Some salient legal dimensions within the Roman 'slave mode of production'

In the English speaking world Marxist analysis of Roman law has long been scarce. This is even so in relation to subjects which have been of historical interest to both traditions. In 1988 Zvi Yavetz aptly summed up this analytical reality in relation to the subject of slavery, writing that: ‘For years the judicial aspects of slavery which were the focus of much work done in the West were scorned by Marxist scholars who asserted that the legal status of slaves was in any case not more than a superstructure and its importance should therefore not be exaggerated.’ Whilst the Marxist tradition was correct in some ways to warn against the over exaggeration of the legal dimensions within the vast topic of Roman slavery, it was wrong to take an opposing approach and virtually neglect them altogether. In doing so, a nuanced understanding of the ‘workings’ of the Roman ‘slave mode of production’ became strained and almost impossible. Although this has been partly rectified, this thesis has attempted to go analytically further, by demonstrating, with the aid of Roman historical and legal sources, how the law played a greater and more varied role than the Marxist tradition has hitherto conceded in relation to the ‘slave mode of production’. Particular analysis is afforded to the salient legal institutions of peculium (Chapters Two and Three) and manumission (Chapters Four and Five)