formation of latifundia. From the second half of the 2nd century. BC. The period of the highest development of the slave-owning mode of production in Roman society begins. The wars of conquest that the Romans waged for about 120 years in the western and then eastern Mediterranean basin contributed to the influx of huge masses of slaves into the slave markets. Even during the first Punic War, the capture of Agrigentum (262) gave the Romans 25 thousand prisoners, who were sold into slavery. Six years later, the consul Regulus, having defeated the Carthaginians at Cape Ecnome (256), sent 20 thousand slaves to Rome. In the future, these numbers are steadily growing. Fabius Maximus, during the capture of Tarentum in 209, sold 30 thousand inhabitants into slavery. In 167, during the defeat of the cities of Enira by the consul Aemilius Paulus, 150 thousand people were sold into slavery. The end of the III Punic War (146) was marked by the sale into slavery of all the inhabitants of the destroyed Carthage. Even these fragmentary, scattered and, apparently, not always accurate figures given by Roman historians give an idea of ​​the many thousands of slaves who poured into Rome.

The enormous quantitative growth of slaves led to qualitative changes in the socio-economic structure of Roman society: to the predominant importance of slave labor in production, to the transformation of the slave into the main producer of Roman society. These circumstances marked the complete victory and flowering of the slave-owning mode of production in Rome.

But the predominance of slave labor in production inevitably led to the displacement of the small free producer. Since Italy at this time continued to maintain the character of an agrarian country, here this process, first of all, most clearly unfolded in the field of agricultural production, and it consisted of two inextricably linked phenomena: the concentration of land and the formation of large slaveholding estates (so called latifundia) and at the same time the dispossession and pauperization of the peasantry.

Before 2nd century BC In Italian agriculture, small and medium-sized farms predominated, distinguished by their natural character and based mainly on the labor of free producers. As slavery developed in Rome, these farms began to be replaced by farms of a completely different type, based on a system of mass exploitation of slave labor and producing products not only to satisfy their own needs, but also for sale. The Roman historian Appian depicts this process as follows: “The rich, having occupied most of this undivided land and, due to the long-standing seizure, hoping that it would not be taken away from them, began to annex neighboring plots of the poor to their possessions, partly buying them for money, partly taking them away by force, so in the end, instead of small estates, they ended up with huge latifundia in their hands to cultivate the fields and guard the herds, they began to buy slaves..." (10:52)

Such an economy, designed for the development of commodity production and based on the exploitation of slave labor, is an exemplary villa, described by the famous Roman statesman Cato the Elder in his special work “On Agriculture.” Cato describes an estate with a complex economy: an oil grove of 240 yugers (60 hectares), a vineyard of 100 yugers (25 hectares), as well as grain farming and pasture for livestock. The organization of labor on such an estate is based, first of all, on the exploitation of slaves. Cato points out that at least 14 slaves are required to care for a vineyard of 100 jugeras, and 11 slaves for an olive garden of 240 jugeras. Cato gives detailed advice on how to more rationally exploit the labor of slaves, recommending keeping them busy on rainy days, when work is being done in the fields, and even on religious holidays. At the head of the management of the estate is a vilik, chosen from among the most devoted and knowledgeable slaves in agriculture; the vilik’s wife performs the duties of a housekeeper and cook.

Cato is extremely interested in the question of the profitability of individual branches of agriculture. “If they ask me,” he writes, “which estates should be put in first place, I will answer this way: in first place should be put a vineyard that produces wine of good quality and in abundance, in second place - an irrigated vegetable garden, in third - a willow planting ( for weaving baskets), on the fourth - an olive grove, on the fifth - a meadow, on the sixth - a grain field, on the seventh - a forest." From these words it is clear that grain crops, which were predominant in the old type of farms, are now retreating far back in comparison with the more profitable branches of agriculture (horticultural crops and livestock breeding).

Thus, the problem of the marketability of the economy during the time of Cato comes to the fore. It is no coincidence that, when considering the issue of purchasing an estate, Cato immediately gives advice to pay attention not only to the fertility of the soil, but also to the fact that “there is a significant city, sea, navigable river or good road nearby,” meaning the transportation and sale of products. “The owner should strive,” says Cato, “to sell more and buy less.”

Cato describes in his work a medium-sized estate, typical of an average one. Italy. But in the south of Italy, as well as in Sicily and Africa, huge latifundia arose, numbering hundreds and thousands of jugers. They were also based on the exploitation of slave labor on a massive scale and pursued the goal of increasing the profitability of agriculture.

The downside of the process of development of the latifundia, as already mentioned, was the dispossession and ruin of the peasantry. From the above words of Appian it is clear that small and medium-sized peasant farms perished not so much as a result of the economic competition of latifundial estates, but as a result of the seizure of land by large slave owners. The continuous wars of the 3rd-2nd centuries, waged on the territory of Italy, also had a destructive effect on peasant farms. During the war with Hannibal, according to some sources, about 50% of all peasant estates in central and southern Italy were destroyed. Long campaigns in Spain, Africa, and Asia Minor, tearing peasants away from their farms for a long time, also contributed to the decline of small and medium-sized landownership in Italy. (12;102)

Landless peasants partially turned into tenants or hired laborers, agricultural workers. But since they resorted to hiring the latter only during times of need (rest, harvest, grape harvest, etc.), the farm laborers could not count on any secure and constant income. Therefore, huge masses of peasants poured into the city. A minority of them took up productive work, that is, they turned into artisans (bakers, cloth makers, shoemakers, etc.) or construction workers, some took up petty trade.

But the overwhelming majority of these ruined people could not find permanent work. They led the lives of vagabonds and beggars, filling the forum and market squares. They did not disdain anything in search of casual income: selling votes in elections, false testimony in courts, denunciations and theft - and turned into a declassed layer of the population, into the ancient proletariat. They lived at the expense of society, lived on the pitiful handouts that they received from the Roman rich or political adventurers seeking popularity; and then through government distributions; ultimately, they lived off the barbaric exploitation of slave labor.

These are the most significant changes in the Roman economy and social life of the Roman state in the 2nd century. BC. However, the picture of these changes will be far from complete if we do not dwell on the development of trade and money-usury capital in Rome.

Development of trade and money-usury capital. The transformation of Rome into the largest Mediterranean power contributed to the widespread development of foreign trade. If the needs of the Roman population for handicraft items were mainly satisfied by local small industry, then agricultural products were imported from the western provinces, and luxury goods from Greece and the countries of the Hellenistic East. He played an outstanding role in world trade in the 3rd century. BC. Rhodes, after the fall of Corinth, Delos emerged as the largest trading center, which soon attracted not only all Corinthian, but also Rhodian trade. On Delos, where merchants from different countries met, trade and religious associations of Italian merchants, mainly Campanian Greeks, arose (they were “under the patronage” of one or another deity). (14;332)

Roman conquests ensured a continuous influx of valuables and monetary capital into Rome. After the first Punic War, the Roman treasury received 3,200 talents of indemnity (1 talent = 2,400 rubles). The indemnity imposed on the Carthaginians after the Second Punic War was equal to 10,000 talents, and on Antiochus III after the end of the Syrian War, 15,000 talents. The military spoils of the victorious Roman generals were colossal. Plutarch describes the triumphal entry into Rome of the victor at Pydna, Aemilius Paulus. The triumph lasted three days, during which captured works of art, precious weapons, and huge vessels filled with gold and silver coins were continuously carried and transported on chariots. In 189, after the Battle of Magnesia, the Romans captured as war booty 1,230 elephant tusks, 234 gold wreaths, 137,000 pounds of silver (1 Roman pound = 327 g), 224,000 Greek silver coins, 140,000 Macedonian gold coins, a large number products made of gold and silver. Up to the 2nd century. Rome experienced a certain shortage of silver coins, but after all these conquests, especially after the development of the Spanish silver mines, the Roman state was fully able to provide the silver basis for its monetary system.

All these circumstances led to the extremely widespread development of monetary and usurious capital in the Roman state. One of the organizational forms of development of this capital were companies of tax farmers, which farmed out various types of public works in Italy itself, as well as, and mainly, farmed out taxes in the Roman provinces. They were also engaged in credit and usury operations, especially widely in the provinces, where laws and customs supporting the sale into slavery for debts remained in force and where the loan interest was almost unlimited and reached 48-50%. Since representatives of the Roman equestrian class were engaged in trade, taxation and usury operations, they turn into a new layer of the Roman slave-owning nobility, into a trading and monetary aristocracy.

Such significant changes in the economy and social life of Rome confirm the idea that the Riga slave-owning society was moving to a new, higher stage of its development, which K. Marx defined as “... a slave-owning system aimed at the production of surplus value.” This definition reveals the true nature and historical significance of the phenomena discussed above: the victory of the slave-owning mode of production and the transformation of the slave into the main producer, the development of commodity production, the growth of trade and money-usurious capital, as well as the formation of new social strata of the Roman slave-owning society - the ancient lumpenproletariat, with one on the other hand, and the layer of the trading and monetary aristocracy (horsemen), on the other.

Bourgeois falsifiers of history, starting from the “patriarchs of modernization” of the ancient world, Mommsen and Ed. Meyer and up to their modern epigones, persistently talk about the development of capitalism in ancient Rome. Seizing on purely external analogies, they talk about the presence of capitalist forms of economy, about the “banking system,” about the formation of the capitalist class and the proletariat. However, all these statements, which are ultimately an apology for the capitalist system, do not stand up to serious criticism. Modernizers of ancient history ignore the question of the method of production, ignore the basic fact that in the slave-owning mode of production, in which the basis of production relations is the slave owner’s ownership of the means of production, as well as the production worker, i.e., the slave, the latter’s labor power is not sold and not bought, i.e., is not a product. Consequently, the basis of the slave-owning mode of production is a non-economic, natural method of appropriation of labor power, which distinguishes this method of production in principle and quite clearly from the capitalist mode of production. (24;98)

Marx repeatedly emphasized that “events that are strikingly similar, but occurring in different historical circumstances, lead to completely different results.” Thus, speaking about the influence of trade and merchant capital on ancient society, Marx specifically notes that due to the dominance of a certain method of production, it “... constantly results in a slave economy.” J.V. Stalin in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” wrote: “They say that commodity production, under all conditions, should and will definitely lead to capitalism. This is not true.” And further: “Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed under the slave system and served it, but did not lead to capitalism.”

This is the true essence and historical significance of the changes that occurred in the economy of Roman slave society in the 2nd century. BC.

The crisis of the political forms of the Roman Republic. The profound processes and fundamental changes that occurred in the economic basis of Roman slave society could not but influence the political relationships and forms of government of the ancient Romans. The political superstructure of Roman society no longer corresponds to its economic basis - it becomes conservative and hinders its development. This circumstance should inevitably lead to a crisis of the political superstructure, to a crisis of the old forms and institutions of the Roman slave-owning republic. Moreover, this circumstance should inevitably lead to the replacement of the old political superstructure with new political and legal institutions that correspond to the changed basis and actively contribute to its formalization and strengthening.

The political superstructure of the Roman slave society, i.e. The republican forms of the Roman state arose and took shape at a time when Rome was a typical city-state, resting entirely on a natural economic system. It met the interests and needs of a relatively small community of citizens, built on primitive foundations. Now, when Rome has become a great Mediterranean power, when profound changes have occurred in the economic basis of Roman society and, above all, the slave-owning mode of production has triumphed, the old political forms, the old republican institutions turned out to be unsuitable and no longer meeting the needs and interests of the new social classes.

The provincial system of government developed gradually and largely spontaneously. There were no general legislative provisions relating to the provinces. Each new ruler of a province, upon taking office, usually issued an edict in which he determined what principles he would be guided by in governing the province. As rulers or governors of provinces, the Romans sent first praetors, and then high magistrates, at the end of their term of office in Rome (proconsul, propraetor). The governor was appointed to govern the province, as a rule, for a year and during this period he not only personified the fullness of military, civil and judicial power in his province, but in fact did not bear any responsibility for his activities before the Roman authorities. Residents of the provinces could complain about his abuses only after he handed over his affairs to his successor, but such complaints were rarely successful. Thus, the activities of the governors in the provinces were uncontrolled; the management of the provinces was actually handed over to them “at the mercy of”.

Almost all provincial communities were subject to direct and sometimes indirect taxes (mainly customs duties). The maintenance of provincial governors, their staff, as well as Roman troops stationed in the provinces also fell on the shoulders of the local population. But the activities of Roman publicans and moneylenders were especially devastating for the provincials. Companies of publicans, who took charge of collecting taxes in the provinces, contributed predetermined amounts to the Roman treasury, and then extorted them with huge surpluses from the local population. The predatory activities of publicans and moneylenders ruined entire countries that had once flourished, and reduced the inhabitants of these countries to the status of slaves, sold into slavery for debts. (16;77)

Such was the system that led to the predatory exploitation of the conquered regions, which could no longer meet the interests of the ruling class as a whole, but which was a consequence of the complete unsuitability and obsolescence of the state apparatus of the Roman Republic. Of course, in the Roman slave-owning society, with any change in its political superstructure, the state apparatus could not be replaced by a completely perfect apparatus, i.e., in other words, it was impossible to create a strong centralized empire due to the lack of a single economic base, due to the natural at its core slave farming. As is known, the largest empires of antiquity could only rise to the level of temporary and fragile military-administrative associations. The development of the Roman state was directed toward the creation of such a unification at the time under review, but even to achieve this goal there were no real conditions as long as too large and irreconcilable a gap continued to exist between the renewed economic basis of the Roman slave society and its dilapidated, conservative political superstructure. This gap made inevitable the crisis of the old political forms, that is, the crisis of the Roman Republic.

Class struggle in Roman society in the 2nd century. BC. However, replacing the outdated government system of the Roman Republic with some new one could not happen in a painless and peaceful way. Behind the old, dilapidated political forms there were certain classes, certain social groups with their narrow class interests, but no less fiercely defended by them. The old political superstructure could not be removed easily and peacefully; on the contrary, it steadfastly and actively resisted. Therefore, the crisis of the Roman Republic was accompanied by an extreme aggravation of the class struggle in Rome for several decades.

Roman society until the 2nd century. BC. presented a motley picture of warring classes and estates. Within the free population there was an intense struggle between the class of large slave owners and the class of small producers, represented in Rome primarily by the rural plebs. It was basically a struggle for land. Within the slave-owning class itself there was a struggle between the agricultural nobility (nobility) and the new trading and monetary aristocracy (equestrianism). In this era, the horsemen were already beginning to strive for an independent political role in the state and in this struggle against the politically omnipotent nobility sometimes blocked with the rural, and then with the urban plebs. By this time, the urban plebs were turning into a political and social force that, although it had no independent significance, could, as an ally or an enemy, have a decisive influence on tilting the needle of the political scales in a certain direction. All these complex, often intertwined lines of struggle are reflected in the turbulent political events of the period of crisis and fall of the republic, from the Gracchi movement to the years of civil wars.

As a result of the intensified development and victory of the slave-owning mode of production, the main contradiction of Roman society, the contradiction between antagonistic classes: slaves and slave owners, became extremely acute. Slaves are still a politically powerless class. They are still deprived of civil rights and personal freedom. From the point of view of Roman law, they are a thing belonging to the owner, an animate instrument. But at the same time, this is the main producing and, perhaps, the most numerous class of Roman society. Therefore, slaves turn into a decisive social and political force. The aggravation of contradictions between slaves and slave owners leads to the highest form of class struggle in ancient times, to a slave uprising. At first these were separate and isolated outbreaks, such as the slave conspiracy during the second Punic War, silently mentioned by Livne, or the slave conspiracy in Latium (198), as a result of which 500 instigators were executed, or, finally, the uprising slaves in Etruria in 196, an entire legion had to be sent to suppress it. But later, these individual, scattered outbreaks flare up into a huge fire of “slave wars”; such are the grandiose Sicilian uprisings and the great “slave war” under the leadership of Spartacus, “the true representative of the ancient proletariat” (Marx). (3;27)

Hellenistic influences undoubtedly contributed to the spread of education in the upper strata of society and the growth of culture. A circle is created around one of the largest political figures of this time, Scipio Aemilianus, which includes philosophers and writers. Among them, the most prominent place belongs to the famous Greek historian Polybius, who lived for about 16 years as a hostage in Rome, and the Greek philosopher Panaetius. Both of them preached the teachings of the Stoics (the so-called middle Roman Stoa), adapting it to the needs and demands of Roman society. In Scipio's circle, not only philosophical, but also political problems were debated, ideas for reforms were hatched, which later had an undeniable influence on the agrarian legislation of the Gracchi.

The appearance of the city of Rome itself is also changing. It becomes a huge city in terms of territory and population. It is believed that in the 2nd century. BC. it already had about half a million inhabitants. The population of Italy flocked to it in droves; in addition, many foreigners settled in Rome, mainly Greeks, Syrians, and Jews. Rome becomes a major international center, the capital of a great Mediterranean power. The city is being built with magnificent buildings. The forum loses its appearance as a peasant market, surrounded by warehouses and cattle stalls, and turns into a square of a large city, decorated with temples, basilicas, porticoes, arches, and sculptural sculptures. The streets are starting to be paved and the squares are being covered with stone slabs. Along with the luxurious quarters, where public buildings and rich private houses are located, a whole series of poverty-stricken quarters arises in Rome, in which the urban plebs live and where miserable shacks alternate with multi-story tenement buildings of cheap apartments, which were built by enterprising businessmen. The very structure of life and way of life of the Roman wealthy classes changed. Every rich family developed the custom of keeping a huge number of slaves as domestic servants. The furnishings of the rooms and table settings become luxurious and pretentious. From the beginning of the 2nd century. Women's outfits made of expensive fabrics, fans made of peacock feathers, and fantastic ladies' hairstyles appear. The life of rich people includes luxurious feasts with invited guests, dancers, singers and harpists. At these feasts, expensive wines and foods were served, all kinds of foreign and exotic dishes; Entire fortunes were spent on organizing such feasts. It is not without reason that all Roman writers who describe this era mourn the loss of ancient Roman virtues, the oblivion of the customs of their ancestors, the hopeless corruption of morals and the decay of Roman society. One of the representatives of the Roman Stoa, Posidonius, even developed a whole theory of the decline of morals as the main reason for the future inevitable death of the Roman state. (13:49)

These were the most significant changes that occurred in the ideology of Roman society, as well as in the everyday life and private life of the Romans in the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC.