IDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY WITH RESPECT TO SLAVERY.--THE CHURCH
BEGINS BY IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF SLAVES.
Happily the Catholic Church was wiser than philosophers; she knew
how to confer on humanity the benefit of emancipation, without
injustice or revolution. She knew how to regenerate society, but not
in rivers of blood. Let us see what was her conduct with respect to
the abolition of slavery. Much has been already said of the spirit of
love and fraternity which animates Christianity, and that is sufficient
to show that its influence in this work must have been great. But
perhaps sufficient care has not been taken in seeking the positive
and practical means which the Church employed for this end. In the
darkness of ages, in circumstances so complicated or various, will it
be possible to discover any traces of the path pursued by the Catholic
Church in accomplishing the destruction of that slavery under which a
large portion of the human race groaned? Will it be possible to do any
thing more than praise her Christian charity? Will it be possible to
point out a plan, a system, and to prove the existence and development
of it, not by referring to a few expressions, to elevated thoughts,
generous sentiments, and the isolated actions of a few illustrious men,
but by exhibiting positive facts, and historical documents, which show
what were the _esprit de corps_ and tendency of the Church? I believe
that this may be done, and I have no doubt that I shall be able to do
it, by availing myself of what is most convincing and decisive in the
matter, viz. the monuments of ecclesiastical legislation.
In the first place, it will not be amiss to remember what I have
already pointed out, viz. that when we have to do with the conduct,
designs, and tendencies of the Church, it is by no means necessary to
suppose that these designs were conceived in their fullest extent by
the mind of any individual in particular, nor that the merit and all
the prudence of that conduct was understood by those who took part
in it. It is not even necessary to suppose that the first Christians
understood all the force of the tendencies of Christianity with respect
to the abolition of slavery. What requires to be shown is, that the
result has been obtained by the doctrines and conduct of the Church, as
with Catholics, (although they know how to esteem at their just value
the merit and greatness of each man,) individuals, when the Church is
concerned, disappear. Their thoughts and will are nothing; the spirit
which animates, vivifies, and directs the Church, is not the spirit of
man, but that of God himself. Those who belong not to our faith will
employ other names; but at least we shall agree in this, that facts,
considered in this way, above the mind and the will of individuals,
preserve much better their real dimensions; and thus the great chain of
events in the study of history remains unbroken. Let it be said that
the conduct of the Church was inspired and directed by God; or that it
was the result of instinct; that it was the development of a tendency
contained in her doctrines; we will not now stay to consider the
expressions which may be used by Catholics, or by philosophers; what we
have to show is, that this instinct was noble and well-directed; that
this tendency had a great object in view, and knew how to attain it.
The first thing that Christianity did for slaves, was to destroy the
errors which opposed, not only their universal emancipation, but even
the improvement of their condition; that is, the first force which
she employed in the attack was, according to her custom, the _force
of ideas_. This first step was the more necessary, as the same thing
applies to all other evils, as well as to slavery; every social evil is
always accompanied by some error which produces or foments it. There
existed not only the oppression and degradation of a large portion of
the human race, but, moreover, an accredited error, which tended more
and more to lower that portion of humanity. According to this opinion,
slaves were a mean race, far below the dignity of freemen: they were a
race degraded by Jupiter himself, marked by a stamp of humiliation, and
predestined to their state of abjection and debasement. A detestable
doctrine, no doubt, and contradicted by the nature of man, by history
and experience; but which, nevertheless, reckoned distinguished men
among its defenders, and which we see proclaimed for ages, to the
shame of humanity and the scandal of reason, until Christianity came
to destroy it, by undertaking to vindicate the rights of man. Homer
tells us (_Odys._ 17) that "Jupiter has deprived slaves of half the
mind." We find in Plato a trace of the same doctrine, although he
expresses himself, as he is accustomed to do, by the mouth of another;
he ventures to advance the following: "It is said that, in the mind
of slaves, there is nothing sound or complete; and that a prudent man
ought not to trust that class of persons; which is equally attested by
the wisest of our poets." Here Plato cites the above-quoted passage
of Homer (_Dial._ 8, _de Legibus_). But it is in the Politics of
Aristotle that we find this degrading doctrine in all its deformity
and nakedness. Some have wished to excuse this philosopher, but in
vain; his own words condemn him without appeal. In the first chapter
of his work, he explains the constitution of the family, and attempts
to state the relations of husband and wife, of master and slave; he
states that, as the wife is by nature different from the husband, so
is the slave from the master. These are his words: "Thus the woman and
the slave are distinguished by nature itself." Let it not be said that
this is an expression that escaped from the pen of the writer; it was
stated with a full knowledge, and is a _résumé_ of his theory. In the
third chapter, where he continues to analyze the elements which compose
the family, after having stated "that a complete family is formed of
free persons and slaves," he alludes particularly to the latter, and
begins by combating an opinion which he thinks too favorable to them:
"There are some," he says, "who think that slavery is a thing out of
the order of nature, since it is the law itself which makes some free
and others slaves, while nature makes no distinction." Before combating
this opinion, he explains the relations between master and slave, by
using the comparison of artist and instrument, and that of the soul
and body; he continues thus: "If we compare man to woman, we find that
the first is superior, therefore he commands; the woman is inferior,
therefore she obeys. The same thing ought to take place among all men.
_Thus it is that those among them who are as inferior with respect to
others, as the body is with respect to the soul, and the animal to man;
those whose powers principally consist in the use of the body, the only
service that can be obtained from them, they are naturally slaves._"
We should imagine, at first sight, that the philosopher spoke only of
idiots; his words would seem to indicate this; but we shall see, by
the context, that such is not his intention. It is evident that if he
spoke only of idiots, he would prove nothing against the opinion which
he desires to combat; for the number of them is nothing with respect to
the generality of men. If he spoke only of idiots, of what use would be
a theory founded on so rare and monstrous an exception?
But we have no need of conjectures as to the real intention of the
philosopher, he himself takes care to explain it to us, and tells us at
the same time for what reason he ventures to make use of expressions
which seem, at first, to place the matter on another level. His
intention is nothing less than to attribute to nature the express
design of producing men of two kinds; one born for slavery, the other
for liberty. The passage is too important and too curious to be
omitted. It is this: "Nature has taken care to create the bodies of
free men different from those of slaves; the bodies of the latter are
strong, and proper for the most necessary labors: those of freemen, on
the contrary, well formed, although ill adapted for servile works, are
proper for civil life, which consists in the management of things in
war and peace. Nevertheless, the contrary often happens. To a free man
is given the body of a slave; and to a slave the soul of a free man.
There is no doubt that, if the bodies of some men were as much more
perfect than others, as we see is the case in the image of the Gods,
all the world would be of opinion that these men should be obeyed by
those who had not the same beauty. If this is true in speaking of the
body, it is still more so in speaking of the soul; although it is not
so easy to see the beauty of the soul as that of the body. Thus it
cannot be doubted that there are some men born for liberty, as others
are for slavery; a slavery which is not only useful to the slaves
themselves, but, moreover, just." A miserable philosophy, which, in
order to support that degraded state, was obliged to have recourse to
such subtilties, and ventured to impute to nature the intention of
creating different castes, some born to command and others to obey; a
cruel philosophy, which thus labored to break the bonds of fraternity
with which the Author of nature has desired to knit together the
human race, pretending to raise a barrier between man and man, and
inventing theories to support inequality; not that inequality which is
the necessary result of all social organization, but an inequality so
terrible and degrading as that of slavery.
Christianity raises its voice, and by the first words which it
pronounces on slaves, declares them equal to all men in the dignity
of nature, and in the participation of the graces which the Divine
Spirit diffuses upon earth. We must remark the care with which St.
Paul insists on this point; it seems as if he had in view those
degrading distinctions which have arisen from a fatal forgetfulness
of the dignity of man. The Apostle never forgets to inculcate to
the faithful that there is no difference between the slave and the
freeman. "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." (1 Cor. xii. 13.)
"For you are all children of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. For as
many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There
is neither Jew nor Greek; _there is neither bond or free_; there is
neither male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal.
iii. 26-28.) "Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision
nor uncircumcision, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free; but Christ
is all and in all." (Colos. iii. 11.) The heart dilates at the sound
of the voice thus loudly proclaiming the great principles of holy
fraternity and equality. After having heard the oracles of Paganism
inventing doctrines to degrade still more the unhappy slaves, we seem
to awake from a painful dream, and to find ourselves in the light of
day in the midst of the delightful reality. The imagination delights
to contemplate the millions of men who, bent under degradation and
ignominy, at this voice raised their eyes towards Heaven, and were
animated with hope.
It was with this teaching of Christianity as with all generous and
fruitful doctrines; they penetrate the heart of society, remain
there as a precious germ, and, developed by time, produce an immense
tree which overshadows families and nations. When these doctrines
were diffused among men, they could not fail to be misunderstood and
exaggerated. Thus there were found some who pretended that Christian
freedom was the proclamation of universal freedom. The pleasing words
of Christ easily resounded in the ears of slaves: they heard themselves
declared children of God, and brethren of Jesus Christ; they saw that
there was no distinction made between them and their masters, between
them and the most powerful lords of the earth; is it, then, strange
that men only accustomed to chains, to labor, to every kind of trouble
and degradation, exaggerated the principles of Christian liberty, and
made applications of them which were neither just in themselves, nor
capable of being reduced to practice? We know, from St. Jerome, that
many, hearing themselves called to Christian liberty, believed that
they were thereby freed. Perhaps the Apostle alluded to this error
when, in his first epistle to Timothy, he said, "Whosoever are servants
under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest
the name of the Lord and His doctrines be blasphemed." (1 Timothy vi.
1.) This error had been so general, that after three centuries it was
still much credited; and the Council of Gangres, held about 324, was
obliged to excommunicate those who, under pretence of piety, taught
that slaves ought to quit their masters, and withdraw from their
service. This was not the teaching of Christianity; besides, we have
clearly shown that it would not have been the right way to achieve
universal emancipation. Therefore this same Apostle, from whose mouth
we have heard such generous language in favor of slaves, frequently
inculcates to them obedience to their masters; but let us observe, that
while fulfilling this duty imposed by the spirit of peace and justice
which animates Christianity, he so explains the motives on which the
obedience of slaves ought to be based, he calls to mind the obligations
of masters in such affecting and energetic words, and establishes so
expressly and conclusively the equality of all men before God, that
we cannot help seeing how great was his compassion for that unhappy
portion of humanity, and how much his ideas on this point differed
from those of a blind and hardened world. There is in the heart of
man a feeling of noble independence, which does not permit him to
subject himself to the will of another, except when he sees that the
claims to his obedience are founded on legitimate titles. If they are
in accordance with reason and justice, and, above all, if they have
their roots in the great objects of human love and veneration, his
understanding is convinced, his heart is gained, and he yields. But
if the reason for the command is only the will of another, if it is
only man against man, these thoughts of equality ferment in his mind,
then the feeling of independence burns in his heart, he puts on a
bold front, and his passions are excited. Therefore, when a willing
and lasting obedience is to be obtained, it is necessary that the man
should be lost sight of in the ruler, and that he should only appear
as the representative of a superior power, or the personification of
the motives which convince the subject of the justice and utility of
his submission; thus he does not obey the will of another because it is
that will, but because it is the representative of a superior power, or
the interpreter of truth and justice; then man no longer considers his
dignity outraged, and obedience becomes tolerable and pleasing.
It is unnecessary to say that such were not the titles on which was
founded the obedience of slaves before Christianity: custom placed them
in the rank of brutes; and the laws, outdoing it if possible, were
expressed in language which cannot be read without indignation. Masters
commanded because such was their pleasure, and slaves were compelled
to obey, not on account of superior motives or moral obligations,
but because they were the property of their masters, horses governed
by the bridle, and mere mechanical machines. Was it, then, strange
that these unhappy beings, drenched with misfortune and ignominy,
conceived and cherished in their hearts that deep rancor, that violent
hatred, and that terrible thirst for vengeance, which at the first
opportunity exploded so fearfully? The horrible massacre of Tyre,
the example and terror of the universe, according to the expression
of Justin; the repeated revolts of the Penestes in Thessaly, of the
Helotes in Sparta; the defections of the slaves of Chio and Athens; the
insurrection under the command of Herdonius, and the terror which it
spread in all the families of Rome; the scenes of blood, the obstinate
and desperate resistance of the bands of Spartacus; was all this any
thing but the natural result of the system of violence, outrage, and
contempt with which slaves were treated? Is it not what we have seen
repeated in modern times, in the catastrophes of the negro colonies?
Such is the nature of man, whoever sows contempt and outrage will
reap fury and vengeance. Christianity was well aware of these truths;
and this is the reason why, while preaching obedience, it took care
to found it on Divine authority. If it confirmed to masters their
rights, it also taught them an exalted sense of their obligation.
Wherever Christian doctrines prevailed, slaves might say: "It is true
that we are unfortunate; birth, poverty, or the reverses of war have
condemned us to misfortune; but at least we are acknowledged as men and
brethren; between us and our masters there is a reciprocity of rights
and obligations." Let us hear the Apostle: "You, slaves, obey those who
are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
the simplicity of your hearts, as to Jesus Christ himself. _Not serving
to the eye, as it were pleasing men_, but, as the servants of Christ,
doing the will of God from the heart. With a good will serving, as
to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good things any
man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, _whether he be
bond or free_. And you, masters, do the same thing to them, forbearing
threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven,
and _there is no respect of persons with Him_." (Eph. vi. 5-9.) In the
Epistle to the Colossians he inculcates the same doctrine of obedience
anew, basing it on the same motives; for, to console the unfortunate
slaves, he tells them: "You shall receive of the Lord the reward of
inheritance: serve ye the Lord Christ. For he that doth wrong shall
receive for that which he hath done wrongfully, and there is no respect
of persons with God" (Colos. iii. 24, 25); and lower down, addressing
himself to masters: "Masters, do to your servants that which is just
and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (iv. 1.)
The diffusion of such beneficent doctrines necessarily tended to
improve greatly the condition of slaves; their immediate effect was to
soften that excessive rigor, that cruelty which would be incredible if
it were not incontrovertibly proved. We know that the master had the
right of life and death, and that he abused that power even to putting
a slave to death from caprice, as Quintus Flaminius did in the midst of
a festival. Another caused one of these unfortunate beings to be thrown
to the fishes, because he broke a glass of crystal. This is related of
Vedius Pollio; and this horrible cruelty was not confined to the circle
of a few families subject to a master devoid of compassion; no, cruelty
was formed into a system, the fatal but necessary result of erroneous
notions on this point, and of the forgetfulness of the sentiments of
humanity. This violent system could only be supported by constantly
trampling upon the slave; and there was no cessation of tyranny until
the day when he, with superior power, attacked his master and destroyed
him. An ancient proverb said, "So many slaves, so many enemies." We
have already seen the ravages committed by men thus rendered savage by
revenge, whenever they were able to break their chains; but certainly,
when it was desired to terrify them, their masters did not yield to
them in ferocity. At Sparta, on one occasion when they feared the
ill-will of the Helotes, they assembled them all at the temple of
Jupiter, and put them to death. (_Thucyd._ b. iv.) At Rome, whenever
a master was assassinated, all his slaves were condemned to death.
We cannot read in Tacitus without a shudder (_Ann._ l. xiv. 43) the
horrible scene which was witnessed when the prefect of the town,
Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated by one of his slaves. Not less than
four hundred were to die; all, according to the ancient custom, were
to be led to punishment. This cruel and pitiable spectacle, in which
so many of the innocent were to suffer death, excited the compassion
of the people, who raised a tumult to prevent this horrid butchery.
The Senate, in doubt, deliberated on the affair, when an orator named
Cassius maintained with energy that it was necessary to complete the
bloody execution, not only in obedience to the ancient custom, but also
because without it it would be impossible to preserve themselves from
the ill-will of the slaves. His words are all dictated by injustice and
tyranny; he sees on all sides dangers and conspiracies; he can imagine
no other safeguards than force and terror. The following passage is
above all remarkable in his speech, as showing in a few words the ideas
and manners of the ancients in this matter: "Our ancestors," says the
senator, "always mistrusted the character of slaves, even of those who,
born on their possessions and in their houses, might be supposed to
have conceived from their cradle an affection for their masters; but as
we have slaves of foreign nations, differing in customs and religion,
this rabble can only be restrained by terror." Cruelty prevailed, the
boldness of the people was repressed, the way was filled with soldiers,
and the four hundred unfortunate beings were led to punishment.
To soften this cruel treatment, to banish these frightful atrocities,
ought to have been the first effect of the Christian doctrines; and
we may rest assured that the Church never lost sight of so important
an object. She devoted all her efforts to improve as much as possible
the condition of slaves; in punishments she caused mildness to be
substituted for cruelty; and what was more important than all, she
labored to put reason in the place of caprice, and to make the
impetuosity of masters yield to the calmness of judges; that is to say,
she every day assimilated the condition of slaves more and more to that
of freemen, by making right and not might reign over them. The Church
never forgot the noble lesson which the Apostle gave when writing to
Philemon, and interceding in favor of a fugitive slave named Onesimus;
he spoke in his favor with a tenderness which this unhappy class had
never before inspired: "I beseech thee," he says to him, "for my son
Onesimus. Receive him as my own bowels; no more as a slave, but as a
most dear brother. If he hath wronged thee in any thing, or is in thy
debt, put that to my account." (Epis. to Phil.) The Council of Elvira,
held in the beginning of the fourth century, subjects the woman who
shall have beaten her slave so as to cause her death in three days to
many years of penance; the Council of Orleans, held in 549, orders
that if a slave guilty of a fault take refuge in a church, he is to be
restored to his master, but not without having exacted from the latter
a promise, confirmed by oath, that he will not do him any harm; that if
the master, in violation of his oath, maltreat the slave, he shall be
separated from the communion of the faithful and the sacraments. This
canon shows us two things: the habitual cruelty of masters, and the
zeal of the Church to soften the treatment of slaves. To restrain this
cruelty, nothing less than an oath was required; and the Church, always
so careful in these things, yet considered the matter important enough
to justify and require the invocation of the sacred name of God.
The favor and protection which the Church granted to slaves rapidly
extended. It seems that in some places the custom was introduced of
requiring a promise on oath, not only that the slave who had taken
refuge in the church should not be ill-treated in his person, but
even that no extraordinary work should be imposed on him, and that he
should wear no distinctive mark. This custom, produced no doubt by
zeal for humanity, but which may have occasioned some inconveniences
by relaxing too much the ties of obedience, and allowing excesses on
the part of slaves, appears to be alluded to in a regulation of the
Council of Epaone (now Abbon, according to some), held about 517. This
Council labors to stop the evil by prescribing a prudent moderation;
but without withdrawing the protection already granted. It ordains,
in the 39th canon, "That if a slave, guilty of any atrocious offence,
takes refuge in a church, he shall be saved from corporal punishment;
but the master shall not be compelled to swear that he will not impose
on him additional labor, or that he will not cut off his hair, in order
to make known his fault." Observe that this restriction is introduced
only in the case when the slave shall have committed a heinous offence,
and even in this case all the power allowed to the master consists in
imposing on the slave extraordinary labor, or distinguishing him by
cutting his hair.
Perhaps such indulgence may be considered excessive; but we must
observe that when abuses are deeply rooted, they cannot be eradicated
without a vigorous effort. At first sight it often appears as if the
limits of prudence were passed; but this apparent excess is only the
inevitable oscillation which is observed before things regain their
right position. The Church had therein no wish to protect crime, or
give unmerited indulgence; her object was to check the violence and
caprice of masters; she did not wish to allow a man to suffer torture
or death because such was the will of another. The establishment of
just laws and legitimate tribunals, the Church has never opposed;
but she has never given her consent to acts of private violence. The
spirit of opposition to the exercise of private force, which includes
social organization, is clearly shown to us in the 15th canon of the
Council of Merida, held in 666. I have already shown that slaves
formed a large portion of property. As the division of labor was made
in conformity with this principle, slaves were absolutely necessary
to those who possessed property, especially when it was considerable.
Now the Church found this to be the case; and as she could not change
the organization of society on a sudden, she was obliged to yield
to necessity, and admit slavery. But if she wished to introduce
improvements in the lot of slaves in general, it was good for her to
set the example herself: this example is found in the canon I have
just quoted. There, after having forbidden the bishops and priests
to maltreat the servants of the Church by mutilating their limbs,
the Council ordains that if a slave commit an offence, he shall be
delivered to the secular judges, but so that the bishops shall moderate
the punishment inflicted on him. We see by this canon that the right
of mutilation exercised by private masters was still in use; and
perhaps it was still more strongly established, since we see that
the Council limits itself to interdicting that kind of punishment to
ecclesiastics, without saying any thing as to laymen. No doubt, one of
the motives for this prohibition made to ecclesiastics, was to prevent
their shedding human blood, and thus rendering themselves incapable
of exercising their lofty ministry, the principal act of which is the
august sacrifice in which they offer a victim of peace and love; but
this does not in any way detract from the merit of the regulation, or
at all diminish its influence on the improvement of the condition of
slaves. It was the substitution of public vengeance for private; it
was again to proclaim the equality of slaves and freemen with respect
to the effusion of their blood; it was to declare that the hands which
had shed the blood of a slave, had contracted the same stain as if they
had shed that of a freeman. Now, it was necessary to inculcate these
salutary truths on men's minds in every way, for they ran in direct
contradiction to the ideas and manners of antiquity; it was necessary
to labor assiduously to destroy the shameful and cruel exceptions which
continued to deprive the majority of mankind of a participation in the
rights of humanity. There is, in the canon which I have just quoted,
a remarkable circumstance, which shows the solicitude of the Church
to restore to slaves the dignity and respect of which they had been
deprived. To shave the hair of the head was among the Goths a very
ignominious punishment; which, according to Lucas de Tuy, was to them
more cruel than death itself. It will be understood, that whatever was
the force of prejudice on this point, the Church might have allowed
the shaving of the hair without incurring the stain which was attached
to the shedding of blood. Yet she was not willing to allow it, which
shows us how attentive she was to destroy the marks of humiliation
impressed on slaves. After having enjoined priests and bishops to
deliver criminal slaves to the judges, she commands them "not to allow
them to be shaved ignominiously." No care was too great in this matter;
to destroy one after another the odious exceptions which affected
slaves, it was necessary to seize upon all favorable opportunities.
This necessity is clearly shown by the manner in which the eleventh
Council of Toledo, held in 675, expresses itself. This Council, in its
6th canon, forbids bishops themselves to judge crimes of a capital
nature, as it also forbids them to order the mutilation of members.
Behold in what terms it was considered necessary to state that this
rule admitted of no exception; "not even," says the Council, "with
respect to the slaves of the Church." The evil was great, it could not
be cured without assiduous care. Even the right of life and death,
the most cruel of all, could not be extirpated without much trouble;
and cruel applications of it were made in the beginning of the sixth
century, since the Council of Epaone, in its 34th canon, ordains that
"the master who, _of his own authority_, shall take away the life of
his slave, shall be cut off for two years from the communion of the
Church." After the middle of the ninth century, similar attempts were
still made, and the Council of Worms, held in 868, labored to repress
them, by subjecting to two years of penance the master who, of his own
authority, shall have put his slave to death.