IV. Thought of Slave Liberation — Two ways for liberating slaves —

By the last chapter, it has been cleared that neither of those three opinions is admissible. If we cannot find the cause of discord and disunity in those three, then, where shall we look for it? Or, should we take it as there was no discord, disunity nor disruption existed in Spartacus' Army, as Pareti claims? Pareti's opinion is surely a very interesting one, (see ch.1) and according to Appianus, the separation units were merely "the Spartacans, who were encamped somewhere in a detached position ⁽¹⁾ ", and no incident of discord or disunity is reported. But, by Pareti's opinion, we cannot explain effectively the factual existence of contradiction, discord and disunity in Spartacus' Army, described in Sallustius, Plutarch and others. This is the definite week point in Pareti's opinion. If the discord and disunity really existed, the cause for them must have existed, too. In this case, we have to take note that these three opinions can not help but be conscious of the said two contradicting courses of Spartacus' schemes. One of them is to leave from Italia and try to liberate slaves in their home lands, and the other is to stay in Italia and keep on plundering, revenging, and marching toward Roma. To these opinions Motus and Ratner presented another opinion. By Motus, there couldn't be an escape from Italia without destroying Roma, so the two courses should not be taken as a contradiction. With this idea in mind, he attributes the problem of contradiction to the problem of strategies and tactics at each occasion ⁽²⁾. Of course, under actual situation of each case, some contradictions might have occurred, caused by such problems as strategies and tactics. But, the source of this actual contradiction still remains unsolved. Yet, the above indication by Motus is objectively very accurate, because, even if Spartacus' Army could have crossed over the Alps, they should have been destroyed by Roman forces by the time they reached their home lands. In this sense, without destroying slavery state of Roma neither escape from Italia nor liberation of slaves was possible. However, it is a completely different matter whether it should objectively be so, or actual historical facts of the matter was really so. For us who live in the present time, it is rather easy to point out as the above, but for the slave mass and for Spartacus, it is very doubtful if they could grasp and realize the general situation at the time. As the historical materials such as Sallustius and Plutarch describe, and also as the said three opin­ions admit frankly, they must have been two completely different schemes and courses of that time.

Therefore, even with the objection by Motus and others, further study on what caused their plan to become two different ones is necessary. As it has been cleared in the 3rd Chapter, they were neither the conflicts of plans between slave leaders and the slave mass, nor between races and tribes, nor between slaves and peasants. In order to study what caused their plan to be devided, firstly we have to know the precise substance of these two courses.

One of them is a slave liberating course by leaving from Italia; "since he could not expect to overcome the Roman power, began to lead his army toward the Alps, thinking it necessary for them to cross the mountains and go to their respective homes, some to Thracia, and some to Gallia⁽³⁾". It has been approved by the most scholars that most of those slaves, represented by Spartacus, with to prefer this course ⁽⁴⁾ . The substance in Plutarch's description seems to include the whole hard experiences of these slaves. Even though these were written not by the slaves themselves but by a member of ruling class, Plutarch, these expressions themselves had been derived from the factual situations of the slaves in Spartacus' Uprising. Since most of them had been captured into slaves, defeated and conquered by Roman Army, they must have encountered many a such occasion in which they had to experience the strength of Roman Army. This must have led them to recognize the difficulty of defeating Roman Army — Roman 'Empire' — completely ⁽⁵⁾ . Moreover, in their slave life in Roma, with hard labour under cruel masters, longing for the freedom, they rebelled and planned escapes, sometimes individually, and sometimes by groups. But all of which resulted in vain efforts. Under such situation, when Spartacus started uprising, slaves thought "Spartacus als ein unverhofft erschienener Erloser ⁽⁶⁾ " and joined his army one after another. Most of them were captives ⁽⁷⁾ who had known their home lands, and "dabei grossenteils selbst ehemalige Freie oder Sohne Freigelassener. Unter ihnen musste also noch am meisten lebendiger, wenn auch nach aussen ohnmachtiger Hass gegen ihre Lebenslage vorhanden sein ⁽⁸⁾ ". Therefore, it is understandable that they dreamed of free life in their home lands after the liberation ⁽⁹⁾. This restoration of free life in their home lands was undoubtedly the original, heart-felt wish of theirs who had been bought to alien countries ^(9a) . This wish of theirs had been kept incessantly in their heart under the life of such exploitation and oppression. But, the important matter here is the fact that their first step of actualizing their dream was taken in the form of getting-out-of-Italia. The way to their home lands would have been open only after "cross(ing) the Alps". This idea could have only been thought up by Germans of Cimbri and Teutoni who had come to invade Italia crossing over the Alps, or Celts (Gauls) who had been brought there as captives, crossing over the Alps; and could not be the idea of Spartacus who had come from Thracia. As for the way to get out of Italia, they must have had lots of discussions. Each slave must have joined in them with his own experience and knowledge ⁽¹⁰⁾ . And they had came to decide their way. It is the fact that Plutarch has described in his book of "Crassus". The course of liberation was a concentration of slaves' whole experience, endeavoring to overcome all these experiences which were an accumulation of all the hardships and failure of their past. And Spartacus was the one who endeavored to actualize all these wish of slave mass. But, while this slave liberation course was a concentrated accumulation of slaves' past experience, it was thoroughly a new, unknown course for them ⁽¹¹⁾ , too.

The other course was the one to stay in Italia, to march toward Roma, plundering and revenging. As for the actual significance of the course, this was one of the ways to liberate the slaves. But, though it let slaves relieves themselves of the state of slaves, still it could neither destruct the old productive relations based on slavery, nor construct a new productive relations. This course was only aiming at the reverse situation - slaves turn to be a ruling class, and rule over other classes. In this sense, marching toward Roma meant nothing but to build a slave monarchy in which slaves would take place of ruling class, after destructing the slavery state of Roma. And this course had already been tried in the First and the Second Sicilian Slave Uprisings. At the First Sicilian Slave Uprising, such kind of slave monarchy was founded by a slave, Eunus. This monarchy was another slavery state with "slaves" who were once slave owners. In this monarchy, former slave was a king at the summit, and council members of once revolted slaves were supporting him with people's conference as a ruling organization. By this organization, he ruled over cities, peasants who were the primary productive power, and those new "slaves" at the bottom ⁽¹²⁾. In the Second Sicilian Slave Uprising, as for the ruling organization, it was almost similar to that of the First Uprising, but it was a monarchy in which they didn't occupy cities, but instead, slave mass administered the land of former slave owners, cooperatively, and ruled over peasants ⁽¹³⁾. This state was founded by means of revenge against former slave owners, plunder out of them and confiscated their lands. It doesn't matter much here if these slaves who joined Spartacus' Army were conscious of this Sicilian slave monarchy or not. In the slavery society of those days we have to notice that even if they would have succeeded in re­venge and plunder in Italia, their course had to be inevitably directed toward slave monarchy, another slavery state in which liberated slaves would be the new ruling class and rule over the old ruling class ⁽¹⁴⁾. And for these uprisen slaves, revenge and plunder were very natural and definite demand which had been grown spontaneously among them. By taking this course, their uprising would have been turned into such direction, with their liberty guaranteed, and their actual demands secured by a kind of organized warranty.

We have found out that there were two different courses of slave liberation at the depth of these two schemes. One of them was to leave from Italia and liberate themselves on the way to their home lands; and the other was to build a slave monarchy for their liberation. The difference between these two courses of liberation conceived the fatal problem in Spartacus' Army. Although these two courses brought the discord and disunity to his army, they couldn't be conscious as two differ­ent opinions by the slave mass, but as different judgements and atti­tudes towards their situations. In this sense, the process of Spartacus' Uprising could be defined as a struggling process of the two courses.

The separation of Crixos ⁽¹⁵⁾ happened right at the process of settling a new course for the slave liberation, and of marching toward North to actualize their plan of getting out of Italia. Even then, the slave mass couldn't have kept the definite opinion constantly. They must have been agitated between these two courses, and shifted their attitude with the change of circumstances. Wage labourers, small lessees and proletarii who participated in the uprising must have played some roles in this agitation of the slaves. For, even though they couldn't help but be conscious of land confiscation, they must have preferred the second course, also. In this way, even though their numbers had been very little, their participation in the Army must have spurred some agitation among slaves at the struggling process of the two courses, and brought in decadant atmosphere to the camps. Agitations among, slaves could restrict even Spartacus. The fact that he had to retrace the way down to South, leaving the Alps just in front of him ⁽¹⁶⁾, indicates that he had to give up the first course for a time being ⁽¹⁷⁾ . 'After retracing the way down South, he determined to seize Sicilia and thought to kindle anew third slave uprising ⁽¹⁸⁾ . This plan of Spartacus was a kind of progressed  idea of the first course. Because, actual plan of the first course had been; after "crossing the Alps", liberate slaves to their respective home lands. But at this process, they gave up the idea of "crossing the Alps" and tried to look for more practical way to get out of Italia. Yet, on the other hand, if they could have succeeded in crossing over to Sicilia, they might have joined their forces together with Sicilian slaves, and taken the course of turning themselves into a slave monarchy. After an unsuccessful try of crossing over to Sicilia, Spartacus broke the siege at Bruttium by Crassus, and tried to leave from Italia through Brundisium in order to liberate slaves on the way ⁽¹⁹⁾ . But, at that process, Castus and Cannicus separated from his army, and people who supported the second course compelled him to keep fighting with Roman Army. However, Spartacus and his supporters still wanted to liberate themselves on the way out of Italia, marched toward Brundisium and fought heroically till the end against the siege and attack of the enormous Roman Army ⁽²⁰⁾ .

Consequently, I'd just like to point out that; firstly, the cause of discord and disunity in Spartacus' Army was based on the conflict of these two slave liberation courses, and secondly, the process of Spartacus' Uprising was equal to that of the two struggling courses when we study the cause internally and subjectively.

In fact, through these two violent struggling courses in Spartacus' Army, and on the other hand, through fighting with Roman Army, the course of  'liberation by leaving from Italia' came to be grasped more firmly, developed into a more practical plan, and recognized more clearly by the slaves. After experiencing much agitations and shiftings, slave mass began to turn to the first course as the desire of a whole mass, and started to look for the way to actualize it earnestly ⁽²¹⁾ . In their process of searching more practical way to go back home, this course began to have potentiality of a ideology, idealized and refined all along the way. That is: after the plan of 'going back home, crossing over the Alps', came to be baffled, the plan of 'crossing to Sicilia' was proposed; and then, after this new attempt also ended in frustration, the plan of 'leaving from Italia by way of Brundisium' came to be thought out. In this way, in spite of several frustrations, their first course came to be formed into a more practical plan through all these processes and, along the way, it came to be developed and refined as a ideology.

One of the significances of Spartacus' Uprising in the history of social thought is this proposition of a completely new course — to go back home to liberate slaves — which was an accumulation of slaves' whole experiences under the historical condition of that time. The other is, this new course won a victory over the old in the struggle between the old and new during the process of the uprising. Of course, this victory of the new course is essentially a different matter from the actual defeat of Spartacus' Uprising. In this process Spartacus fought with slave mass to bring in victory to the new course and it is the reason that the glorious name of Spartacus is remembered even today among us.

As this course of slave liberation was a thoroughly new trial, many objections and oppositions must have been raised among them, but in any way, the proposition itself of new course had a big significance in this uprising. Besides the novelty of this course, it is presumable that they began to be conscious of the solidarity of their uprising with others, and this fact seems to add another significance to this uprising. To prove this presumption, there is an evidence that Spartacus planned to cross to Sicilia to break out the third slave uprising there. Having experienced the first and the second slave uprisings, there was still very unrestful among slaves in Sicilia ⁽²²⁾. The following description seems to indicate that Spartacus had known the situation in Sicilia, and planned to cross over to the island. "At the Straits, he chanced upon some Cilician pirate craft, and determined to seize Sicilia. By throwing two thousand men into the island, he thought to kindle anew the servile war there" ⁽²³⁾ .Until Spartacus' Uprising, there was no precedent of this kind that uprisen slaves deliberately tried to raise another uprising in other places; not even at the time when the first and the second slave uprisings suppressed all over Sicilia, and founded a slave monarchy. This was a newly presented point in Spartacus' Uprising in the process of the slave liberating movements. But then, the reason of their such a wide view should be studied. The key to solve the question must be in the pirate.

It is a well known fact that at that time there were many pirates running about free in the Mediterranean Sea ⁽²⁴⁾ . These pirates were mainly formed of Cilicians and declined natives of Italia, Hispania and Asia; and natives from Asia Minor who had lost their property after the war of Mithridates, and slaves who had been liberated by Mithridates had also joined them ⁽²⁵⁾ . The fact that many people were reduced join the pirates by the contradiction of Roman society gave the anti-Roman character to the piracy ⁽²⁶⁾ . Yet on the other hand, these pirates had a close connection with Roman slave owners by the slave trade, providing the slave, the basic labour power of Roman society ⁽²⁷⁾. As the pirates had a double-character of this kind, they didn't choose ways for gaining their profits. They were cosmopolitan merchants in this sense. They had been taking contacts with Mithridates of Pontus, and at the same time with Sertorius of Espania, working as a medium in making an alliance with each other ⁽²⁸⁾ . So, naturally they wouldn't refuse to trade with Spartacus' Army which had started fighting against Roma. In order to reinforce their armaments, Spartacus must have purchased iron and copper from these piratic merchants ⁽²⁹⁾ . Those gold and silver which had been prohibited to be owned privately, and been pooled as their common property, must have been used for purchasing these metals. By taking contacts with these pirates, they must have been given various informations about anti-Roman struggles of Pontus, Espania and Thracia, or the situations of Sicilia. As Mithridates knew the participation of Italians to Spartacus' Army ⁽³⁰⁾ , so must have Spartacus known about the anti-Roman movements in those Roman provinces through the information from these pirates. As the result, Mithridates could imagine such a big scheme of "going to Gallia through Germania, and with the help of Gauls, invade into Italia, when being attacked in Asia Minor by Roman Army ⁽³¹⁾ "; and Spartacus could offer a new course of slave liberation by getting out of Italia. As they had such a international view, in spite that they were slaves, the oppressed people, they tried to cross towards Sicilia, and soon after their failure, changed the plan to leave from Italia through marching towards Brundisium. On the way to Brundisium, when Spartacus learned that Lucullus had just landed there from Thracia, he gave up all of his scheme, and brought his forces to close quarters with Crassus ⁽³²⁾ . It is important that the success of Lucullus in Thracia gave the fatal damage to Spartacus' scheme leaving from Italia to go back to Thracia, their home land.

In the last chapter, I pointed out the structure of Spartacus' Army as that of primitive community. But as their view was such an international one, it backed up the structure, and intensified the energy from within the structure itself. In this sense, this international view must have helped a great deal in the development of this slave liberation course. By the medium of the structure of primitive community, based on the spontaneous activities of the slave themselves and their old life as free men, the slaves must have been concentrated and accumulated their experiences which become a source of the energy of their activities. With such international view at hand, they must have been able to reflect, even if not sufficiently, experiences of the past uprisings and present anti-Roman movements upon Spartacus' Army. In this sense, Spartacus' Uprising could be defined as 'a settlement of over-all account' of slave uprisings and peoples' movements from second century B.C. to first century B.C.

As we already studied, this slave liberation course was presented by the combination of energy and most international view of theirs, even with such historical limitations. When the slaves desired their freedom, naturally their basic demand was to restore their former conditions — before the time they were forced into slavery. The slaves from battle fields must have wished to go back home, but even then, according to their classes and by their social conditions at home lands, their hopes must have been varied among them. Some of them must have hoped to be back to the life style of primitive community, and some must have wanted to become free peasants, and still some must have wished to be slave owners. And those who had been turned into slaves for losing their lands, surely dreamed of recovering their lands ⁽³³⁾ . In this general situation, as Spartacus' Army was formed mostly of those people who had been living in primitive community of Gallia, Germania, and Thracia, so when they wanted to return to their home lands, they undoubtedly wanted to reconstruct a social order prior to that of slavery society — return to the life style of primitive community ⁽³⁴⁾ . But is it proper to decide them as anachronistic, passive, or reactionary ⁽³⁵⁾ ? It must be indeed an easy thing to comment that when wishing their freedom and liberation, the only thing they could think up was to return to 'good-old-days' — the life style of primitive community and this came from their lack of class consciousness and awareness ⁽³⁶⁾ . And it must be also very easy to point out that these slaves didn't have any purposeful program with which they would abolish slavery system or establish a new society ⁽³⁷⁾ . However, when we consider the maturity of slavery society at that time... that is, slavery system was on its way of progress, while a new structure to take its place was not yet mature enough... it is only natural that slaves could only think up their liberation within this limitation. There are only a few documents to verify the thinking way of slaves at those times ⁽³⁸⁾ . Moreover, in the slavery society, "die Klasse, welche die herrschende materielle Macht der Gesellschaft ist, ist zugleich ihre herrschende geistige Macht. Die Klasse, die die Mittel zur materiellen Produktion zu ihrer Verfiigung hat, disponiert damit zugleich iiber die Mittel zur geistigen Produktion, so dass ihr damit zugleich im Durchschnitt die Gedanken derer denen die Mittel zur geistigen Produktion abgehen, unterworfen sind ⁽³⁹⁾ ". General situation in slavery society was as such. Yet, in the Later Roman Republic, most of the slaves had been once free, or decendants of free men, so there must have remained some of the ideology among them which had been formed in their former lives. So, their religious ideology had to be along the line of religious heritage in which they had once lived ⁽⁴⁰⁾ , and if they were suffereing such horrible exploitation, and "Humana ante oculos foede cum vita/in terris oppressa gravi sub religione/quae caput a caeli regionibus ostendebat/horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans ⁽⁴¹⁾ ", the ideology of their past life must have been kept in their heart even if subconsciously. As they kept having the wishes for freedom under such conditions, even a slave owner had to admit that "Amid, et servi homines sunt et aeque unum lactem biberunt, etiam si illos  malus  fatus  oppressit.   Tamen   me  salvo  cito aquam  liberam gustabunt ⁽⁴²⁾ ."

When the slaves thought of freedom and liberation, they naturally connected the idea with the lives of their past community. Therefore, it is not proper to interprete them as reactional or passive, even if they had dreamed of restoring the lives of the past primitive community.

Among religious ideologies which had been kept by slaves, most notable one was the religion of Orpheus. It is a well-known fact that this religion had been believed around many places in Thracia ⁽⁴³⁾ , and a woman from the same tribe as Spartacus' had some connection with this mystic religion of Orpheus ⁽⁴⁴⁾ . If so, it is presumable that Spartacus had been influenced by Orphism, or at least, by Orphic way of thinking. He might have known the religious chant of Orphism that says, "I have flown off the wheel of misery/ And with swift feet attained the longed-for crown ⁽⁴⁵⁾ ". In the harsh life of a gladiator, he might have thought of the following sentenses; trying to get rid of the chain — "the wheel" — which fastened slaves by hands and feet, "They could not rest content with what they had, because they had nothing, and their hopes were as infinite as their desires. All life was strife and struggle, and if only man would run the race with courage, there was non so humble and debased but, he might win the prize of glory and become a god ⁽⁴⁶⁾ ". This kind of thinking must have been connected with their desire for regaining freedom, and it led Spartacus to prepare for organizing the uprising.

With uprisings by such masses of slaves could they break Roman Army, and were able to organize such slave army as comparable to that of Roman's; backed-up by these facts, they could present such a course as going back home by leaving from Italia. Until that time, under harsh exploitation of slavery system, they had been only dreaming of returning to their primitive community life. This private wish of theirs grew to be more practical, and more actual way of liberation through the discussions among the uprisen masses. What uplifted their private wish of once a more dream to the height of slave liberation course of returning home, was the power of slave uprising in such great numbers, by which their wish was secured and was able to defeat Roman Army again and again. If slaves of only a small number might have uprisen, they could never have presented such a course of liberation. That is why even when they were troubled with many agitations, or objections and oppositions, slave mass clung to this course and made them fight consistently with Romans to fulfill their wishes. That was why the Great Roma had to try suppressing the uprising with all its forces and might ⁽⁴⁷⁾ . Yet, even with the concentration of their whole power, the resistance of slave classes was still a very feeble and powerless one, compared  with  the mighty state power of Roma which had been growing into a World Empire.

Under such situations, the thought of slave liberation — leave from Italia to go back to home lands — had but to be turned into imaginary in actuality. In other words, under such political, social and economical conditions in the Later Roman Republic, even this newly presented course, too, couldn't help but be turned into another improbable one. We have been talking about "the two courses of slave liberation", but under those conditions neither of them could bring liberation for slaves objectively. Both of these two courses were significant in the sense that slaves tried to liberate for themselves by their own movements and uprisings. One of the two courses — as for the way to a slave monarchy — it could build an organization which guaranteed their freedom permanently by taking the regional power from slave owners. In spite of the above fact, this course only led them to a contradiction that they would make themselves a new ruling class in which they would objectively exploit other classes. The other course — to go home to liberate themselves — was presented with the recognition of Roman strength. But, Roman state power was even greater than they could ever have realized. Moreover, the conflicts and disagreements in slave army had come to lead the course to an improbable imagination. But, the course to a slave monarchy had a rather important meaning too; because, until that time, the form of slave resistance against slave owners had been only by disobediences or escapes by individuals or by small groups at most, but, in this occation, for the first time, it had grown at a leap to be a great mass uprising of such large scale, with the hopes of overthrowing slave owners. (The development of latifundium, in which masses of slaves lived together, was indispensable to this event.) Although this course had brought such a leaping experience for slave liberating movements, it also had a contradiction and weak point that it would result in turning themselves into a ruling class. Meanwhile, the thought of slave liberation to go back home was a leap beyond the other one, for in this course, they refused to make themselves a ruling class and wished their freedom for themselves in their home lands, and with such thought, they tried to overcome the course to a slave monarchy. This course must have been an utmost goal of slave liberation which could be thought up by slaves themselves under such historical conditions ⁽⁴⁸⁾ . And, if this utmost goal had but to be turned into imaginary again, the liberation of slaves for themselves at that process must have been still a dream that couldn't be fulfilled then. Even though it ended in a dream, this movement of liberation had a positive significance in the stream of macro-history, if we look at it objectively. Slaves had been deprived of "primitive, abiogenetic democracy" by Roman power... the life they had once been enjoying in primitive community. In their wishes of going back home, their demands for restoring the "primitive, abiogenetic democracy" was also included, even if not consciously. In other words, by Spartacus' Uprising slaves tried to regain their "primitive, abiogenetic democracy" which had been robbed from them by their oppressors when the class society had been built up. And this uprising became one of the most important starting points in the later movements to seek freedom, equality and democracy by oppressed people^(48a) . Of course, this movements must have to be continued until the real classless society would be accomplished.

In this chapter, I pointed out that basic cause of discord and disunity in Spartacus' Army came from the conflict of those two courses for slave liberation, and also, between those two, the course of going back home to liberate slaves by leaving from Italia was a thoroughly new, utmost way for them with such historical conditions of the time. At the time of the first and the second Sicilian Slave Uprisings, they could only present a course of liberation to be a slave monarchy. This leads to a question of why at the time of Spartacus' Uprising, could they think up such a new idea, and where were the objective conditions for its representation. It should be noted that the surrounding international situations of anti-Roman struggles were definitely different from Sicilian Uprisings to Spartacus'. These objective conditions, along with the masses of slaves gathering up under him, let Spartacus have the idea that he might be able to leave from Italia and go home where Roman domination was not so strong yet, even if not possible to destroy the whole domination of Roman ruling system.

As for the reason why Spartacus didn't take the course to a slave monarchy, Kovalev interpreted it as follows; Firstly, "in actuality, there wasn't any restful or peaceful moment in the process of their uprising. There wasn't any moment of "pause" for them to prepare for more solid organization. "The stage of their uprising" was right in the center of their enemy — so close to Roma from where all fresh troops were sent out in succession. Spartacus had to fight in field with the condition of moving battles". And secondly, "racial construction of slaves under Spartacus' leadership was too various for forming any controling system which would satisfy each one equally ⁽⁴⁹⁾ ". This interpretation of Kovalev surely is attacking one side of the situation sharply which must have played the important role in deciding the course of going back home. Yet, we cannot estimate this course of going back home only so passively as Kovalev did. We had better look for the definite dividing point of these two courses, in the difference of social structure from where slaves came over. That means, as I already made analyses, in Spartacus' Uprising, its main force was of Celts (Gauls), Germans and Thracians who had the lives of primitive community, and not yet experienced the class society. Meanwhile, in the first and the second Sicilian Slave Uprisings, their main force was of Sicilian natives who had been turned into slaves, and Syrians-Cilicians who had came from Hellenistic society, and they had already been suffering hardships under Roman domination or under eastern despotic government ^(49a) . Therefore, Sicilian slaves had been living in the slavery society before they were ever turned into slaves, and their lives had been very close to those of slaves even when free. So, it was rather natural of them that they didn't have any strong desire for returning home ⁽⁵⁰⁾ , even if the uprisings were broken out in a closed situation as an island of Sicilia without international informations. On the other hand, as for Spartacus' Uprising, the factors of primitive community were still remained active among them, and those made the slaves keenly aware of "freedom" and made them think up such a course as going back home. This outwardly "retrospective" and "reactional" wish of theirs was, because of its earnest demand of "freedom" and its refusal to make themselves new rulers, able to become a powerful antithesis against the dominative ideology of slavery system, and also was able to direct slaves toward a new course of liberation. But, with such condition as slaves from other countries or poor peasants and proletarii who had experienced class society before, also joined this uprising, and by the agitations among these slave masses who had been away too long from home lands, this course had to be fought in the army desperately with the other course of slave monarchy and they couldn't help but build up a basic cause for discord and disunity in Spartacus' Army.

(1)    Appianus, B. C. I, 118

(2)    Motus, Izistoriipp.68   70

(3)    Plutarch, Crassus 9

(4)    Mommsen  III  S.84; Mahaffy p.177; Ward p. 257, p.266; Rostovtzeff, Geschichte der Alien Welt II. Bremen S.181; Vogt S.38; Coccanarip.242; Oliva, Sklavenaufstande  S.82; Oliva-Olivova  SS.80-90;  Olivier p.101; Kovalev,   Veli.   vosst.   p. 166; Kagarov,  p.19;  Ratner  p.56;  Mischulin, Spartacus, SS.68-74; Baldwin p.291; Tamaki p.79. Of course there are objections to this opinion. According to Bonghi p.17, slaves didn't have any intentions of going back home. They walked around Italia, called for the slaves to rise up, kept on plundering, in order to let Roma sign an agreement with them. Brisson pp.212-213 says, these were all fabrications by Roman ruling class.

(5)    Oliva-Olivova   SS.80  90;   Oliva,   Sklavenaufstand,   S.82;  Tamaki  p.79; Coccanari p.242. says "even though 75,000 slaves were concentrated under Spartacus, they were still too little in number compared with one million slaves of Italia."

(6)    Most S.92

(7)    At that time, most of the slaves were captives by conquered or plundered, and they knew their home lands. Those who had been born slaves were
very few. After Spartacus' Uprising, it was proved to be very dangerous to have too many captives, so after that, numbers of vernae who born at home increased, and this brought the custom of marriages for slaves. Varro II, I, 26: II, X 6; Frank, Survey p.383; Vogt S.38.

(8)    F. Engels, Bruno Bauer und das Urchristentum, Marx-Engels Werke 19, S. 302

(9)    Vogt S.38

(9a)    J. Lester, To be a Slave, New York 1968 (Japanese Translation, p. 102); This is a description by Ball, a negro slave who was brought from Africa and were compelled to work in a large slavery plantation in the south of U.S.A. in 19th century. According to him, these negro slaves were, without exception, dreaming of going back to their home lands after their deaths, to have happy lives. See M. Doi, Spartacus' Uprising, Tokyo, 1973, pp. 104-105, also.

(10)    Sallustius III, 96, 98. By his opinion, they had intended to go back home by getting out of Italia, just after the uprising started... at the time of
suppressing Campania (before advancing to Lucania). But this plan didn't get many supports. (Miinzer, R. E. S. 1531) The way to get out of Italia must have been discussed during the winter encampment of Thurii, in 73 B.C. During this encampment, practical way to get out of Italia such as described in Plutarch must have been decided: To a proposition of the course by Spartacus, Germans and Gauls added their opinions, and further slaves must have lots of discussions based on such informations, which had been brought by pirates, as intensification of anti-Roman struggles by Sertorius,  Mithridates and Thracians. (Doi,   Recontructing Spartacus Servile War, pp. 64-65)

Miinzer, R. E. S. 1532 says; after the separated units of Crixos were destroyed by Roman Army, Spartacus realized that it was impossible to defeat Roma, and planned to leave from Italia. Yet, I don't agree with this opinion. Oliva presents a new opinion: With the consideration of anti-Roman struggles in remote regions, Spartacus not only kept hopes to have free life in the home land, but also had the idea that the escape to the district of not yet under the control of Roman "Empire" was the only way to a slave liberation. And so, he tried to attack Roman Army with the supports of those tribes in remote regions, as Gallia, Thracia, Germania and Iberia. (Oliva-Olivova SS.88-90; Oliva, Sklavenaufstande S.82 S.86

(11)    Vogt S.38 appraises this course as a very valuable and important one. Oliva, Sklavenaufstande S.82 esteems this program as very great.

(12)    Doi, Problems on the First Sicilian Slave Revolt, pp.56-60; Reconstructing the First Sicilian Slave Uprising I, Senshu Shigaku, no.4, 1972, p.35, pp. 43-50

(13)    Doi,  A Note on the Second Sicilian Slave Revolt, pp.162-169; Basic Characters of the Second Sicilian Slave Uprising, Senshu Shigaku, no.6,
1974, pp.23-30

(14)     There are many opinions if uprisings of oppressed class in ancient slavery society could have built a new society or not... but negative opinions are
predominant. Yet, even in those opinions, there are many differences in their nuances.

S. Ishimoda discusses this in "An Introduction to the Political History of Later Ancient Japan" I, Tokyo, 1956, p.52, "When Sicilian Slave Revolt achieved the victory for a short period, their leader, Eunus made himself an absolute monarch of the East... In the last stage of the ancient society, they had incomprehensible characters on which complicated social structure of the time were reflected." He compares this uprising with the Revolt of Masakado Taira of Japan and the Revolt of Huang Chao of China. In the Revolt of Masakado, its characteristics were "firstly, he tried to build an independent small state and secondly the state he built was an imitation of the Ancient Emperor State of Kyoto." (p.45.) And in the Revolt of Huang Chao, "although he tried to resist against ancient state, when he gained the authority, only structure he could build was tragically another state exactly similar to the former structure." (p.52.) So, when we generalize the revolts in later ancient society, they were commonly and consistently "in the tendency of building independent local monarchies, opposing the state of concentrative authority." (p.46) It is clearly a factual error of Ishimoda's that he takes Sicilian Slave Revolts as the revolts in later ancient society. But, in this case, let us only note his theoretical indication that revolts in ancient slavery societies were to be restricted by the social structure, and they could build nothing but imitations of the ancient state. Ishimoda tries to take this problem of Japanese ancient history as common to that of Eastern and European ancient histories. But, there are many arguments even for the Roman Slave Uprisings.

K. J. Kautsky says, regarding the slave uprisings, "As they were mostly formed of barbarous, ignorant people, they did not have enough ability to destroy the mighty state system and build a new state system. (Japanese Translation, p.86)

H. Tamaki says, "Even if slaves would have achieved victory, slavery system had been rooted deep down in all along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea at that time, so it is unthinkable that they could build a new society on the foundation of free labour for themselves." (p.80.) Thus, he points out the impossibility of slaves to build a new society. If we proceed our arguments still more, in the end, it will come to an opinion that slaves had to be turned into slave owners. For instance, H. Ohta says, "When revolted slaves tried to build an everlasting society, they also had to be slave owners. Here is the limitation of the progress of ancient society, in itself."

Regarding the speech at the Meeting of 'The Textbook of Political Economy of U.S.S.R.' Rekishigaku Kenkyu, no.189, p.41. E. Ciccotti, Il tramonto della schiavitii, Udine, 1940, p.34 also says, "Se Euno e Spartaco fossero riusciti, temporaneamente e localmente, vincitori, sarebbe stato da aspetarsi... un capovolgimento pituttosto che un muta-mento intrinseco della situazione. Gli antichi padroni avrebbero perso il luogo degli antichi schiavi assunti ora al loro post."

And E. W. Walbank, The Awful Revolution, Liverpool, 1969, pp.112-113, thinks, "In fact, the material basis of ancient culture was inadequate for the consolidation of such a revolution, even if it could have succeeded: success must have meant chaos, and the end of the classical heritage. Indeed, even granting for argument's sake that the oppressed classes could anywhere have seized power and held it, there is no reason to think that they would have aimed at a more equalitarian form of society; the whole of classical history renders it infinitely more likely that they would merely have attempted to reverse places with their late oppressors."

Soviet historians are probing more deeply into the theoretical study of this problem. O. O. Krjuger, Divizenija anticnych rabov v doellinisticeskuju epochu, IGAIMK 101, 1934pp. 117-118, thinks that "Receiving the title of King, ... Eunus called himself by a name of Hellenistic monarchies, and didn't think of destroying organization of slavery system. He fancied of decreasing the exploitation by striving against Roman and Carthaginian structure with a little variation of the Eastern Hellenistic structure. ... It is imaginable that the arable land, provided for such people as former slaves, and small land owners, with the use of some non-free labours. Former slave owners were expelled, but not as classes." Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p. 172, opposes the reactional thesis of Krjuger's that says, "Slaves didn't attempt to reconstruct a new slavery system." and "The oppressed people merely tried to reverse the position to be oppressors,". He says, "Indeed, during those two Sicilian Slave Uprisings, dictators were born in the structure of local governments by slaves, and they were imitating the structure of Hellenistic despotism. But we should not confuse a mere outlook resemblance of their structures with theoretical difference." Moreover he points out, "Ruling structure they had imitated was a completely different one in substance, because they were not the means for exploitation. In their dictatorship, we cannot find any indications in historical documents that slaves had any intention other than trying to struggle with slave owners." (p.172.)

Although Walbank's theory of slaves turning into slave owners is only a presumption, those arguments by Soviet historians are based on the facts of Sicilian Uprisings at any rate. Even though both Krjuger and Kovalev are unavoidably one-sided, Kovalev's claim to differentiate the outlook resemblance and theoretical difference is very important.

As I described in my article about Sicilian Slave Uprisings, the dictatorship which was built by slaves after destroying their slave owners was not a mere imitation of Hellenistic despotism, but it had undoubtedly the originality of its own. This "originality" had been brought forth by the oppressed people who had taken the authority away from the oppressors by way of uprisings. And needless to say but, this should be differentiated from Hellenistic despotism in their "theoretical substance." The point in this problem is; even though they had the "originality" as a ruling organization, this organization couldn't help but rule over other classes with slave class as ruling class.

A. R. Korusunskij, a Soviet historian says "Even when slave up­risings achieved a success temporarily (as in Sicilia, for instance), they didn't abolish slavery system but they only massacred then- former masters, or build a governmental organization after their home countries and Roman state." (A. R. Korusunskij, Problema revoljucionnegoperechoda ot rabovladelfieskogo stroja k feodal 'nomu v zapadnoj evrope, Voprosi Istorii 1964, no.5, p.103) This opinion of Korusunskij's should be theoretically a retreat from those of Krjuger's and Kovalev's. S. Lauffer, Die Sklaverei in der griechischeromischen Welt, Gymnasium, 1964, S.375, says, "When slaves built a state, they only imitated other system of the same period in every way." Yet, when we refer these opinions to the actual facts of Sicilian Uprisings, we have but to dismiss them. And by K. Murakawa's opinion, "By the facts that he called himself by the title of King Antiochos, his aim must have been building a miniature power of Syrian Kingdom which was his home country." World History vol. II, Tokyo 1961, pp.281—282. underlined by author) This is nothing but a vulgarization and distortion of the opinion which takes their structure as a kind of imitation.

(15)    Doi, Reconstructing Spartacus' Servile War, pp.44—45, pp.50—51

(16)    Livius XCVI; Plutarch, Crassus 9; Florus II, 8

(17)    As for their reasons for going down South, see R. Kamienik, Odwrot Spartakusa i przeprawy na Sycylie. Przycznak do powstania Spartakusa
w. I 73-71 p. n. e., Annales UMCS sectio F. vol. XV, 1960; M. Doi, An Introduction to Spartacus  Servile War,   Tokyo,  1969,   pp.191-245;
Kamienik, Spartacus-Ruckzug nach der Schlacht bei Mutina und misslungene Uberfahrt nach Sizilien, Das Altentum Bd. XVIII Heft. 4,1972; Doi, Spartacus' Uprising pp. 125-131.

(18)    Plutarch, Crassus 10; Florus II, 8; Appianus B. C. I, 118; Most S.94; Pareti III p.701; Bonghi pp.21-22; Ihne VI S.54; Oliva-Olivova S.100; Storia di Reggio di Calabria I, 1908, p.112; As for the time when Spartacus began to get this idea, Mischulin, Spartacus, S.6; Holmes I P-159, are of the opinion that it was at going down South. But, as Oliva-Olivova S. 99, I think it is after the time of victory over Picenum on the way down South. See, Doi, Reconstructing Spartacus' Servile War pp. 89-90

(19)    Appianus, B. C. I, 120; Drumann IV S.80; Ward pp. 283-284; Holmes I p.160; Mischulin, Posted, p.119; Mischulin, Spartacus SS. 75-76; Ratner p.119;  Vogt   S.41;  Oliva-Olivova  SS.   105-106; Ollivier p.159.  These historians admit Spartacus' intention as to march toward Brudisium. As for the destination of Spartacus' by sea was; according to Mischulin, it was for Greece  and  Thracia,  and  Ward  and  Ollivier  think  it  as  for  Sicilia. Meanwhile, Bonghi p.57 says, it is not a rational course for Spartacus to go to Brundisium because if they might intend to leave Italia by sea, they could have taken ships from the coast near Bruttium. Doi, Reconstructing Spartacus' Servile War p.93.

(20)    Appianus5. C. I, 120; Plutarch, Crassus 11; etc.

(21)    For instance, it is told that when they tried to cross over to Sicilia, pirate ships sailed away without keeping the promise to let them borrow their
ships, having just taken away the rent from them. Even after this mishap, slaves made every effort to build rafts for actualizing the program of crossing-the-strait. Florus II, 8; Sallustius IV, 30 f.

(22)    According to Cicero Verres,  II, V, 2-4, 5-10; Plutarch, Crassus 10, Sicilia was not at peace. Refer to Mischulin, Spartacus SS. 89-93.

(23)    Plutarch, Crassus 10

(24)    Appianus, B. C. I, 111; Plutarch, Pompeius 24; Cicero, De Officiis III, 49; etc. Refer to Maroti, Die Rolle der Seerauberei; etc.

(25)    Maroti, Die Rolle der Seerauberei S.36; Mischulin, Spartacus S.94; Ollivier pp.144-145; Frank, Survey p.302

(26)    Maroti, Die Rolle der Seerauberei S.36; Vogt S.52

(27)    As Maroti, Die Rolle der Seerauberei S.34 points out, piracy was one of the main sources of  slave importation as well as the battles. For more
informations,  see  Cicero, De  Officiis  II,  49;  Vogt  SS.52-53;  W.L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia, 1955 p.65; SalVioli, Kapital p. 83.

(28)    Livius XCIII; Appianus,    Mithr.  71; Plutarch, Sertorius 28; Lucullus 8; Frank, Survey p.275, p.302; Doer, S.233, etc.

(29)    Appianus,B. C. I, 119; Mommsen III S.87; Ollivier p.98

(30)    Appianus, Mithr. 109

(31)    Plutarch, Pompeius 41

(32)    Appianus, B.   C.  I,  120 describes that Lucullus achieved victory over Mithridates and reached Brundisium. But this was a mistake of Appianus. He confused Terentius Varro Lucullus who had been dispatched to subjugate Thracia, with Licinius Lucullus who had been sent to subjugate
Mithridates. This is also evident by Plutarch, Crassus 11 that says Roman Senator summoned Lucullus with Pompeius from Thracia. And also by
Appianus, Mithr.  82-83; Cicero, De Imp. Cn. Pomp. 8, 21, it is evident that the other Lucullus was fighting with Mithridates at the time in Pontus
and Cappadocia. cf. Bonghi p.57; Heitland III p.14; A. A. Motus, O datirovke nacala vosstanija Spartaka, VDI, 1957, 3, p.160, 164 etc.

(33)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. pp. 174-175; Schtaerman p.243; Krjuger p.119

(34)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p. 175; Ridley p.27

(35)    Kovalev,  Veli. vosst. p.175; Rakov, K probleme razlojenija rabovladelceskoi formaciji,/G^/A«: 1933, 66, pp.22-23

(36)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p. 173

(37)    There are many arguments about the program of Spartacus' Uprising. Ratner, p.56 doesn't think slaves had any deliberate, awakening program which would have reformed the existing organization. Their aims were only to be liberated from slavery, revenge slave owners, and go back to their home lands to be free men again. Lauffer SS.374-375; Oliva, Skla-venaufstande S.80 agree with this opinion. Oliva S.8 stresses as there were no objectives among revolts aiming at abolishing slavery or building communistic society. Regarding this opinion, Mischulin quotes the following; "Der Sklave befreit sich, indem er von alien Privateigentums verhaltnissen nur das Verhaltnis der Sklaverei aufhebt und dadurch selbst erst Prpletarier wird; der Proletarier kann sich nur dadurch befreien, dass er des Privateigentum iiberhaupt aufhebt." (Grundsatze des Kommunismus, Marx-Engels Werke 4, S.366) and he says, if Spartacus might have gained victory, he would have destroyed all the possessions of slave owners, let slaves become proletariats, and he would have assigned himself with a task of destoying private property. (Mischulin, Spart. vosst. p.40, p.89, p.140) And Protonikov says, the objectives of their revolts were the expelling of slavery economy system in exchange for economic system based on free peasants. (Kovalev, Veli vosst. p.175)

Diakov, Istorii drevnego mira p.621 and Brisson pp.212-218, explain the objectives of the revolt as the destruction of Roma which had been the center of slavery system. (Schtaerman, p.242) After these discussions were presented, a notable phenomenon appeared among Soviet historians. That is; Schtaerman pp.244—245 says, "Among Soviet researchers after the War, there are some who refuse to try reconstructing Spartacus' program because, as there are only very few historical materials left, it is, they say, unreasonable to continue this experiment of likely assumptions one way or the other." And Uttschenko, Krizis p. 147 thinks "There aren't any basis to be talked about on "the program" of slave revolt." Indeed, in the descriptions of Mischulin, Protonikov or Diakov, there must have been some "assumptions" or "exaggerations." But, it is just incomprehensible for me to give up the study about the aim and program of the uprising with such a reason as the scareceness of historical materials. This kind of agnostic tendency is just inapprehensible to me. For, except the opinion by Bonghi, p.36 such as "The slave uprising was lacking its humanistic and purposeful intention," at least those opinions of Ratner, Oliva and Lauffer have been generally approved... and the program of the slave uprisings should be studied and probed with these opinions as the base.

(38)    Schtaerman p.243

(39)    K. Marx - F. Engels, Die deutsche Ideologic, Marx Engels Werke 3, S.46

(40)    Bömer I S.I82

(41)    Lucretius I, 62-65

(42)    Petronius, Satyricon, 71

(43)    Herodotus 5,  7; Strabo X, 3,   16; Vergilius,  Georgica, IV, 507-527; Plutarch, Alexandras 2; etc.

(44)    Plutarch, Crassus 8

(45)    Orph. fr. 32. c. 6-7; G. Thomson, The First Philosophers, London 1955, p.240

(46)    Thomson, p.244

(47)    As Florus II, 8 says, certainly Roma must have fought with all its might. Roman regular troops at the time were said to be of 12 legions. (Frank,
Survey p.326) But, just Crassus only commanded 8 legions (by Holmes I p.159; Brunt p.114; Grant p.25, 10 legions) to settle Spartacus. That means, just Crassus's legions only, were more legions than Sulla's when he fought the First Mithridates War. (Dine VI S. 53) and were comparable to those of Caesar's when he conquerred Gallia. (Holmes I p.159; Oliva-Olivova S.99; Brisson p.239).  Even before Crassus, many Roman generals had been sent out to subdue Spartacus ... Lucullus and Pompeius, who had pacified Thracian and Spanish anti-Roman struggles, also joined the legions of suppressing Spartacus' Uprising. So, they must have literally fought with all their forces together. The military forces which were directed toward the uprising must have been far over than those of regular troops. Ward p.286 says more than 400,000 soldiers were put in for suppressing the uprising. Brisson p.239 says more numbers of regular troops than the time of Caesar's conquerring Gallia were put into action. Holmes I p.161 says, Roma mobilized all the usable power and all the famous generals for suppressing Spartacus. So, Korusunskij p. 102 is essentially right when he says Roma mobilized all its forces.

(48)    Brisson  pp.   216—217   criticizes  Spartacus'  Uprising   as they  couldn't organize any controlling  authority over the regions where they had
suppressed...   and he defines the reason for this as the revolutional movement  by  slaves  were in retreating  tendency after  Sicilian  Slave Uprisings. But, when we think over the blow they gave to Roma and also take all other things into consideration, we cannot agree with Brisson's opinion.

(48a)    Doi, Spartacus' Uprising pp.194-196

(49)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p.171

(49a)    Doi, Reconstructing First Sicilian Slave Uprising, I, pp.46-50; Doi, Basic Characters of the Second Sicilian Slave Uprising, pp.3-16

(50)    Ratner, Vosstania rabov v Sicilii vo vtoroj polovine II v. do. n. e, UZ Karelofinskogo Universiteta, vol. II, H. I. 1954 p.36.; Also see Doi, A Note on the Second Sicilian Slave Revolt, pp.172-173