DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE WORK OF SOCIAL
REGENERATION.--OF SLAVERY.--COULD IT BE DESTROYED WITH MORE PROMPTNESS
THAN IT WAS BY CHRISTIANITY?
Although the Church attached the greatest importance to the propagation
of truth, although she was convinced that to destroy the shapeless
mass of immorality and degradation that met her sight, her first care
should be to expose error to the dissolving fire of true doctrines,
she did not confine herself to this; but, descending to real life,
and following a system full of wisdom and prudence, she acted in such
a manner as to enable humanity to taste the precious fruit which the
doctrines of Jesus Christ produce even in temporal things. The Church
was not only a _great and fruitful school; she was also a regenerative
association_; she did not diffuse her general doctrines by throwing
them abroad at hazard, merely hoping that they would fructify with
time; she developed them in all their relations, applied them to all
subjects, inoculated laws and manners with them, and realized them in
institutions which afforded silent but eloquent instructions to future
generations. Nowhere was the dignity of man acknowledged, slavery
reigned everywhere; degraded woman was dishonored by the corruption of
manners, and debased by the tyranny of man. The feelings of humanity
were trodden under foot, infants were abandoned, the sick and aged were
neglected, barbarity and cruelty were carried to the highest pitch
of atrocity in the prevailing laws of war; in fine, on the summit of
the social edifice was seen an odious tyranny, sustained by military
force, and looking down with an eye of contempt on the unfortunate
nations that lay in fetters at its feet.
In such a state of things it certainly was no slight task to remove
error, to reform and improve manners, abolish slavery, correct the
vices of legislation, impose a check on power, and make it harmonize
with the public interest, give new life to individuals, and reorganize
family and society; and yet nothing less than this was done by the
Church. Let us begin with slavery. This is a matter which is the more
to be fathomed, as it is a question eminently calculated to excite
our curiosity and affect our hearts. What abolished slavery among
Christian nations? Was it Christianity? Was it Christianity alone,
by its lofty ideas on human dignity, by its maxims and its spirit of
fraternity and charity, and also by its prudent, gentle, and beneficent
conduct? I trust I shall prove that it was. No one now ventures to
doubt that the Church exercised a powerful influence on the abolition
of slavery; this is a truth too clear and evident to be questioned.
M. Guizot acknowledges the successful efforts with which the Church
labored to improve the social condition. He says: "No one doubts that
she struggled obstinately against the great vices of the social state;
for example, against slavery." But, in the next line, and as if he
were reluctant to establish without any restriction a fact which must
necessarily excite in favor of the Catholic Church the sympathies of
all humanity, he adds: "It has been often repeated that the abolition
of slavery in the modern world was entirely due to Christianity. I
believe that this is saying too much; slavery existed for a long time
in the bosom of Christian society without exciting astonishment or much
opposition." M. Guizot is much mistaken if he expects to prove that the
abolition of slavery was not due exclusively to Christianity, by the
mere representation that slavery existed for a long time amid Christian
society. To proceed logically, he must first see whether the sudden
abolition of it was possible, if the spirit of peace and order which
animates the Church could allow her rashly to enter on an enterprise
which, without gaining the desired object, might have convulsed the
world. The number of slaves was immense; slavery was deeply rooted in
laws, manners, ideas, and interests, individual and social; a fatal
system, no doubt, but the eradication of which all at once it would
have been rash to attempt, as its roots had penetrated deeply and
spread widely in the bowels of the land.
In a census of Athens there were reckoned 20,000 citizens and 40,000
slaves; in the Peloponnesian war no less than 20,000 passed over to
the enemy. This we learn from Thucydides. The same author tells us,
that at Chio the number of slaves was very considerable, and that
their defection, when they passed over to the Athenians, reduced their
masters to great extremities. In general, the number of slaves was so
very great everywhere that the public safety was often compromised
thereby. Therefore it was necessary to take precautions to prevent
their acting in concert. "It is necessary," says Plato (_Dial._ 6,
_de Leg._), "that slaves should not be of the same country, and that
they should differ as much as possible in manners and desires; for
experience has many times shown, in the frequent defections which have
been witnessed, among the Messenians, and in other cities that had a
great number of slaves of the same language, that great evils commonly
result from it." Aristotle in his Government (b. i. c. 5) gives
various rules as to the manner in which slaves ought to be treated; it
is remarkable that he is of the same opinion as Plato, for he says:
"That there should not be many slaves of the same country." He tells
us in his Politics (b. ii. c. 7), "That the Thessalians were reduced
to great embarrassments on account of the number of their Penestes,
a sort of slaves; the same thing happened to the Spartans on account
of the Helotes. The Penestes have often rebelled in Thessaly; and the
Spartans, during their reverses, have been menaced by the plots of the
Helotes." This was a difficulty which required the serious attention
of politicians. They did not know how to prevent the inconveniences
induced by this immense multitude of slaves. Aristotle laments the
difficulty there was in finding the best way of treating them; and we
see that it was the subject of grave cares; I will transcribe his own
words: "In truth," he says, "the manner in which this class of men
ought to be treated is a thing difficult and full of embarrassment; for
if they are treated mildly, they become insolent, and wish to become
equal to their masters; if they are treated harshly, they conceive
hatred, and conspire."
At Rome, the multitude of slaves was such that when, at a certain
period, it was proposed to give them a distinctive dress, the Senate
opposed the measure, fearing that if they knew their own numbers the
public safety would be endangered; and certainly this precaution was
not vain, for already, a long time before, the slaves had caused great
commotions in Italy. Plato, in support of the advice which I have just
quoted, states, "That the slaves had frequently devastated Italy with
piracy and robbery." In more recent times Spartacus, at the head of
an army of slaves, was the terror of that country for some time, and
engaged the best generals of Rome. The number of slaves had reached
such an excess, that many masters reckoned them by hundreds. When the
Prefect of Rome, Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated, four hundred
slaves who belonged to him were put to death. (_Tac. Ann._ b. xiv.)
Pudentila, the wife of Apulcius, had so many that she gave four hundred
to her son. They became a matter of pomp, and the Romans vied with each
other in their number. When asked this question, _quod pascit servos_,
how many slaves does he keep, according to the expression of Juvenal
(_Sat._ 3, v. 140), they wished to be able to show a great number. The
thing had reached such a pass that, according to Pliny, the cortege of
a family resembled an army.
It was not only in Greece and Italy that this abundance of slaves was
found; at Tyre they arose against their masters, and, by their immense
numbers, they were able to massacre them all. If we turn our eyes
towards barbarous nations, without speaking of some the best known, we
learn from Herodotus that the Scythians, on their return from Media,
found their slaves in rebellion, and were compelled to abandon their
country to them. Cæsar in his Commentaries (_de Bello Gall._ lib. vi.)
bears witness to the multitude of slaves in Gaul. As their number was
everywhere so considerable, it is clear that it was quite impossible
to preach freedom to them without setting the world on fire. Unhappily
we have, in modern times, the means of forming a comparison which,
although on an infinitely smaller scale, will answer our purpose. In
a colony where black slaves abound, who would venture to set them at
liberty all at once? Now how much are the difficulties increased,
what colossal dimensions does not the danger assume, when you have
to do, not with a colony, but with the world? Their intellectual and
moral condition rendered them incapable of turning such an advantage
to their own benefit and that of society; in their debasement, urged
on by the hatred and the desire of vengeance which ill-treatment had
excited in their minds, they would have repeated, on a large scale, the
bloody scenes with which they had already, in former times, stained
the pages of history; and what would then have happened? Society,
thus endangered, would have been put on its guard against principles
favoring liberty; henceforth it would have regarded them with prejudice
and suspicion, and the chains of servitude, instead of being loosened,
would have been the more firmly riveted. Out of this immense mass of
rude, savage men, set at liberty without preparation, it was impossible
for social organization to arise; for social organization is not the
creation of a moment, especially with such elements as these; and in
this case, since it would have been necessary to choose between slavery
and the annihilation of social order, the instinct of preservation,
which animates society as well as all beings, would undoubtedly have
brought about the continuation of slavery where it still existed, and
its re-establishment where it had been destroyed. Those who complain
that Christianity did not accomplish the work of abolishing slavery
with sufficient promptitude, should remember that, even supposing a
sudden or very rapid emancipation possible, and to say nothing of the
bloody revolutions which would necessarily have been the result, the
mere force of circumstances, by the insurmountable difficulties which
it would have raised, would have rendered such a measure absolutely
useless. Let us lay aside all social and political considerations, and
apply ourselves to the economical question. First, it was necessary to
change all the relations of property. The slaves played a principal
part therein; they cultivated the land, and worked as mechanics; in a
word, among them was distributed all that is called labor; and this
distribution being made on the supposition of slavery, to take away
this would have made a disruption, the ultimate consequences of which
could not be estimated. I will suppose that violent spoliations had
taken place, that a repartition or equalization of property had been
attempted, that lands had been distributed to the emancipated, and
that the richest proprietors had been compelled to hold the pickaxe
and the plough; I will suppose all these absurdities and mad dreams
to be realized, and I say that this would have been no remedy; for we
must not forget that the production of the means of subsistence must
be in proportion to the wants of those they are intended to support,
and that this proportion would have been destroyed by the abolition of
slavery. The production was regulated, not exactly according to the
number of the individuals who then existed, but on the supposition that
the majority were slaves; now we know that the wants of a freeman are
greater than those of a slave.
If at the present time, after eighteen centuries, when ideas have
been corrected, manners softened, laws ameliorated; when nations
and governments have been taught by experience; when so many public
establishments for the relief of indigence have been founded; when so
many systems have been tried for the division of labor; when riches are
distributed in a more equitable manner; if it is still so difficult to
prevent a great number of men from becoming the victims of dreadful
misery, if that is the terrible evil, which, like a fatal nightmare,
torments society, and threatens its future, what would have been the
effect of a universal emancipation, at the beginning of Christianity,
at a time when slaves were not considered by the law as _persons_,
but as _things_; when their conjugal union was not looked upon as a
marriage; when their children were property, and subject to the same
rules as the progeny of animals; when, in fine, the unhappy slave
was ill-treated, tormented, sold, or put to death, according to the
caprices of his master? Is it not evident that the cure of such evils
was the work of ages? Do not humanity and political and social economy
unanimously tell us this? If mad attempts had been made, the slaves
themselves would have been the first to protest against them; they
would have adhered to a servitude which at least secured to them food
and shelter; they would have rejected a liberty which was inconsistent
even with their existence. Such is the order of nature: man, above
all, requires wherewith to live; and the means of subsistence being
wanting, liberty itself would cease to please him. It is not necessary
to allude to the individual examples of this, which we have in
abundance; entire nations have given signal proofs of this truth.
When misery is excessive, it is difficult for it not to bring with it
degradation, stifle the most generous sentiments, and take away the
magic of the words independence and liberty. "The common people," says
Cæsar, speaking of the Gauls (lib. vi. _de Bello Gall._), "are almost
on a level with slaves; of themselves they venture nothing; their
voice is of no avail. There are many of that class, who, loaded with
debts and tributes, or oppressed by the powerful, give themselves up
into servitude to the nobles, who exercise over those who have thus
delivered themselves up the same rights as over slaves." Examples of
the same kind are not wanting in modern times; we know that in China
there is a great number of slaves whose servitude is owing entirely to
the incapacity of themselves or their fathers to provide for their own
subsistence.
These observations, which are supported by facts that no one can deny,
evidently show that Christianity has displayed profound wisdom in
proceeding with so much caution in the abolition of slavery.
It did all that was possible in favor of human liberty; if it did
not advance more rapidly in the work, it was because it could not do
so without compromitting the undertaking--without creating serious
obstacles to the desired emancipation. Such is the result at which we
arrive when we have thoroughly examined the charges made against some
proceedings of the Church. We look into them by the light of reason,
we compare them with the facts, and in the end we are convinced that
the conduct blamed is perfectly in accordance with the dictates of the
highest wisdom and the counsels of the soundest prudence. What, then,
does M. Guizot mean, when, after having allowed that Christianity
labored with earnestness for the abolition of slavery, he accuses it
of having consented for a long time to its continuance? Is it logical
thence to infer that it is not true that this immense benefit is due
exclusively to Christianity? That slavery endured for a long time in
presence of the Church is true; but it was always declining, and it
only lasted as long as was necessary to realize the benefit without
violence--without a shock--without compromitting its universality and
its continuation. Moreover, we ought to subtract from the time of its
continuance many ages, during which the Church was often proscribed,
always regarded with aversion, and totally unable to exert a direct
influence on the social organization. We ought also, to a great extent,
to make exception of later times, as the Church had only begun to exert
a direct and public influence, when the irruption of the northern
barbarians took place, which, together with the corruption which
infected the empire and spread in a frightful manner, produced such
a perturbation, such a confused mass of languages, customs, manners,
and laws, that it was almost impossible to make the regulating power
produce salutary fruits. If, in later times, it has been difficult
to destroy feudality; if there remain to this day, after ages of
struggles, the remnants of that constitution; if the slave-trade,
although limited to certain countries and circumstances, still merits
the universal reprobation which is raised throughout the world against
its infamy; how can we venture to express our astonishment--how can
we venture to make it a reproach against the Church, that slavery
continued some ages after she had proclaimed men's fraternity with each
other, and their equality before God?