Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 6

Romans outlawing technology

From How to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot Apocalypse (Ep. 461)

If you are the kind of person who hears this and shudders at the thought that technology is destroying our way of life -- well, there is a long history of such thought. Aristotle had the same concern, and in ancient Rome, some technologies were outlawed [Link to worldlibrary.net] because of the expected job loss.

The link is to the whole The Twelve Caesars. Instead of reading it all, could you tell me what technologies were those and where Suetonius dealt with them? --Error (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Technological_unemployment, we've got In one instance, the introduction of a labor-saving invention was blocked, when Emperor Vespasian refused to allow a new method of low-cost transportation of heavy goods, saying "You must allow my poor hauliers to earn their bread." with the citation to book eight, chapt XVIII of the Twelve Caesars. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Error (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some historians have claimed that the important tendency was that Romans were not motivated to invent or put into use labor-saving devices because of the widespread use of slaves... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see in the Latin text (plebiculam pascere) how "hauliers" come into play. I think that plebicula is a variant spelling of plebecula, meaning "the plebs". Vespasian seems to say, rather dismissively, "No, thanks, let me feed the plebs", as if that is a more important business of his to attend to – and perhaps it was. Surely, the hauliers of the columns would have been slaves (who were not plebeians), not salaried workmen, so the notion of their being deprived of "earning their bread", an interpretation not supported by the text, does not make much sense, IMO. --Lambiam 08:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The translation in the wiki article appears to be same as (blacklisted site to link to: uploads.worldlibrary.net/ uploads/pdf/ 20121106193837suetoniuspdf_pdf.pdf), which doesn’t say who the translator is. So far the other translation I can find is this one from Tufts University, which appears the same as this older book on Gutenberg. “Some one offering to convey some immense columns into the Capitol at a small expense by a mechanical contrivance, he rewarded him very handsomely for his invention, but would not accept his service, saying, "Suffer me to find maintenance for the poor people."” To me the original interpretation of keeping work for people to do still makes sense. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page 2 of the PDF says:

--Error (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, I can think of no particular reason to assume that the hauliers involved in this task would necessarily have been slaves, but I'm far from being an expert on Ancient Rome. Care to explain your reasoning? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Imperial Rome, unskilled work was done mostly by slaves; see e.g. Maxey, Mima (1938). Occupations of the Lower Classes in Roman Society. University of Chicago Press. There were entrepreneurs who ran a rent-a-slave business; for a reasonable amount (there was considerable competition on this market) one could rent a substantial work force. While not discussed in sources I am aware of, the use of slaves must have been even more pronounced for dirty or backbreaking work; slaves could not refuse to do unpleasant work because it did not pay enough. The plebeian class (Roman citizens) and the slave class (non-citizens) were disjoint; one could not make a citizen a slave. The noun plēbēcula is a diminutive of plēbs with a denigrating connotation. It is not used in an endearing sense; it implies a patrician (the ruling noble class) looking down on the uncouth commoners. The verb pāscō is mainly used for feeding animals, as in letting them graze (whence pastor and pasture), although there is a figurative sense of "feasting" (whence repast). For providing sustenance to humans, the verb alō was more appropriate (whence alimentation and Alma Mater – the "Nourishing Mother"). Assuming that Vespesian had meant to say that he did not wish to deprive the column hauliers of their livelihood, the words used are an unlikely choice. Generous grain distributions as a form of public munificence were a daily business. In comparison, the effect of a labour-saving device for hauling some columns would have been negligible. One may seek other interpretations in the Emperor saying "Allow me to feed the lower class", but translators should not twist the words to give them meanings that are absent in the original text. --Lambiam 10:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]