CHAPTER VI

SLAVERY

Origin and motives.--Slavery taught steady labor.--Servitude of

group to group.--Slavery and polygamy.--Some men serve

others.--Freedom and equality.--Figurative use of "slave."--

Ethnography of slavery.--Family slavery.--Slavery amongst North

American savages.--Slavery in South America.--Slavery in

Polynesia and Melanesia.--Slavery in the East Indies.--Slavery

in Asia.--Slavery in Japan.--Slavery in higher civilization.--

Slavery amongst Jews.--Slavery in the classical states.--

Slavery at Rome.--Slave revolts.--Later Roman slavery.--Slaves

in the civil wars; clientage.--Manumission. Natural liberty.--

Slavery as represented in the inscriptions.--Rise of freedom in

industry.--Freedmen in the state.--Philosophers opponents of

slavery.--The industrial colleges.--Laws changed in favor of

slaves.--Christianity and slavery.--The colonate.--

Depopulation.--Summary view of Roman slavery.--The

Therapeuts.--Slavery amongst the Germanic nations.--The sale of

children.--Slavery and the state.--Slavery in Europe. Italy in

the Middle Ages.--Slavery in France.--Slavery in Islam.--

Review of slavery in Islam.--Slavery in England.--Slavery in

America.--Colonial slavery.--Slavery preferred by slaves.--The

future of slavery.--Relation of slavery to the mores and to

ethics.

+270. Origin and motives.+ Slavery is a thing in the mores which

is not well covered by our definition. Slavery does not arise in

the folkways from the unconscious experimentation of individuals

who have the same need which they desire to satisfy, and who try

in separate acts to do it as well as they can. It is rather due

to ill feeling towards members of an out-group, to desire to get

something for nothing, to the love of dominion which belongs to

vanity, and to hatred of labor. "The simple wish to use the

bodily powers of another person, as a means of ministering to

one's own ease or pleasure, is doubtless the foundation of

slavery, and as old as human nature."[625] "There is an

extraordinary power of tyranny invested in the chiefs of tribes

and nations of men that so vastly outweighs the analogous power

possessed by the leaders of animal herds as to rank as a special

attribute of human society, eminently conducive to

slavishness."[626] The desire to get ease or other good by the

labor of another, and the incidental gratification to vanity,

seem to be the fundamental principles in slavery, when

philosophically regarded, after the rule of one man over others

has become established. The whole group, however, must approve of

the custom and must enforce it; otherwise it cannot exist. It

appears that slavery began historically with the war captive, if

he or she was not put to death, as he was liable to be by the

laws of war. Those laws put the defeated, with his wife,

children, and property, at the mercy of the victors. The defeated

might be tortured to death, as was done amongst the North

American Indians, or they might be saved from death by the women.

Then they were put to help the women and were rated as women.

Slavery, therefore, in its origin, was a humanitarian improvement

in the laws of war, and an alleviation of the status of women. It

seems to be established that it began where the economic system

was such that there was a gain in making a slave of a war captive

instead of killing him. It follows that slavery, wherever it has

existed, has affected all the mores of the society. It promised

great results gratis. It will appear below that it has been a

terrible afrit, a demon which promised service but which became a

master. When adopted into the folkways it has dominated and given

tone and color to them all. That is the reason for giving it a

place here.

+271. Slavery taught steady labor.+ It seems to be also right to

understand that slavery proved to be a great schoolmaster to

teach men steady work. If that view is correct, we must

understand that no men would do any hard, persistent work if they

could help it. The defeated were forced to it, and learned to

submit to it. Then they helped the whole society up to a higher

status, in which they also shared.[627] Von Götzen gives some

proof of this when he states that he and his troop of carriers

sat by the camp fire evenings and that one after another told his

life. "Nearly all had been, as children, brought from the inner

country to the coast by slave dealers. Now they were proud of

this slavery, proud of belonging to the 'cultivated' and of not

being any longer 'wild' men."[628] In that view slavery is a part

of the discipline by which the human race has learned how to

carry on the industrial organization. There are some tasks which

have been very hard and very disagreeable. Comrades in an

in-group have never forced these on each other. It seemed to be

good fun, as well as wise policy, to make members of a rival

out-group do these tasks, after defeating them in war. For women

the grinding of seeds (grain) always was a heavy burden until

modern machinery brought natural powers to do it. For men the

rowing of boats (galleys) has been a very hard kind of work.[629]

After slavery came to exist it was extended to other cases, even

to some classes of cases in the in-group. Of these cases the

first was that of debt. Amongst the Eveans a debtor who cannot

pay is put to death. This, however, is a very exceptional

rule.[630] The course of thought is, that a debtor has used

another man's product and is bound to replace it. He therefore

falls into servitude to his creditor in fact, whether it is so

expressed or not. He must live on and work for the creditor.

Another case in which slavery was introduced was that of crime.

The criminal fell under obligations of restitution of value to an

individual or to the whole (chief). Other cases of extension of

slavery will appear below. We have many cases of groups exploited

by other groups. The former are then inferior and despised groups

who are tyrannized over by others who have beaten them in war or

easily could do so.

+272. Servitude of group to group.+ Agriculture is a peaceful

occupation, the pursuit of which breeds out the physical strength

of nomadism. The cases in which nomads rule over tillers belong,

in general, under this head, more especially because such a

difference in the economy of life produces mutual contempt and

hatred. The Israelites entered Canaan as nomads, and their

relation to the Canaanites was that which is here described.

Another case is presented by the smiths, who generally appear as

the earliest handicraftsmen, but are regarded with doubt and

suspicion. They are not slaves, but they are treated as outcasts.

Very often, in case of conquest by an invading tribe, the smiths

remain under the invaders as a subject and despised caste. The

Masarva are descendants of Betchuanas and Bushmen. They stand in

a relation of slaves to the Betchuanas, Matabele, and Marutse, in

whose land they dwell, except that they may not be sold.[631] The

Vaganda are subject to the Vahuma.[632] The latter keep out of

sight, being inferior in civilization but greater in power. Von

Götzen also met with the Vahuma as rulers over the Vahuta, i.e.

"belongers," as they called them.[633] The Arabs hold the negroes

of Borku in subjection and rob them of the date harvest.[634] In

other parts of the same district a nomad section rules over a

settled section of the same population.[635] Nomads hold

themselves to be the proper ones to rule.[636] The Hyksos's

invasion of Egypt is a case of the subjection of tillers by

nomads, attended by all the contempt of men on one grade of

civilized effort for those on another.[637] The combination of

the two, the nomads forming the ruling caste of military nobles,

forms a strong state.[638] The Tuaregs of the Sahara do not allow

the inhabitants of Kauar to raise vegetables or grains, but force

them to buy the same of them (the Tuaregs), which they bring to

them from the Sudan to buy salt, which the Kauar dwellers must

have ready.[639] The Akarnanians, in 1350, sold themselves to the

barbarians, in a body, in order to escape want.[640] The Masai

are another group of warriors and raiders. The Varombutta do

their hunting and tilling for them.[641] The Makololo hold the

Makalaka in similar serfdom, but the subjection is easy and the

servitude light, because the subject individuals can easily run

away.[642] The Hupa of California hold their neighbors in similar

subjection and in tributary servitude.[643] Other cases are

furnished by the Vanyambo, west of the Victoria Nyassa,[644] and

the Djur, who long served the Nubians as smiths.[645] It gives us

pleasure to learn that, about sixty years ago, the inferior

tribes on Uvea (Tai), of the Loyalty group, revolted against the

dominant tribe and nearly exterminated it.[646]

+273. Slavery and polygamy.+ Such instances show us the existence

in human nature of a tendency of stronger groups to exploit

weaker ones in the struggle for existence; in other words,

slavery or forced labor is one way in which, in elementary

civilization, the survival of the fittest group is brought about.

The slavery of individuals has not the same definite result on

the competition of life. "We find polygamy and slavery

continually at work dissolving the cohesion of old political

institutions in the old civilized races of Asia and Africa. In an

uncivilized society, like that of Zululand, they prevent such

cohesion ever taking place. They help to keep the Kaffir tribes

in perpetual unrest and barbarism, by destroying the germs of

civilization and preventing its growth."[647] That the two have

this effect in common may very probably be true, but in many

respects they are antagonistic to each other. Slavery meets the

necessity for many laborers which may otherwise be a cause for

polygamy. Wherever slavery exists it affords striking

illustrations of the tendency of the mores towards consistency

with each other, and that means, of course, their tendency to

cluster around some one or two leading ones. Africa now furnishes

the leading proofs of this. The negro society is one in which

physical force is the chief deciding element. The negroes have

enslaved each other for thousands of years. Very few of them have

ever become slaves to whites without having been previously

slaves to other negroes. In 1875 it was reckoned that twenty

thousand persons, chiefly women and children whose male relatives

had generally been killed, were taken into slavery from around

Lake Nyassa. The difficulties and expense of the slave trade in

that region became so great that it could not be carried on

except by alliance with one tribe which defeated and enslaved

another and sold the survivors. The Arabs opened paths for ivory

hunting. The slave dealers used these means of communication.

They established garrisons in order to exploit the territory, and

ended by depopulating it.[648] Junker argues earnestly against

the impression which has been established in Europe that Arabs

are chiefly to blame for slavery. "There are places in Africa

where three men cannot be sent on a journey together for fear

two of them may combine and sell the third."[649]

+274. Some men serving others. Freedom and equality. Figurative

use of "slavery."+ Must we infer, then, that there is a social

necessity that some men must serve others? In the New Testament

it is taught that willing and voluntary service of others is the

highest duty and glory of human life. If one man's strength is

spent on another man's struggle for existence, the survival of

the former in the competition of life is impaired. The men of

talent are constantly forced to serve the rest. They make the

discoveries and inventions, order the battles, write the books,

and produce the works of art. The benefit and enjoyment go to the

whole. There are those who joyfully order their own lives so that

they may serve the welfare of mankind. The whole problem of

mutual service is the great problem of societal organization. Is

it a dream, then, that all men should ever be free and equal? It

is at least evident that here ethical notions have been

interjected into social relations, with the result that we have

been taught to think of free and equal units willingly serving

each other. That, at least, is an idealistic dream. Yet it no

more follows from the fact that slavery has done good work in the

history of civilization that slavery should forever endure than

it follows from the fact that war has done good work in the

history of civilization that war is, in itself, a good thing.

Slavery alleviated the status of women; the domestication of

beasts of draft and burden alleviated the status of slaves; we

shall see below that serfs got freedom when wind, falling water,

and steam were loaded with the heavy tasks. Just now the heavy

burdens are borne by steam; electricity is just coming into use

to help bear them. Steam and electricity at last mean coal, and

the amount of coal in the globe is an arithmetical fact. When the

coal is used up will slavery once more begin? One thing only can

be affirmed with confidence; that is, that as no philosophical

dogmas caused slavery to be abolished, so no philosophical dogmas

can prevent its reintroduction if economic changes should make

it fit and suitable again. As steam has had put upon it the hard

work of life during the last two hundred years, the men have been

emancipated from ancient hard conditions and burdens, and the

generalities of the philosophers about liberty have easily won

greater and greater faith and currency. However, the mass of

mankind, taught to believe that they ought to have easy and

pleasant times here, begin to complain again about "wages

slavery," "debt slavery," "rent slavery," "sin slavery," "war

slavery," "marriage slavery," etc. What men do not like they call

"slavery," and so prove that it ought not to be. It appears to be

still in their experience that a free man is oppressed by

contracts of wages, debt, rent, and marriage, and that the cost

of making ready for war and of warding off sin are very heavy.

Political institutions readjust and redistribute the burdens of

life over a population, and they change the form of the same

perhaps, but the burdens are in the conditions of human life.

They are always present, and political institutions never can do

away with them at all. Therefore slavery, if we mean by it

subjection to the conditions of human life, never can be

abolished.

+275. Ethnographical illustrations of slavery.+ In Togo male

slaves work in the fields where yams are cultivated. Each carries

a basket in which he has a chicken, which will live on worms and

insects in the field. The slave is soon married. He has two days

in the week to work for himself. One of his grown boys can

replace him on the other four. He can buy a slave to replace him.

Thus they often attain to wealth, freedom, and power. A female

slave, if married to a free man, becomes free. This form of

slavery is only a mode of service. The slave lives with the

family, and enjoys domestic consideration. There is also debt

slavery, the whole family being responsible for the debt of a

member.[650] Klose, however, describes the ruin wrought by slave

raids. "Murder and incendiarism are the orders in this business.

Great villages and districts are made deserts and are depopulated

by the raids." "It is not in negro nature to subject one's self

voluntarily to labor. The negro wants to be compelled to work."

The fetich priest gives him a harmless drink, which is to be

fatal to him if he tries to run away.[651] The Ngumba in south

Kamerun hold their slaves in huts near their own houses. A

mishandled slave can leave his master and demand the protection

of another. A debtor who cannot pay becomes slave of his creditor

until the debt is paid in value, but this does not free him. He

can pay also by his wife or daughter.[652] Amongst the

Ewe-speaking tribes a woman who is condemned to a fine may sell

or pawn her children, if her husband will not give her the amount

to be paid. The husbands often hold back until the women pawn the

children to them, whereby they obtain complete control of the

children.[653] Their slaves are criminals and debtors, or, if

foreigners, are victims of war or of kidnapping. They are not

regarded with contempt, are well treated, do not have as hard a

lot as an English agricultural laborer, and often attain to

wealth and honor. The master-owner may not kill a slave.[654] In

Bornu the women slaves find favor in the eyes of their masters,

and by amiability win affection. If they have children they win a

firm position, "for only the most stringent circumstances could

compel a Moslem, whose ideas are reasonably correct, to sell the

mother of his children."[655] The Somal and Afar do not deal much

in slaves. They use women and a pariah class. A Somal is never

slave to a Somal, and war captives are not made slaves. Also

amongst the Galla it appears that debtor slavery does not exist.

Criminal slavery does, however, exist, and is used by the chiefs.

It is honorable to treat slaves well. In Kaffa the slaves are

lazy and pretentious, because they know that their owners do not

look to them for labor, but speculate on their children, whom

they will sell.[656] In general, in East Africa, the master-owner

has not the power of life and death, and the slave has a right of

property. "A headman (of a village) in debt sells first his

slaves, then his sisters, then his mother, and lastly his free

wives, after which he has nothing left."[657] Stuhlmann[658] says

that slaves in Uganda are well treated, as members of the family.

Brunache[659] says the same of the Congo tribes so far as they

have not been contaminated by contact with whites. This may be

regarded as characteristic of African slavery. The Vanika of

eastern Africa are herding nomads. They cannot use slaves, and

make war only to steal cattle.[660] Bushmen love liberty. They

submit to no slavery. They are hunters of a low grade. They hate

cattle, as the basis of a life which is different from (higher

than) their own. They massacre cattle which they cannot steal or

carry away.[661] Mungo Park described free negroes reduced to

slavery by famine.[662] In Ashanti a man and a woman discovered

in the act in the bush, or in the open air, are slaves of him who

discovered them, but they are redeemable by their families.[663]

Ashanti slavery is domestic and very mild. The slave marries his

master's daughter and plays with the master. He also eats from

the same dish.[664] Slavery of this form is never cruel or

harsh. Debt slavery is harder, for the services of the pawn count

for nothing on the debt.[665] The effect of the abolition of

slavery in Algeria was stupor amongst master-owners and grief

amongst slaves. The former wondered how it could be wrong to care

for persons who would have been eaten by their fellow-countrymen

if they had succumbed to the hard struggle for existence at home.

The latter saw themselves free--really free--in the desert, with

no supply of food, clothing, or other supplies, and no human

ties.[666] In all families of well-to-do people little negroes

are found. The author saw one who told her that the lady of the

house had suckled him.[667] It is reported from eastern Borneo

that a white man could hire no natives for wages. They thought it

degrading to work for wages, but if he would buy them they would

work for him.[668] In spite of what has been said above about

slavery on the west coast of Africa it is to be remembered that

the master-owner has the power of life and death and that he

often uses it. If he is condemned to death for a crime, he can

give a slave to be executed in his place.[669] In eastern Angola,

if a woman dies in childbirth, her husband has to pay her

parents. If he cannot, he becomes their slave.[670] In South

Africa Holub found that the fiercest slave chasers were blacks,

who had slaves at home and treated them worse than Mohammedans

ever did.[671] Formerly a Kaffir would work in the diamond mines

for three marks a day until he got money enough to buy cattle and

to buy a woman at home, a European suit, a kettle, and a rifle.

Then he went home and set up an establishment. Then he would

return to earn more and buy more wives, who would support him to

his life's end.[672] The stronger Hottentot tribes hold classes

of their own population, or mountain Damara and Bushmen, in

servitude, although no law defines a "slave." Those people hold

the treatment they receive to be due to their origin. Amongst all

South African tribes the rich exert their power to subjugate the

poor, who hang upon them in a kind of clientage, hoping to

receive something. Cruelty and even murder are not punished by

the judges.[673]

+276. Family slavery.+ The savage form of slavery in Africa furnishes us

one generalization which may be adopted with confidence. Whenever slaves

live in a family, sharing in the family life and associating freely

with the male members of it in work, religion, play, etc., the slavery

is of a very light type and implies no hardship for the slave.

+277. Slavery in North America among savages.+ Slavery is

believed to have existed amongst the Indians of Virginia. "They

made war, not for land or goods, but for women and children, whom

they put not to death, but made them do service."[674] The young

men and slaves worked in the fields of the Mississippi valley.

The latter were not overworked.[675] The Algonquins made slaves

of their prisoners, especially of the women and children.[676]

The Illinois are represented as an intermediate party who got

slaves in the South and sold them in the West.[677] The Wisconsin

tribes used to make captives of Pawnees, Osages, Missouris, and

Mandans. When Pawnees were such captives (slaves) they were

treated with severity.[678] In the Gulf region of North America

slavery was common from the earliest times. That slaves might not

escape, a sinew in the leg was cut, by the Six Nations.[679] On

the northwestern coast of North America slavery was far more

developed than east of the Rocky Mountains. In Oregon and

Washington slavery was interwoven with the social polity. Slaves

were also harshly treated, as property, not within the limits of

humanity. For a man to kill a half dozen of his own slaves was a

sign of generous magnanimity on his part. One tribe stole

captives from its weaker neighbors. Hence the slave trade is an

important part of the commerce of all the tribes up to

Alaska.[680] In 1841 it was reckoned that one third of the entire

population from northern British Columbia to southern Alaska were

"slaves of the most helpless and abject description." "The great

supply was obtained by trade with the southern Indians, in which

the Tsimshian acted as middlemen. They were kidnapped or captured

by the southern Indians from their own adjacent tribes and sold

to the Tsimshian, who traded them to the northern Thlinkit and

interior Tinné tribes for furs." "Slaves did all the drudgery,

fished for their owner, strengthened his force in war, were not

allowed to hold property or to marry, and when old and worthless

were killed. The master's power was unlimited." The slave must

commit any crime at the command of the master. The slaves were

set free at some ceremonies, but they were put to death at the

funerals of chiefs, or as foundation sacrifices, or in reparation

for insults or wrongs. The northern Indians were more warlike and

would not make good slaves. The Oregon flatheads were docile and

industrious.[681] The Chinooks became the wealthiest tribe in the

region by acting as middlemen to sell war captives taken inland

as far from home as possible.[682] Amongst the Thlinkits slaves

are forbidden to wear the labret, and sex intercourse with a

slave woman disgraces a free man.[683] "Amongst the early Central

Americans the slave who achieved any feat of valor in war

received his liberty and was adopted by the Capulli, or

clan."[684] In Mexico there were slaves of three

classes,--criminals, war captives, and persons who had

voluntarily sold themselves or had been sold by their parents.

The captor generally sacrificed a prisoner, but might hold him as

a slave. Those who sold themselves did so to get a fund for

gambling. There was a public slave mart at Azcapuzalco. The

system is described as kind, but slaves might lose their lives

through the act of the master at feasts or funerals.[685] "Actual

slavery of the Indians in Mexico continued as late as the middle

of the seventeenth century."[686] It is evident that slavery

existed all over North and Central America, but was more

developed on the Pacific coast than in the Mississippi valley.

The meat eaters of the buffalo region had less opportunity to use

the institution.[687]

+278. Slavery in South America.+ In South America we also meet

with at least one case of a tribe, or part of a tribe, which is

in clientage to another tribe. This is a subdivision of the third

rank of the Mbaya, who voluntarily entered into a relation of

clientage to the Mbaya, giving them service under arms, and in

house and field, without being their slaves, being protected in

return by the powerful and feared tribe.[688] The Guykurus carry

on frequent wars to get captives, whom they keep in stringent

servitude. "There is, perhaps, no tribe of South American

Indians, among whom the state of slavery is so distinctly marked

as among them." Slaves and free do not intermarry, lest marriage

be profaned. There is no way in which a slave may become

free.[689] The Guykurus are the strongest tribe in the valley of

the Paraguay. They have horses and were called by the Portuguese

Cavalleiros.[690] In Brazil it was thought that the cultivation

of the country was impossible unless the Indians were made

slaves. The early laws and orders of the kings of Portugal seem

to reveal a sincere desire to control greed and cruelty. In 1570

private slave raids were forbidden and slavery was confined to

those captured in public and just war. Lisbon, however, became a

great slave mart by the law that slaves passing from one colony

(Africa) to another (America) must pass through Lisbon and pay a

tax there. Peter Martyr is quoted that slavery was necessary for

Indians who, if they had no master, would go on with their old

customs and idolatry. Slavery killed them, however. It did not

make them laborers.[691] In general, in the valley of the Yapura,

in the first half of the nineteenth century, slaves were war

captives who were very unkindly treated.[692] The aborigines

began to sell their war captives to Europeans soon after the

latter arrived. They wanted rosewood especially, and they took

Indians to Africa as slaves.[693] Boggiani[694] expresses the

opinion in regard to the savages of the Chaco, as the meadow

region on the Paraguay river is called, that slavery amongst a

people of more civilized mores, is, for them, "an incalculable

benefit," and that "to hinder slavery, in such circumstances,

would be a capital error." "It is necessary to force them to come

out of their brutelike condition, and to awaken their

intelligence, which is not wanting, if they receive practical and

energetic direction." Bridges[695] says that one Fuegian is

thrown into clientage to another by their mode of life. "For a

young man, with no wife and few relatives, must live with some

one who can protect him, and with whom he can live in comfort,

whose wife or wives can catch fish for him, etc."

+279. Slavery in Polynesia and Melanesia.+ Polynesia, Melanesia,

and the East Indies, especially the last, present us pictures of

a society which is old and whose mores have been worn threadbare,

while their stage of civilization is still very low.

Codrington[696] says: "There is no such thing as slavery,

properly so called. In head-hunting expeditions prisoners are

made for the sake of their heads, to be used when occasion

requires, and such persons live with their captors in a condition

very different from that of freedom, but they are not taken or

maintained for the purposes of slaves." Ratzel[697] says:

"Slavery prevailed everywhere in Melanesia, originating either in

war or debt. Sometimes it was hard; sometimes not." Somerville

says that "slaves are kept chiefly for their heads, which are

demanded whenever any occasion necessitates them, such as the

death of the owner." He is speaking of the Solomon Islands.[698]

What Finsch says of the Melanesians may be extended to all the

inhabitants of the South Sea islands.[699] They will not work

because they do not need to. They have few wants. Pfeil wants to

make the people of German Melanesia work, in order that they may

contribute to the tasks of the human race. The problem presents

one of the great reasons for slavery in history.

+280. Slavery in the East Indies.+ The chief of Chittagong[700]

wrote to the English governor, in 1774, that slavery in his

district was due to the sale of himself by any person who was

destitute, and had no friends or position. He and his wife must

serve the master and his wife in any desired way, including

services which a free servant would not perform, "through fear of

demeaning himself and disgracing his family." Abolition of this

slavery would produce complaints by the masters, and would not

please the servants who are used to it. "Until lately the

universal custom prevailed in the hills of having debtor slaves."

The debtor gave one of his children or a female relative to serve

as a menial until the debt should be paid. The pawned persons

"were treated as members of the creditor's family and never

exposed to harsh usage." The effect of interference by the

English was that the wives and daughters of the great men

suddenly had to do all the housework. "Debtor and creditor lost

confidence in each other."[701] "There is a detestable and actual

slavery in these hills, which is now only carried on by

independent tribes, beyond English jurisdiction. This is the

captivity to the bow and spear,--men and women taken prisoners by

force in war, and sold from master to master. The origin of this

custom was the want of women."[702] In the Chin hills there are

slaves who are war captives, or criminals, or debtors, and others

who are voluntary slaves, or slaves by birth. The master had full

power of life and death, but, in fact, slaves were well treated.

The people made raids on the Burmese lowlands and seized captives

who were held for ransom. A slave man cohabits with a slave woman

and brings up his children with affection "in the same humble,

but not necessarily unhappy, position as his own."[703] In Ceylon

there were slave persons of all ranks. Those of royal rank were

princes who were prisoners or criminals. Any one might obtain

slaves by purchase, or accept voluntary slaves who looked to him

for good support.[704] A Malay will buy of a chief a number of

war captives whom he takes to an island. Then he goes to a

Chinaman and tells him that the slaves want to work on that

island, but still owe the speaker the cost of transportation. The

Chinaman pays this and gives to the slaves, on credit, clothes,

etc., including money with which to gamble. Wages are low and

interest high. They never can pay their debts and get their

freedom again. This kind of slave trade has depopulated northern

Nias.[705] On Sumatra, when a debtor is called upon to pay and

cannot, or when he dies and does not leave enough property to pay

his debts, his children fall into semi-slavery. They can perhaps

persuade some one to pay their debts and accept their services.

If their master formally three times demands payment of them

which they cannot give, they fall into full slavery. Slavery

exists in the Malay seaport towns, but not in the rural

districts, where life is too simple.[706] In times of famine and

want parents sell their children into slavery for a little rice.

Children, especially daughters, constitute a large part of the

fortune of a house father.[707]

At Koetei, on the Mahakkam in Borneo, all well-to-do people have

debtors in pawn, whose position is somewhat better than that of

slaves. The debtors seem content and submissive. Captives taken

on head-hunting expeditions are held as slaves until human

sacrifices are wanted.[708] The souls of all those who are put to

death at the death of a Dyak rajah become his servants in the

other world. In this world the killer can command, as his fetich,

the soul of the killed. On the death of a great man his debtor

slaves are bound to the carved village post, which indicates the

glory of head-hunting, and are tortured to death.[709] "Slavery

is greatly practiced" on Timorlaut. A thief, debtor, slanderer,

or defamer may become the slave of the one he has wronged. The

slave trade is also active between the islands.[710] The slaves

of the sea Dyaks adopt their customs and become contented.

Sometimes they win affection and are adopted, freed, and married

to free women. Slaves and masters eat together the same food in

the rural villages.[711] Among the land Dyaks slaves, by

destitution and debt, "are just as happy as if perfectly free,

enjoying all the liberty of their masters, who never think of

ill-using them."[712] In old times one who set a house on fire

was liable to become the slave of any one who was burned

out.[713] Slaves on Timor do not seem to care for liberty. Their

livelihood would not be so certain. There is a kind of slavery to

the kingdom, not to any individual, but the slave cannot be sold

by the king.[714] In the Barito valley a debtor slave has to do

any kind of work. He may be punished by blows, or fines added to

his debt, which may also be increased by any breaches of customs,

or by the value of broken tools or vessels. A month after a child

is born to him ten gulden are added, also expenses of education

when the child is ready to go to work. He may be slain at a feast

of the dead by his master. The owner can torment the debtor by

new fines, and keep up the debt or even increase it.[715] In the

Katingan valley there are no debtor slaves, because after three

years a debtor who cannot pay becomes an hereditary slave, and

cannot get his liberty even if he should get the means to pay his

debt.[716] If he ever gets the means to pay and attempts to free

himself he is compelled to pay fees, taxes, and customary dues to

the "spirits of the house," etc. When he leaves his master's

house he must not return to it for a year or two, nor eat

anything brought from it--"to prove his independence." Then he

gives a feast and becomes free.[717] "Slavery and pawnship are,

in the nature of the case, the same."[718] The Dyaks put their

Eden on a cloud island. They have a myth that the daughters of

the great Being let down seven times seven hundred cords of gold

thread in order to lower mortals upon a mountain, but the mortals

were overhasty and tried to lower themselves by bamboos and

rattans. The god, angry at this, condemned them to slavery. The

myth, therefore, accounts for a caste of slaves. Formerly also

war captives and criminals who could not pay fines became slaves.

Debts cause men to fall into pawnship. Extravagant living, and

gambling, lead to this condition. If a man becomes pawn for a

debt his whole household goes with him. All have to work very

hard to try to satisfy a greedy master. The pawn is entitled to

one tenth of the harvest, or of the gain by trade. Free men

despise pawns.[719] Wilken[720] says of the Bataks that a slave,

by diligence and thrift, can always buy himself. In addition to

all the ill chances of gambling, extravagance, making love to

another man's wife, etc., by which a man may become a debtor

slave, customs exist which are traps for the unwary. Sago and

rice are left in the woods, in some islands, until wanted. If a

man passes the store, he is supposed to take away the spirit of

the goods. If caught, he and all his family become slaves. If a

man dies who was wont to fish at a certain place, the place

becomes taboo to his ghost. Any one who fishes there becomes a

slave to his family. Also, if a district is in mourning, any one

who breaks the mourning customs is made a slave.[721] The

education of the Chinese in ethical doctrines has made slavery

amongst them slight and mild. It is attributed to poverty, which

forces parents to sell their daughters.[722] The owners must

provide female slaves with husbands, and the law forbids the

separation of husband and wife, or of parents and little

children.[723] It appears that slavery is forbidden by law, but

is tolerated in the case where the parents are poor. Boys once

enslaved continue in bondage and their children follow them, but

there is no legal possession. Girls become free at marriage.[724]

+281. Slavery in Asia.+ Slavery in Asia is of a kind which puts the

slave largely at the mercy of his owner, but the mores have taught the

slave owner to use his power with consideration. This is generally, not

universally, true. Nivedita says[725] that "slavery in Asia, under the

régime of great religious systems, has never meant what Europe and

America have made of it.... It is a curious consequence of this humanity

of custom [or rather, of the judgment in the mores as to the wisest

course of conduct in a class of cases] that the word 'slave' cannot be

made to sting the Asiatic consciousness as it does the European."

+282. Slavery in Japan.+ In Japan slavery was a common punishment, in

early times, for crime. Debtors unable to pay became slaves of their

creditors, and thieves were made slaves of those whom they had robbed.

The attempt to introduce Christianity into Japan and the resistance to

it led to the slavery of many Christian converts, if they refused after

torture to recant. This was an alternative to death. Slaves were

tattooed with marks to show ownership. "Slaves were bought and sold like

cattle in early times, or presented as tribute by their owners,--a

practice constantly referred to in the ancient records." Their sex

unions were not recognized. "In the seventh century, however, private

slaves were declared state property, and great numbers were then

emancipated, including nearly all,--probably all, who were artisans, or

followed useful callings. Gradually a large class of freedmen came

into existence, but until modern times the great mass of the common

people appear to have remained in a condition analogous to

serfdom."[726]

+283. Slavery in higher civilization.+ It appears quite clear that men

in savagery and barbarism used each other, if they could, to serve their

interests, and slavery resulted. The hardships of life caused it. The

rules of war were "Woe to the vanquished!" and "To the victors the

spoils." Debt was a relation which might come about between two men from

incidents in the struggle for existence, or from loans of money and

goods. All mischance might be converted into lack of resources (money

and goods), and he who borrowed fell into dependence and servitude. All

violations of custom and law led to fines; all need of civil authority

made it necessary to pay fees. The debtor pledged his future working

time. His relation to his creditor was personal. That he was a borrower

proved that he had nothing which could form a property security. The

laws of Hammurabi provide that a debtor may give his wife and children

as pawn slaves, but only for three years. In the fourth year the

creditor was to set them free. The pawn persons were to be well

treated. A slave given in pawn might be sold, but not if it was a female

slave with children.[727] To aid or conceal a fugitive slave was a

capital offense.[728] Many Chaldean contracts have been found in which

the debtor bound himself to work for the creditor until he should pay

the debt.[729] It appears that the Babylonian slaves could form a

_peculium_ and carry on business with it as a capital, paying their

owners a tax upon it.[730]

+284. Slavery amongst Jews.+ The Jewish law had a provision like that in

the law of Hammurabi, except that the limit was six years instead of

three. A debtor was not to be a slave, but to give service until the

year of jubilee.[731] In 2 Kings iv. 1 the widow tells Elisha that her

husband's creditors will come and take her two sons to be bondmen. The

creditors of some of the Jews who returned from exile threatened to make

them debtor slaves. Nehemiah appealed to them not to do so.[732] In

Matt. xviii. 25 the man who could not pay was to be sold with his wife

and children. Kidnapping was punishable by death.[733] In Job xxxi. 15

we find the ultimate philosophico-religious reason for repudiating

slavery: "Has not He who made me made him [the slave] also in his

mother's womb?" The laws of the "Book of Covenants" begin with laws

about slaves.[734] A male slave, with his wife, is to be freed in the

seventh year, unless he prefers to remain a slave. A man may sell his

daughter into slavery, i.e. to be a concubine. There was no difference

in principle between a daughter given to wife and one sold to be a

concubine. In Deut. xv. 12 the female slave is also set free in the

seventh year, and persons so freed are to be given gifts when they

depart. The slaves were war captives, or bought persons, or

criminals.[735] The lot of slaves was not hard. The owners had not the

power of life and death. The slave could acquire property.[736] If the

slave was an Israelite he was protected by especial restrictions on the

master in behalf of fellow-countrymen.[737]

+285. Slavery in the classical states.+ Slavery came to the two great

classical states from the antecedent facts of savage and barbaric life.

When Aristotle came to study slavery he could not find a time when it

was not. We have seen how it had become one of the leading institutions

of uncivilized society, and how it had been developed in different forms

and degrees. The two great classical states, more especially Rome, built

their power on slavery. Both states pursued their interests with little

care for the pain they might inflict on others, or the cost in the

happiness of others. The Roman state began by subjugating its nearest

neighbors. It used its war captives as slaves, increased its power,

conquered more, and repeated the process until it used up all the known

world. The Phoenicians were merchants, who kidnapped men, women, and

children, if they found opportunity, and sold them into slavery far from

home. The Ionians, who grew rich by commerce, bought slaves and

organized states in which slaves did all the productive work. In both

Greece and Rome productive work came to be despised. One is amazed to

find how easily any one who went on a journey might fall into slavery,

or how recklessly the democracy of one city voted to sell the people of

a defeated city into slavery, yet how unhesitatingly everybody accepted

and repeated the current opinions about the baseness of slave character.

Homer says that a slave has only half the soul of a man.[738] The love

stories in the _Scriptores Erotici_ very often contain an incident of

kidnapping. The story of Eumæus must have been that of many a

slave.[739] It is also only rarely and very incidentally that the

classical writers show any pity for slaves, although they often speak of

the sadness of slavery.[740] If any man, especially a merchant, who went

on a journey incurred a great risk of slavery, why was not slavery a

familiar danger of every man, and therefore a matter for pity and

sympathy? In the great tragedies the woes of slavery, especially the

contrasts for princes and princesses, heroes and heroines, are often

presented. Polyxena, in Euripides's _Hekuba_, 360, bewails her

anticipated lot as a slave. A fierce master will buy her. She will have

to knead bread for him, to sweep and weave, leading a miserable life,

given as wife to some base slave. She prefers to be sacrificed at

Achilles's tomb. When the Greeks were going to kill her, she asked them

to keep their hands off. She would submit. Let her die free. "It would

be a shame to me, royal, to be called a slave amongst the dead." In the

_Trojan Women_ the screams of the Trojan women are heard, as they are

distributed by lot to their new Greek masters. The play is full of the

woes of slavery. At Athens slaves enjoyed great freedom of manners and

conduct. They dressed like the poorest freedmen. No one dare misuse the

slave of another simply because he was a slave. If the master abused a

slave, the latter had an asylum in the temple and could demand to be

sold. Slaves could pursue any trade which they knew, paying a stipulated

sum to their owners, and could thus buy their manumission. Their

happiness, however, depended on the will of another.[741] In the law

they were owned as things were, and could be given, lent, sold, and

bequeathed. They could not possess property, nor have wives in assured

exclusive possession against masters. Their children belonged to their

masters. Plato thought that nature had made some to command, others to

serve.[742] He thought the soul of a slave base, incapable of good,

unworthy of confidence.[743] Aristotle thought that every well-appointed

house needs animate and inanimate tools. The animate tools are slaves,

who have souls, but not like those of their masters. They lack will.

Slaves are like members of the master, ruled by his will. Their virtue

is obedience.[744] He says that there were men in his time who said that

slavery was an injustice due to violence and established by law.[745]

+286. Slavery at Rome.+ It is in ancient Rome that we find slavery most

thoroughly developed. Any civilization which accomplishes any great

results must do so by virtue of force which it has at its disposal. The

Romans conquered and enslaved their nearest neighbors. By virtue of

their increased power they extended their conquests. They repeated this

process until they had consumed all the known world. The city of Rome

was a center towards which all the wealth of the world was drawn. There

was no reverse current of goods. What went out from Rome was

government,--peace, order, and security. The provinces probably for a

time made a good bargain, although the price was high. In the earliest

times slaves were used for housework, but were few in number per

household. In 150 B.C. a patrician left to his son only ten. Crassus had

more than five hundred. C. Caec. Claudius, in the time of Augustus, had

4116.[746] In the early days a father and his sons cultivated a holding

together. Slaves were used when more help was needed. There was one

slave to three sons and they lived in constant association of work and

play. When conquest rendered slaves numerous and cheap, free laborers

disappeared.[747] Ti. Semp. Gracchus, in 177 B.C., after the war in

Sardinia, sold so many Sardinian slaves that "cheap as a Sardinian"

became a proverb.[748] His son Tiberius is reported to have been led

into his agrarian enterprise by noticing that the lands of Etruria were

populated only by a few slaves of foreign birth.[749] Bücher[750] puts

together the following statistics of persons reduced to slavery about

200 B.C.: after the capture of Tarentum (209 B.C.), 30,000; in 207 B.C.,

5400; in 200 B.C., 15,000.[751] Roman slaves were not allowed to marry

until a late date. They were systematically worked as hard as it was

possible to make them work, and were sold or exposed to perish when too

old to work. Such was the policy taught by the older Cato.[752] The

number on the market was always great; the price was low; it was more

advantageous to work them so hard that they had no time or strength to

plot revolts. This is the most cynical refusal to regard slaves as human

beings which can be found in history. They were liable to be tortured in

their owners' cases in court. They might be given over to the

gladiatorial shows and set to fight each other, or wild beasts.

Seventy-eight gladiators condemned to fight to the death revolted in 74

B.C. under Spartacus, who defeated five armies. Crassus was sent

against him with eight legions. Lucullus was recalled from Thrace and

Pompey from Spain. Spartacus was cut to pieces in his last battle.

Crassus crucified six thousand prisoners along the road from Capua to

Rome.[753]

+287. Slave revolts.+ The severity of the Roman system of slavery

is shown by the number of revolts and the severe proceedings in

each of them. There was such a revolt in 499 B.C. The guilty were

crucified. The following year there was another.[754] In 416

there was another. The aim always was to take the citadel and

burn the city.[755] Sicily was covered with a swarm of slaves at

the beginning of the second century B.C. They were especially

Syrians, very tough and patient. They were managed under Cato's

plan: "Work or sleep!" In 196 B.C. the slaves in Etruria revolted

and were suppressed with great severity.[756] In 104 those of

Sicily revolted. They were subdued four years later and the last

remnant were sent to Rome to fight beasts. They killed themselves

in the arena.[757] The later Roman system was that the mob of the

city put the world in the hands of one or another, and he gave

them bread and games as their part of the plunder. The

_frumentaria_ were the permanent and steady pay of the "world

conquerors." They made herding the best use of Italian land.

"Where before industrious peasants prospered in glad contentment,

now unfree herdsmen, in wide wastes, drove the immense herds of

Roman senators and knights."[758] The Sicilian landowners left

their shepherds to steal what they needed, so that they were

educated to brigandage. The greatest sufferer was the small

freeman.[759] There is a story in Diodorus,[760] of Damophilos,

an owner of great _latifundia_, whose slaves came to him to beg

clothes. He replied: "Do the travelers, then, go naked through

the country? Are they not bound to pay toll to him who needs

clothes?" He caused them to be flogged and sent them back to

work. The misery of the slave population seems to have reached

its acme at Enna where two roads across the island cross each

other. The town lies 3000 feet high. It was a great fortress down

into the Middle Ages.[761] At this place began a slave revolt,

led by a Syrian skilled in sorcery. The slaves took the city and

engaged in rapine and murder. A band was sent to capture

Damophilos. The men killed him, and the women his wife. Their

daughter was sent in security to her relatives.[762] It was ten

years before peace was restored to the island.

+288. Later Roman slavery. Slaves in the civil wars. Clientage.+ Down to

about 200 B.C. slavery, although mechanical and cruel, was domestic. The

slave was a member of the household, on intimate terms with the master

or his children, shared in the religious exercises, and the graves of

slaves were under religious protection.[763] In the second century B.C.

Roman expansion gained momentum and produced power and wealth. The

factions of the city were fighting for control of the booty. Roman

character became mechanical and hard. This affected the type of slavery.

By 100 B.C. Carthaginians, Greeks, and Romans had developed a system of

holding slaves which was cruel and reckless, and slaves had acquired a

character of hatred, venom, and desire for revenge. They were malignant,

cunning, and hypocritical.[764] In the civil wars each leader sought the

help of slaves. Sulla set free 10,000 of them, whom he put in the tribes

of the city.[765] After the battle of Cannæ the Romans armed 8000 slaves

whom they enfranchised.[766] Æmilius Paulus sold 15,000 Epirotes. Marius

made 90,000 Teutons captives at Aquæ Sextiæ and 60,000 Cimbrians at

Vercellæ. When Marius offered liberty to slaves only three followed

him.[767] Sulla promised liberty to the slaves of the proscribed, if

they would bear testimony against their masters. One did so. Sulla freed

him, but then put him to death. Thus the slaves were the sport of

political factions and leaders. The Roman conquests caused everywhere a

certain servile temper. All conquered people were depressed into

quasi-slavery. All had to pay a head tax, which was a mark of servitude.

The Roman system reduced all to servitude. A late emperor called the

senators "slaves in the toga." When all were rendered _nil_ under the

emperor the slaves gained. They were not in worse case than the

rest.[768] During the conquests entire peoples became clients. If any

one did not attach himself as client to a great family he was lost.

Freed women, for this reason, almost always fell into vice.[769]

Clientage became the refuge of loafers. "Romans did not give anything

gratis." All who were outside the social system had to seek the

patronage of a great man. For his protection he took pay in money or

service. The status was a modified slavery.

+289. Manumission. Natural liberty.+ The slave dealers developed tricks

far surpassing those of horse dealers in modern times.[770] By

enfranchisement the owner got rid of the worst worry of slavery, and

tied the freedman to himself by a contract which it was for the interest

of the freedman to fulfill. The owner made a crafty gain.[771]

Tacitus[772] says that, in his time, the Roman people was almost

entirely freedmen. If that is so, we must notice that the "people,"

under the empire, are a different set from what they were under the

republic. When the Romans got an educated artisan as a slave they set

him to teach a number of others. When no more outsiders were conquered

and enslaved the slaves taught each other. The work then became gross

and ran down.[773] This was another of the ways in which Rome consumed

the products and culture of the world. Very few instances, real or

fictitious, of sympathy with slaves can be cited. In the story of

_Trimalchio_, Encolpius and his friends beg off a slave who is to be

whipped for losing the garment of another slave in the bath. At a supper

at which Augustus was present a slave broke a vase. His master ordered

him cast to the _murenae_ in a tank. The slave begged Augustus to obtain

for him an easier death, which Augustus tried to do. The master refused.

Augustus then gave the slave complete grace, broke the host's other

vases himself, and ordered the tank filled up.[774] Under Nero, Pedanius

having been murdered, his slaves, four hundred in number, were all

condemned to death, according to law. The populace rose against this

sentence, which was fulfilled, but it shows that there was a popular

judgment which would respond upon occasion.[775] "Not once, in all

antiquity, does a serious thought about the abolition of slavery

arise."[776] It was the basis of the entire social and political order.

They were in terror of the slaves and despised them, but could not

conceive of a world without them. Probably we could not either, if we

had not machines by means of which we make steam and electricity work

for us. Individuals were manumitted on account of the gain to the

master. The owner said, in the presence of a magistrate, "I will that

this man be free, after the manner of the Quirites." The magistrate

touched the head of the slave with his rod, the master boxed his ears,

and he was a free man.[777] The law provided a writ, "resembling in some

respects the writ of _habeas corpus_, to compel any one who detained an

alleged freedman to present him before a judge."[778] The Roman lawyers

also, if they could find a moment during gestation when the mother had

been free, employed legal fiction to assume that the child had been born

at that moment.[779] Florentinus defined slavery as "a custom of the law

of nations by which one man, contrary to the law of nature, is subjected

to the dominion of another."[780] Ulpian likewise said that, "as far as

natural law is concerned, all men are equal."[781]

+290. Slavery as represented in the inscriptions.+ "The inscriptions

reveal to us a better side of slave life, which is not so prominent in

our literary authorities." They show cases of strong conjugal affection

between slave spouses, and of affection between master and slave.[782]

In the first century the waste of the fortunes won by extortion from the

provinces, and the opening of industrial opportunities by commerce, with

security, gave great stimulus to free industry. The inscriptions "show

the enormous and flourishing development of skilled handicrafts," with

minute specialization. "The immense development of the free proletariat,

in the time of the early empire, is one of the most striking social

phenomena which the study of the inscriptions has brought to light." The

time was then past when Roman society depended entirely on slave labor

for the supply of all its wants.[783] Dill thinks that "the new class of

free artisans and traders had often, so far as we can judge by stone

records, a sound and healthy life, sobered and dignified by honest toil,

and the pride of skill and independence."[784] The slave acted only

under two motives, fear and sensuality. Both made him cowardly,

cringing, cunning, and false, and at the same time fond of good eating

and drinking and of sensual indulgence. As he was subject to the orders

of others, he lacked character, and this suited his master all the

better. The morality of slaves extended in the society, and the society

was guided by the views of freedmen in its intellectual activity. The

strongest symptom of this was the prevalence of a morality of tips,

which put on the forms of liberality. It was no more disgrace to take

gifts than to give them. Senators took gifts from the emperor, and all,

including the emperor, reckoned on legacies. Thus the lack of character

spread.[785] Slavery proved a great corrupter of both slaves and owners.

It was the chief cause of the downfall of the state which had been

created by it. It made cowards of both owners and slaves. "The woes of

negro slaves were insignificant, like a drop to an ocean, in comparison

with the sufferings of ancient slaves, for the latter generally belonged

to civilized peoples."[786]

+291. Rise of the freedmen in industry.+ The freedmen were the ones who

were free from the old Roman contempt for productive labor. They seized

the chances for industry and commerce and amassed wealth. "Not only are

they crowding all the meaner trades [in the first and second centuries

of the Christian era], from which Roman pride shrank contemptuously,

but, by industry, shrewdness, and speculative daring, they are becoming

great capitalists and landowners on a senatorial scale."[787] "The

plebeian, saturated with Roman prejudice, looking for support to the

granaries of the state or the dole of the wealthy patron, turned with

disdain from the occupations which are in our days thought innocent, if

not honorable."[788] "After all reservations, the ascent of the freedmen

remains a great and beneficent revolution. The very reasons which made

Juvenal hate it most are its best justification to a modern mind. It

gave hope of a future to the slave. By creating a free industrial class

it helped to break down the cramped social ideal of the slave owner and

the soldier. It planted in every municipality a vigorous mercantile

class, who were often excellent and generous citizens. Above all, it

asserted the dignity of man."[789] But for the freedmen the society

seems to have contained but two classes,--"a small class of immensely

wealthy people, and an almost starving proletariat."[790]

+292. The freedmen in the state.+ Every despot needs ministers. The

history of all despotisms shows that they find those best suited to

their purpose in persons of humble rank. They can use such ministers

against nobles or other great men, and can command their complete

loyalty. Julius Cæsar made some of his freedmen officers of the mint. It

was simply an extension of the usage of aristocratic households. The

emperor employed freedmen to write letters and administer the finances

of the empire as he would have used them to manage his private estate.

"Under Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, the imperial freedmen attained

their greatest ascendancy. Callistus, Narcissus, and Pallas rose to the

rank of great ministers, and, in the reign of Claudius, were practically

masters of the world. They accumulated enormous wealth by abusing their

power, and making a traffic in civic rights, in places, or

pardons."[791] The freedmen favorites carried the evil effects of

slavery on character to another stage and were agents of the corruption

of the new form of the state by the inheritance of slavery. "The women

of the freedmen class, for generations, wielded, in their own way, a

power which sometimes rivaled that of the men." They often had great

charms of person and mind. "Their morals were the result of an uncertain

social position, combined with personal attractions, and education."

Some of them did great mischief. Panthea, mistress of Lucius Verus, is

celebrated as one of the most beautiful women who ever lived. She had a

lovely voice, was fond of music and poetry, and had a very superior

mind. She "never lost her natural modesty and simple sweetness."[792] In

the first century some freedmen married daughters of senatorial houses.

They were very able men. No others could have performed the duties of

the three great secretaryships,--appeals, petitions, and correspondence.

The fortunes of these men were often adventurous in the extreme, like

those of the ministers of sultans in the Arabian Nights. A slave,

advanced to a higher position in a household, then to a position of

confidence, where he proved his ability and devotion, got a great office

and became master of the world. Men of this kind have always been

refused social status.[793] In the second century the system was

changed, and knights became the great officers of administration.

+293. Philosophers opponents of slavery.+ The great neostoics of the

first century first denounced slavery and uttered the great humanitarian

doctrines. The real question in regard to Roman slavery was this: Is a

slave not a man? If he was one, he was either the victim of misfortune

or the inheritor of the misfortune of an ancestor. If he did not thereby

lose human status as a member of the race he deserved pity and help. The

humanitarian philosophy, therefore, had the simplest task and the most

direct application. Dio Chrysostom declared the evil effects of slavery

on the masters, sensuality, languor, and dependence. He pointed out the

wide difference between personal status and character,--the possible

nobility of a slave and the possible servility of a freeman.[794] Seneca

especially taught the abstract philosophy of liberalism, kindness, and

humanity. He represented a movement in public opinion. Pliny cultivated

all the graces of the debonair gentleman. Dill compares him to a "kindly

English squire." The inscriptions show that "his household was by no

means a rare exception."[795] Slaves had such perquisites and chances

that "the slave could easily purchase his own freedom." "The trusted

slave was often actually a partner, with a share of the profits of an

estate, or he had a commission on the returns."[796] Plutarch's whole

philosophy of life is gentle and kindly. It is unemotional and

nonstimulating. The neostoics had the character of an esoteric sect. We

never are sure that their writings are any more than rhetorical

exercises, or that they act or expect others to act by their precepts.

Slavery was such a fact in the social order that no one could conceive

of the abolition of it, or propose abolition as a thing within the scope

of statesmanship.

+294. The industrial colleges.+ The Romans had a genius for association

and organization. Under the republic artisans began to unite in

colleges. In the last century of the republic the political leaders took

alarm at these unions and forbade them. Cæsar and Augustus abolished the

right of association. In the second century a certain number of

societies existed, in spite of prohibitions,--miners, salt workers,

bakers, and boatmen. Until Justinian all such unions were carefully

watched as dangerous to public peace and order. In the civil law they

were authorized, and made like natural persons.[797] The fashion of them

became very popular. "The colleges in which the artisans and traders of

the Antonine age grouped themselves are almost innumerable, even in the

records which time has spared. They represent almost every conceivable

branch of industry, or special skill, or social service."[798] "Men

formed themselves into these groups for the most trivial or whimsical

reasons, or for no reason at all, except that they lived in the same

quarter and often met. From the view which the inscriptions give us of

the interior of some of these clubs, it is clear that their main purpose

was social pleasure."[799] "And yet, many an inscription leaves the

impression that these little societies of the old pagan world are

nurseries, in an imperfect way, of gentle charities and

brotherliness."[800] They had many honorary members from among the

richer classes. Wandering merchants and military veterans, as well as

young men fond of sport, formed clubs on the same type. Alexander

Severus organized all the industrial colleges and assigned them

_defensores_. In the colleges all were equal, so that they were

educational in effect. "But these instances cannot make us forget the

cruel contempt and barbarity of which the slave was still the victim,

and which was to be his lot for many generations yet to run. Therefore

the improvement in the condition of the slave, or of his poor plebeian

brother, by the theoretical equality in the colleges may be easily

exaggerated."[801] The statesmen had feared that the artisans might use

their organization to interfere in politics. What happened in the fourth

century was that the state used the organizations to reduce the artisans

to servitude, and to subject them to heavy social obligations by law.

+295. Laws changed in favor of slaves.+ When the conquests ceased and

the supply of new slaves was reduced those slaves who were born in the

households or on the estates came into gentler relations to their

owners. Slaves rose in value and were worth more care. The old plan of

Cato became uneconomical. All sentiments were softened in the first

century as war became less constant, less important, and more remote.

The empire was an assumption by the state of functions and powers which

had been family powers and functions, and part of the _patria potestas_.

Women, children, and slaves shared in emancipation until the state made

laws to execute its jurisdiction over them. Hadrian took from masters

the power of life and death over slaves. Antoninus Pius confirmed this,

and provided that he who killed his own slave should suffer the same

penalty as he who killed the slave of another.[802] This brought the

life of every slave into the protection of the state. Under Nero a judge

was appointed to hear the complaints of slaves and to punish owners who

misused them. Domitian forbade castration. Hadrian forbade the sale of

slaves to be gladiators. The right to sell female slaves into brothels

was also abolished.[803]

+296. Christianity and slavery.+ In 1853 C. Schmidt published an essay

on the "Civil Society of the Roman World and its Transformation by

Christianity," in which he thought it right to attribute all the

softening of the mores in the first three Christian centuries to

Christianity. Lecky, on the other hand, says: "Slavery was distinctly

and formally recognized by Christianity, and no religion ever labored

more to encourage a habit of docility and passive obedience."[804]

Schmidt is obliged to take the ground that Christianity received and

accepted slavery as a current institution, in which property rights

existed, and that it suffered these to stand. If that is true, then

Christianity could not exert much influence on civil society. What

Christianity did was to counteract to a great extent the sentiment of

contempt for slaves and for work. It did this ritually, because in the

church, and especially in the Lord's Supper, all participated alike and

equally in the rites. The doctrine that Christ died for all alike

combined with the philosophical and humanitarian doctrine that men are

of the same constitution and physique to produce a state of mind hostile

to slavery. In the fourth century the church began to own great

possessions, including slaves, and it accepted the standpoint of the

property owner.[805] In the Saturnalia of Macrobius (fl. 400 A.D.)

Prætextatus reaffirms the old neostoic doctrine about slavery, of Seneca

and Dio Chrysostom. Dill[806] takes the doctrine to be the expression of

the convictions of the best and most thoughtful men of that time. It is

not to be found in Jerome, Augustine, or Chrysostom. Nevertheless the

church favored manumission and took charge of the ceremony. It

especially favored it when the manumitted would become priests or monks.

The church came nearest to the realization of its own doctrines when it

refused to consider slave birth a barrier to priesthood. In all the

penitential discipline of the church also bond and free were on an

equality. The intermarriage of slave and free was still forbidden.

Constantine ordered that if a free woman had intercourse with her slave

she should be executed and he should be burned alive.[807] The pagan law

only ordered that she should be reduced to slavery. The manumissions

under Constantine were believed, in the sixteenth century, to have

caused almshouses and hospitals to be built, on account of the great

numbers of helpless persons set adrift.[808] Basil the Macedonian

([Symbol: cross] 886) first enacted that slaves might have an

ecclesiastical marriage, but the prejudice of centuries made this

enactment vain.[809] The abolition of crucifixion had special value to

the slave class. There was no longer a special and most infamous mode of

execution for them. A law of Constantine forbade the separation of

members of a family of slaves.[810] These are the most important changes

in the law of slavery until the time of the codex of Justinian. Lecky

thinks that Justinian advanced the law beyond what his predecessors had

done more in regard to slavery than on any other point. His changes

touched three points: (1) He abolished all the restrictions on

enfranchisement which remained from the old pagan laws, and encouraged

it. (2) He abolished the freedmen as an intermediate class, so that

there remained only slave and free, and a senator could marry a freed

woman, i.e. a slave whom he had already freed. (3) A slave might marry a

free woman, if his master consented, and her children, born in slavery,

became free if the father was enfranchised. The punishment for the rape

of a slave woman was made death, the same as for the rape of a free

woman.[811] Isidore of Seville ([Symbol: cross] 636) said: "A just God

alloted life to men, making some slaves and some lords, that the liberty

of ill-doing on the part of slaves might be restrained by the authority

of rulers." Still he says that all men are equal before God, and that

Christ's redemption has wiped away original sin, which was the cause of

slavery.[812]

+297. The colonate.+ At the end of the empire population was declining,

land was going out of use and returning to wilderness, the petty

grandees in towns were crushed by taxes into poverty, artisans were

running away and becoming brigands because the state was immobilizing

them, and peasants were changed into colons. The imperial system went on

until the man, the emperor, was above all laws, the senate were slaves,

and the provinces were the booty of the emperor. The whole system then

became immobilized. What the colons were and how they came into

existence has been much disputed. They were immobilized peasants. We

find them an object of legislation in the _codex Theodosianus_ in the

fourth century. They were personally free (they could marry, own

property, could not be sold), but they were bound to the soil by birth

and passed with it. They cultivated the land of a lord, and paid part of

the crops or money.[813] Marquardt thinks that they arose from

barbarians quartered in the Roman empire.[814] Heisterbergk[815] thinks

that there are three possible sources, between which he does not

decide,--impoverished freemen, emancipated slaves, barbarian prisoners.

Wallon[816] ascribes the colonate to the administration. As society

degenerated it became harder and harder to get the revenue, and the

state adopted administrative measures to get the property of any one who

had any. This system impoverished everybody. To carry it out it was

necessary to immobilize everybody, to force each one to accept the

conditions of his birth as a status from which he could not escape. What

made the colonate, then, was misery.[817] Emancipated slaves and

impoverished peasants met in the class of colons, in state servitude.

The proprietors were only farmers for the state. The tribute was the due

of the state. Laborers were enrolled in the census and held for the

state. The interest of the _fiscus_ held the colon to the soil.[818] The

words "colon" and "slave" are used interchangeably in the _codex

Justinianus_.

+298. Depopulation.+ The depopulation of Italy under the empire is amply

proved. Vespasian moved population from Umbria and the Sabine territory

to the plain of Rome.[819] Marcus Aurelius established the Marcomanni in

Italy.[820] Pertinax offered land in Italy and the provinces to any one

who would cultivate it.[821] Aurelian tried to get land occupied.[822]

He sent barbarians to settle in Tuscany.[823] As time went on more and

more land was abandoned and greater efforts were made to secure

settlers. Valentinian settled German prisoners in the valley of the

Po.[824] In the time of Honorius, in Campania five hundred thousand

arpents were discharged from the _fiscus_ as deserted and waste. In the

third century, if the colon ran away from land which no one would take

he was pursued by all the agencies of the law and brought back like a

criminal.[825] The colons ran away because the _curiales_, their

masters, put on them the taxes which the state levied first on the

_curiales_.[826] What was wanted was men. The Roman imperial system had

made men scarce by making life hard. Pliny said that the _latifundia_

destroyed Italy. The saying has been often quoted in modern times as if

it had some unquestionable authority. It is a case of the common error

of confusing cause and consequence. The _latifundia_ were a consequence

and a symptom. Heisterbergk[827] thinks that the _latifundia_ were not

produced by economic causes, but by vanity and ostentation. The owners

did not look to the land for revenue. He asks[828] how a strictly

scientific system of grand culture with plenty of labor could ruin any

country. Rodbertus[829] thinks that the _latifundia_ went from a grand

system to a petty system between the times of the elder and the younger

Pliny by the operation of the law of rent. He thinks that there must

have been garden culture in Italy at the beginning of the empire, and

that the colonate arose from big estates with petty industry and from

the law of mortgage. He thinks, further, that the colons, until the

fourth century, were slaves, and that their status was softened by the

legislation of the fourth century. Heisterbergk thinks that the colonate

began in the corn provinces, and that it was, at the beginning of the

fourth century, on the point of passing away, but the legislation of the

fourth century perpetuated it. He thinks that it was injured, as an

institution, by the great increase of taxation after Diocletian. Then

legislation was necessary to keep the colons on the land.[830]

+299. Summary on Roman slavery.+ Chrysostom describes the misbehavior of

all classes, about 400 A.D.[831] The colons were overburdened. When they

could not pay they were tortured. A colon was flogged, chained, and

thrown into prison, where he was forgotten. His wife and child were left

in misery to support themselves, and get something for him if they

could. The Roman system, after consuming all the rest of the world,

began to consume itself. The Roman empire at last had only substituted

one kind of slaves for another. Artisans and peasants were now slaves of

the state. Slavery was at first a means. By it the subjugated countries

were organized into a great state. Then it developed its corruption. It

was made to furnish gladiators and harlots. Nowhere else do we see how

slavery makes cowards of both slaves and owners as we see it at Rome in

the days of glory. Slavery rose to control of the mores. The free men

who discussed contemporary civilization groaned over the effects of

slavery on the family and on private interests, but they did not see any

chance of otherwise getting the work done. Then all the other social

institutions and arrangements had to conform to slavery. It controlled

the mores, prescribed the ethics, and made the character. In the last

century of the Western empire the protest against it ceased. It seemed

to be accepted as inevitable, and one of the unavoidable ills of life.

It ruled society. Scarcely a man represented the old civilization who

can command our respect. The social and civic virtues were dead.

+300.+ In all the ancient world we meet with distinct repudiation of

slavery only amongst the Therapeuts, a communistic association amongst

the Jews in the last century before Christ. They were ascetics, each of

whom lived in a cell. We first hear of them through Philo Judæus (_The

Contemplative Life_) about the time of the birth of Christ. They had no

slaves. They regarded slavery as absolutely contrary to nature. Nature

produced all in a state of freedom, but the greed of some had vested

some with power over others.[832] The Therapeuts, who included women,

did their own work. They carried on no productive industry the products

of which they could give in exchange. Their system could not endure

without an endowment.[833] Bousset[834] thinks that, "if they ever

existed, they can never have had more than a limited and ephemeral

significance." Their central home was on a hill near lake Marea. Their

place of meeting, on the seventh day, was divided by a wall, three or

four cubits high, into two compartments, one for the women, the other

for the men. They reduced the consumption of food and drink as much as

possible. Sometimes they abstained for three or four days. They had a

very simple feast on the forty-ninth day, the men and women sitting

separately on coarse mattresses.[835]

+301. Slavery amongst the Germanic nations.+ According to the most

primary view, the one which we might call natural, a war captive's due

fate was to be killed in sacrifice to the god of the victor. During some

interval of time before his public execution he was set at work, and the

convenience of his services was learned. He was kept alive in order to

be employed in the labors which were the most irksome and disagreeable.

The joke of letting him live on to perform these tasks was not lost.

When, now, we turn our attention to the Germanic invaders of the Roman

empire, we are carried back to primitive barbarism. In the heroic age of

Scandinavia we find that thralls are sacrificed at Upsala at solemn

feasts in honor of the heathen gods. They were thrown from the cliffs,

or into a hole in the ground, or tortured and hung up in the clear air,

or the spine was broken.[836] In the prehistoric period of German

history the unfree were tenderly handled. "A well-born youth, who grew

up amongst the same herds and on the same land with an unfree youth,

eating and drinking together, and sharing joy and sorrow, could not

handle shamefully the comrades of the unfree man."[837] In the

Scandinavian _Rigsmal_, Rig, the hero, begets a representative of each

of three ranks,--noble, yeoman, laborer,--the first with the mother, the

second with the grandmother, and the third with the great-grandmother,

as if they had come from later and later strata of population.[838] Rig

slept between man and wife when he begot the yeoman and thrall, but not

when he begot the noble. The thrall has no marriage ceremony. The food,

dwelling, dress, furniture, occupations, and manners of the three

classes are carefully distinguished, also the physique, as if they were

racially different, and the names of the children are in each case

characteristic epithets. The great-grandfather wears the most ancient

dress; his wife provides an ash-baked loaf, flat, heavy, mixed with

bran. She bore Thrall, who was swarthy, had callous hands, bent

knuckles, thick fingers, an ugly face, a broad back, long heels.

Toddle-shankie also came sunburnt, having scarred feet, a broken nose,

called Theow. Their children were named: the boys,--Sooty, Cowherd,

Clumsy, Clod, Bastard, Mud, Log, Thickard, Laggard, Grey Coat, Lout, and

Stumpy; the girls,--Loggie, Cloggie, Lumpy [= Leggie], Snub-nosie,

Cinders, Bond-maid, Woody [= Peggy], Tatter-coatie, Crane-shankie. The

story seems to present the three classes or ranks as founded in natural

facts. Slaves were such by birth, by sale of themselves to get

maintenance (esteemed the worst of all, debtors, war captives, perhaps

victims of shipwreck), and free women who committed fornication with

slave men.[839] If a debtor would not pay he was brought into court, and

the creditor might cut off a piece [of his body] above or below.[840] A

free man would not allow his slave to be buried by his side, even if the

slave had lost his life in loyalty to his master. Slaves, criminals, and

outlaws were buried dishonorably in a place by themselves on one side.

They were harnessed to plows when there were no oxen at hand. When

Eisten, king of Opland, wanted to annihilate the Ernds, he gave them

their choice of his slave or his dog for a king. They chose the

dog.[841] The sister of King Canute bought in England most beautiful

slave men and women, who were sent to Denmark, and were sold for use

chiefly in vice.[842] Here we see again the great contempt for slaves.

It was a proverb in Scandinavia: "Put no trust in the friendship of a

thrall,"[843] although in the sagas there are many cases in which the

heroes profited by trusting them. Yet the sagas are also full of stories

of persons who fell into slavery, e.g. Astrid, widow of King Trygve

Olafson, who was found by a merchant in the slave market of Esthonia and

redeemed.[844] A thrall was despised because he feared death, and when

it impended over him hid, whimpered, begged, wept, lamented to leave his

swine and good fare, and offered to do the meanest work if he might

live. A hero bore torture bravely and met death laughing.[845] When hero

children and thrall children were changed at birth, the fraud was

discovered by the cowardice of the latter and the courage of the former,

when grown.[846] In the heroic age a conqueror could set a princess to

work at the _qvern_. In Valhalla the hero set thralls to work for his

conquered victim, to give him footbath, light fire, bind dogs, groom

horses, and feed swine. Thrall women became concubines. They worked at

the _qvern_, and wove. Love could raise them to pets. Thralls were

obtained in the lands raided, but even after they became Christians the

Scandinavians raided and enslaved each other. The Roman law system, as

the church employed it, and especially tithes, were means of reducing

the masses to servitude.[847] Beggars could be arrested and taken before

the _Thing_, where, if they were not ransomed by their relatives, they

were at the mercy of the captor.[848] Magnus Erikson ascended the throne

of Sweden, Norway, and Skona in 1333. Two years later he decreed that no

one born of Christian parents should thereafter be, or be called, a

thrall.[849]

+302. The sale of children.+ In the Germanic states it remained lawful

until far down in the Middle Ages for a man to sell his wife or child

into servitude, or into adoption in another family in time of famine or

distress. The right fell into disuse.[850]

+303. Slavery and the state.+ The reason why there was little slavery in

the Middle Ages is that slavery needs a great state to return fugitives

or hold slaves to work. The feudal lord was at odds with such a state

as existed, and could not get its aid to restore his slaves. Hence the

extension of the state made the slaves worse off, e.g. in Russia and

parts of Germany.[851] Amongst the Franks "slavery took many forms." The

vicissitudes of life produced the strongest contrasts of fortune.

Freeman[852] mentions a case in which a boy king reigned, but his

mother, formerly a slave woman, reigned as queen in rank and authority,

and the power was really exercised by the man who was once her owner.

"In the system of a Frankish kingdom a slave-born queen could play, with

more of legal sanction, the part often played in Mohammedan courts by

the mother of the sultan, son of a slave." The Franks had a peculiar

ceremony of manumission. The lord struck a coin from the hand of his

slave to the ground, and the slave became free.[853] Philippe le Bel,

enfranchising the serfs of Valois, in the interest of the _Fiscus_,

uttered a generality which Louis le Hutin reiterated: "Seeing that every

human creature who is formed in the image of our Lord, ought, generally

speaking, to be free by natural right,--no one ought to be a serf in

France." In the eighth and ninth centuries serfs were sold to Jews who

sold them to Mohammedans. Montpelier carried on a slave trade with the

Saracens. The clergy joined in this trade in the twelfth century, and it

is said to have lasted until the fifteenth century.[854] The Romance of

Hervis (of about the beginning of the thirteenth century) turns on the

story of a youth who ransomed a girl who had been kidnapped by some

soldiers. They proposed to take her to Paris and sell her at the fair

there. The Parliament of Bordeaux, in 1571, granted liberty to

Ethiopians and other slaves, "since France cannot admit any servitude."

Still slavery existed in the southern provinces, including persons of

every color and nationality.[855] Biot[856] thinks that the slave trade

in the Middle Ages was carried on chiefly by pirates, so that slave

markets existed on the coast only, not inland. The Council of Armagh,

in 1171, forbade the Irish to hold English slaves and mentions the sale

of their children by the English.[857] Thomas Aquinas is led by

Aristotle to approve of slavery. Like Aristotle he holds it to be in the

order of nature.[858] A society was founded in Spain at the beginning of

the thirteenth century to redeem Christian captives from Moorish

slavery. The pious made gifts to this society to be used in its work.

Christians sold kidnapped persons to the Moors that they might be

redeemed again. In 1322 the Council of Valladolid imposed

excommunication on the sale of men. In the fourteenth century the

Venetians and Genoese were selling young persons from all countries in

Egypt.[859] Pope Nicholas V, in 1454, gave Portugal the right to

subjugate western Africa, supposed to be lands which belonged to the

Saracens, and "to reduce the persons of those lands to perpetual

servitude," expressing the hope that the negroes would be thoroughly

converted. Margry puts in the year 1444 the first sale of negroes as

slaves, under the eyes of Don Enrique of Portugal.[860] As early as 1500

Columbus suggested to the king of Spain to use negroes to work the mines

of Hispaniola. The king decreed that only such negroes should be taken

to Hispaniola as had been Christianized in Spain. In 1508 the Spaniards

took negroes to the mines to work with Indian slaves. The slave trade

was authorized by Charles V in 1517.[861] Christian slaves existed in

Spain until the seventeenth, perhaps until the eighteenth, century. If

blacks and Moors are included, slavery has existed there until the most

recent times.[862]

+304. Slavery in Europe. Italy in the Middle Ages.+ Slavery existed in

Italy in the thirteenth century, by war, piracy, and religious hatred.

The preaching friars, by preaching against all property, helped to break

it down, and it began to decline.[863] The religious hatred is

illustrated by the act of Clement V ([Symbol: cross] 1314). When he

excommunicated the Venetians for seizing Ferrara he ordered that

wherever they might be caught they should be treated as slaves.[864]

Not until 1288 was a law passed at Florence forbidding the sale of serfs

away from the land. Such a law was passed at Bologna in 1256, and

renewed in 1283. Such laws seem to have been democratic measures to

lessen the power of nobles in the rural districts.[865] A man who made a

slave woman a mother must pay damages to her owner. In a contract of

1392 a man in such a case confesses a debt, as for money borrowed. By a

statute of Lucca, in 1539, a man so offending must buy the woman at

twice her cost and pay to the state a fine of one hundred lire. By a

statute of Florence, 1415, it was affirmed that the quality of Christian

would not exempt from slavery.[866] In a contract of sale of a woman at

Venice, 1450, it is specified that the seller sells _purum et merum

dominium_.[867] The Italian cities continued to protect the slave trade

until the middle of the sixteenth century.[868] The Venetians and

Genoese carried on the trade actively, except in times of great public

or general calamity, when they suspended it to appease the wrath of

God.[869] The intimate connection of the great commercial republics with

the Orient, and hatred for Greek heretics, are charged with causing them

to keep up the trade.[870] Conjugal life at Venice was undermined by the

desire for variety in pleasure, and by the easy opportunity to get

beautiful slaves in the markets of the Orient. From the most ancient

times laws, as fierce as inefficacious, punished with death merchants

who traded in men, but the trade did not cease until the end of the

sixteenth century. The national archives contain contracts from the

twelfth century to the sixteenth about slaves. Priests were the notaries

in these contracts, in spite of the state, the popes, and the councils.

Slaves were brought from every country in the Levant, including

Circassian and Georgian girls of twelve and fourteen. Slaves passed

entirely under the will of the buyer.[871] Biot[872] finds evidence of

slavery in Italy until the middle of the seventeenth century.

+305. Slavery in France.+ When the Armagnacs captured two men, in 1445,

who could not pay ransom, they threatened to sell them to the Spanish

Jews.[873] Bodin[874] admits that it is better to hold captives as

slaves than to kill them, but his argument is all against slavery. He

mentions cases in which it had been decided, apparently on the ground of

the dictum of Philippe le Bel, that slaves who set foot in France became

free.

+306. Slavery in Islam.+ Islam is more favorable to the emancipation of

slaves than Christianity is, as the Visigothic bishops understood it.

Mohammed set free his own slaves and ordered that all slaves should have

the right to redeem themselves. He taught that it is a good work to

emancipate a slave, which will offset many sins.[875] In his last sermon

he said: "Know that every Moslem is the brother of every other Moslem.

Ye are all a fraternity; all equal."[876] The law recognizes only two

ways in which a human being may become a slave,--(1) by birth, (2) by

war. A debtor cannot become a slave, and parents in distress cannot sell

their children. Slaves cannot be so sold that a mother and her child

under seven years of age are separated. Any slave woman may be made a

concubine, but may not be married. Children of slave women are

legitimate and free. A woman who has borne her master a child becomes

free at the master's death, and may not be sold or pawned by him while

he lives. Slaves are in many respects inferior to free persons as to

rights and powers. They have no right of property against their owners.

They are under milder criminal law than their owners. All this is to be

understood of slaves who are Moslems.[877] The Koran often inculcates

kindness to slaves.[878] Slaves are goods given to the free by the grace

of God. Mohammedans would consider the abolition of slavery a triumph of

Christianity over Islam.[879] An unbelieving slave has no guarantees at

all against the will of his owner. In the eighth century the serfs in

the Asturias rose _en masse_ against their Mohammedan lords, and we are

told that under the wealth and glory of Grenada the peasants hated the

lords with great intensity.[880] In the great days of Abdurrahman III

slaves were very numerous. They possessed land and slaves and the sultan

charged them with "important military and civil functions, and pursued

the policy of all despots in making them his ministers and favorites, in

order to humiliate the aristocrats."[881] They were also armed. The late

Romans put colons in the army. The Visigoths inherited the usage,

although the lords would not give them up. At last the levy arose to one

half of the serfs and they became a majority of the army.[882]

Schweinfurth[883] says that "wherever Islamism has sway in Africa it

appears never to be the fashion for any one to allow himself to be

carried." "A strict Mohammedan reckons it an actual sin to employ a man

as a vehicle, and such a sentiment is very remarkable in a people who

set no limits to their spirit of oppression. It is a known fact that a

Mohammedan, though he cannot refuse to recognize a negro, denying the

faith, as being _a man_, has not the faintest idea of his being entitled

to any rights of humanity." The jurists early set up the doctrine that

the life of a Mohammedan slave was worth as much as that of a Mohammedan

freeman, but this doctrine rarely was fulfilled in practice, never

inside of the harem. The jurists pronounced against the right of life

and death on the part of the slave owner, but it was exercised.[884] It

is not law, but custom, to emancipate an adult slave after from seven to

nine years' service. In most Moslem families slaves are well treated, as

members of the household. Their children are educated as those of their

masters are.[885] Pischon says that Moslems cannot live without slavery.

No free woman will do the menial housework, and no woman may be seen

unveiled by a free man.[886] This is a repetition of the opinion of the

ancients that slavery was indispensable (sec. 285). If all the women

were free, some of them would do the housework. A modern Turk is a

tyrant inside his own dwelling. For his wife he has a proverb that she

should have "neither mouth nor tongue." The girls are not educated to

be such wives. They find some support at home against their husbands.

Hence nearly all Turks entertain feelings of dislike and ill will

towards their parents-in-law, and prefer slave concubines, whose

relatives they welcome, if the wife is pretty, or wins their affection.

Great ladies buy promising girls of seven or eight and train them, and

sell them again.[887]

+307. Review of slavery in Islam.+ The injunctions of Mohammedanism

sound just and humane; the practice of Mohammedans is cruel and

heartless. The slave is not a thing or ware; he is a man entitled to

treatment worthy of a man. A man may take his slave as a concubine, but

he must not sell her to vice. A free man may marry a slave, if she is

not his own. A free woman may marry a slave, with the same restriction.

If a slave woman bears a child to her master, the child is free, and the

mother cannot be sold or given away. At the death of her owner she

becomes free. A slave man and woman may marry, with the consent of the

owner, to which they have a claim if they have behaved well. A slave man

is limited to two wives. Emancipation is a religious and meritorious act

on the part of a slave owner.[888] "In general, it must be acknowledged

that neither amongst the people of antiquity, nor amongst Christians,

have slaves enjoyed such good treatment as amongst Moslems."[889] The

provision about a slave woman who becomes a mother by her master is the

one to arouse most Christian shame. Still, the Moslems have so many

special pleas and technical interpretations by which to set aside

troublesome laws that we can never infer that the mores conform to the

laws. It is against the law for a Moslem to reduce a Moslem to slavery,

but the Turks rob the Kurds and other tribes of their women, or buy them

from the barbarous Tcherkess.[890]

+308. Slavery in England.+ Sir Thomas More[891] provided for some of the

troubles of life by slavery. Slaves were to do "all laborsome toil,"

"drudging," and "base business." They were to be persons guilty of debt

and breakers of marriage.[892] Garnier quotes a law of 1547 (I Ed. VI,

c. 3), in which a vilein is mentioned as a slave. "Long after this date

there are mentioned instances of a slave's emancipation, and such

philanthropic writers as Fitzherbert lament the possibility of slavery

and its actual existence, as a disgrace both to legislation and

religion."[893]

+309+. Slavery in America.+ In the Anglo-American colonies which did not

have a plantation system for tobacco or indigo the great reason for

slavery was to hold the laborer to the place where the owner wanted him

to work. In New England the negro slave lived in close intimacy with his

owner and the latter's sons. In Connecticut he was allowed to go to the

table with the family, "and into the dish goes the black hoof as freely

as the white hand."[894] In that colony the creditor might require the

debtor, by a law of 1650, to pay by service, and might sell his due

service to any one of the English nation. The law remained in force into

the nineteenth century.[895]

+310. Colonial slavery.+ France reopened the slave trade by a law of May

20, 1802. One of the reasons for this law submitted by Buonaparte to the

legislature was: "The commercial prosperity of France renders it

necessary that a certain quantity of the produce of the country, in wine

and cereals, should be sent to the Antilles for consumption by the

blacks. Now these negroes, were they free, would prefer manioc to wheat,

and the juice of the sugar cane to our wines. It is, therefore,

indispensable that they should be slaves."[896]

+311. Slavery preferred by slaves.+ It appears, therefore, that the

subjection of one man's muscles and nerves to another man's will has

been in the mores of all people from the beginning of human societal

organization until now. Now it exists, as an institution, only in

barbarism and half-civilization. In English North Borneo slavery is

traditional. Any slave may be free for £4, "but in most cases they have

been brought up as ordinary members of the family, and have no wish to

leave their home. Cases of unkind treatment are very few and far

between."[897] In fact, the purely sentimental objections to slavery

have reached, in Africa, many people who are on a grade of civilization

where slavery is an advantage to the slave (sec. 275). Schweinfurth

tells us, of the Sudanese, that numbers of them often "voluntarily

attach themselves to the Nubians, and are highly delighted to get a

cotton shirt and a gun of their own. They will gladly surrender

themselves to slavery, being attracted also by the hope of finding

better food in the seribas than their own native wilderness can produce.

The mere offer of these simple inducements in any part of the Niam-niam

lands would be sufficient to gather a whole host of followers and

vassals."[898] He goes on to show how the mode of grinding durra corn

used in Africa keeps women in slavery. They pound it on a big stone by

means of a little stone. One woman's day's work will grind enough for

five or six men. It has been shown above (sec. 275) how badly the

abolition of slavery has been received in Algeria and Sahara. Gibson is

quoted "that voluntary and hereditary slavery might well be permitted to

continue" in West Africa.[899] In that region "a slave man could hold

property of his own. If he were a worthy, sensible person, he could

inherit." He could take part in discussions and the palaver, and could

defend himself against abuse. There are now no slaves bought or sold,

but there are "pawns" for debt, who are not free.[900] On the one hand,

the slave trade in Africa has required for its successful prosecution

that the slaves should first be war captives or raid captives of other

negroes. This has led to the wildest and most cruel devastation of the

territory. On the other hand, the question arises whether savages must

be left to occupy and use a continent as they choose, or whether they

may be compelled to come into coöperation with civilized men to use it

so as to carry on the work of the world. Many who think the latter view

sound are arrested by the fact that no one has ever been found great or

good enough to be a slave owner. On the other hand, a humanitarian

doctrine which orders that a slave be turned out of doors, in spite of

his own wish, is certainly absurd.

+312. Future of slavery.+ In the eighteenth century, in western Europe,

there was a moral revolt against slavery. None of the excuses, or

palliatives, were thought to be good. The English, by buying the slaves

on their West India islands, took the money loss on themselves, but they

threw back the islands to economic decay and uncultivation. When the

civilized world sees what its ideas and precepts have made of Hayti, it

must be forced to doubt its own philosophy. The same view has spread.

Slavery is now considered impossible, socially and politically evil, and

so not available for economic gain, even if it could win that. It is the

only case in the history of the mores where the so-called moral motive

has been made controlling. Whether it will remain in control is a

question. The Germans, in the administration of their colonies, sneer at

humanitarianism and eighteenth-century social philosophy. They incline

to the doctrine that all men must do their share in the world and come

into the great modern industrial and commercial organization. They look

around for laborers for their islands and seem disposed to seek them in

the old way. In South Africa and in our own southern states the question

of sanitary and police control is arising to present a new difficulty.

Are free men free to endanger peace, order, and health? Is a low and

abandoned civilization free to imperil a high civilization, and entitled

to freedom to do so? The humanitarians of the nineteenth century did not

settle anything. The contact of two races and two civilizations cannot

be settled by any dogma. Evidence is presented every day that the

problems are not settled and cannot be settled by dogmatic and

sentimental generalities. Is not a sentiment made ridiculous when it is

offered as a rule of action to a man who does not understand it and does

not respond to it? In general, in the whole western Sahara district

slaves are as much astonished to be told that their relation to their

owners is wrong, and that they ought to break it, as boys amongst us

would be to be told that their relation to their fathers was wrong and

ought to be broken.

+313. Relation of slavery to the mores and to ethics.+ Inasmuch as

slavery springs from greed and vanity, it appeals to primary motives and

is at once intertwined with selfishness and other fundamental vices. It

is not, therefore, a cause which gradually produces and molds the mores,

nor is it an ethical product of folkways and mores. It is characteral.

It rises into an interest which overrules everything else. This appears

most clearly in the history of Roman slavery (see sec. 288). The due

succession of folkways, mores, character, and ethics is here broken. The

motive of slavery is base and cruel from the beginning. Later, there are

many people of high character who accept it as an inheritance, and are

not corrupted by it. The due societal relation of interests and mores is

broken, however. It is an evil thing that that relation should be

broken. All which is moral (pertaining to mores) or ethical is thrown

out of sequence and relation. The interests normally control life. It is

not right that ethical generalizations should get dogmatic authority and

be made the rule of life. Ethical generalizations are vague and easy.

They satisfy loose thinkers, and it is a matter of regret when, in any

society, they get the currency of fashion and are cherished by great

numbers. Interests ought to control, being checked and verified by

ethical principles of approved validity. Slavery is an interest which is

sure to break over all restraints and correctives. It therefore becomes

mistress of folkways and dictates the life policy. It is a kind of

pitfall for civilization. It seems to be self-evident and successful,

but it contains a number of forms of evil which are sure to unfold. The

Moslems have suffered from the curse of it, although in entirely other

ways than the Christians. It intertwines with any other great social

evil which may be present. There it has combined with polygamy. It is,

in any case, an institution which radically affects the mores, but it

is to be noticed that its effect on them is not normal and not such as

belongs to the prosperous development of civilization.

[625] Maine, _Anc. Law_, 164.

[626] Galton, _Human Faculty_, 79.

[627] Gumplowicz, _Soziologie_, 121.

[628] _Durch Afrika_, 207.

[629] Gumplowicz (_Soziol._, 118) quotes a seventeenth-century

author who said that high wages could get soldiers and sailors

for a galley, but not oarsmen, who would allow themselves to be

bound by a chain, bastinadoed, etc. Gumplowicz explains that if

the galley was to manoeuver with exactitude, chains, the

bastinado, etc., must be used to regulate the service.

[630] Ratzel, _Völkerkunde_, I, Introd., 83.

[631] Holub, _Maschukalumbe_, I, 477; JAI, X, 9.

[632] Ratzel, I, 477, 481.

[633] _Durch Afrika_, 162.

[634] Nachtigal, _Sahara und Sudan_, II, 110.

[635] _Ibid._, 104.

[636] _Ibid._, I, 315.

[637] Ratzel, III, 91.

[638] _Ibid._, 7.

[639] Rohlfs, _Petermann's Mittlgn, Erg. heft_, XXV, 23.

[640] Cantacuzene, _Hist._, IV, 20.

[641] JAI, XXI, 380.

[642] Livingstone, _Travels in South Africa_, I, 204.

[643] _Smithson. Rep._, 1886, Part I, 207.

[644] Stuhlmann, _Mit Emin Pascha_, 242.

[645] Ratzel, III, 143.

[646] _Austral. Assoc. Adv. Sci._ 1892, 634.

[647] JAI, XII, 266.

[648] Ratzel, I, 404; III, 145 ff.

[649] JAI, XXII, 103; Junker, _Afrika_, II, 462, 477.

[650] _Globus_, LXXXIII, 314.

[651] Klose, _Togo_, 383.

[652] _Globus_, LXXXI, 334.

[653] Ellis, _Ewe-speaking Peoples_, 221.

[654] _Ibid._, 218, 220.

[655] Nachtigal, _Sahara und Sudan_, I, 684 ff.

[656] Paulitschke, _Ethnog. Nordost-Afr._, I, 260; II, 139.

[657] JAI, XXII, 101.

[658] _Mit Emin Pascha_, 186.

[659] _Cen. Afr._, 111.

[660] Ratzel, I, 449.

[661] _Ibid._, 57.

[662] _Pinkerton's Voy._, XVI, 885.

[663] Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples_, 285.

[664] _Ibid._, 290.

[665] Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples_, 294.

[666] Pommerol, _Une Femme chez les Sahariennes_, 194; cf.

Junker, _Afrika_, III, 477.

[667] _Ibid._, 201.

[668] Ling Roth, _Sarawak_, II, 215.

[669] Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, 497; _West Afr. Stud._,

479.

[670] Serpa Pinto, _Como Eu Atravassei Afr._, I, 116.

[671] _In's Land der Maschukalumbe_, I, 536.

[672] _Ztsft. f. Ethnol._, VI, 472.

[673] Fritsch, _Eingeb. Süd-Afr._, 364.

[674] _Smithson. Rep._, 1891, 524. Cf. Hostmann, _De Beschaving

van Negers in Amer._, I, Chap. IV.

[675] _Smithson. Rep._, 1891, 525.

[676] _Ibid._, 520.

[677] _Ibid._, 532.

[678] _Bur. Ethnol._, XIV, 35.

[679] _Smithson. Rep._, 1891, 528.

[680] _Ibid._, 1887, Part II, 331.

[681] _U. S. Nat. Mus._, 1888, 252 ff.

[682] Strong, _Wakeenah_, 126.

[683] _Bur. Ethnol._, III, 81.

[684] Nadaillac, _Prehist. America_, 313.

[685] Bancroft, _Native Races_, II, 217-223.

[686] Brinton, _Nagualism_, 28 note.

[687] See Hamilton, _The Panis, an Histor. Outline of Canadian

Indian Slavery in the 18th cent., Proc. Canad. Instit._, Toronto,

1897, n.s., I, 19-27.

[688] Koch, _Die Guaikuru-Stämme, Globus_, LXXXI, 44.

[689] Koch (p. 45) says that they become free and set up

prosperous households.

[690] Spix and Martius, _Brasil._, II, 73; v. Martius, _Ethnog.

Brasiliens_, 71.

[691] Varnhagen, _Hist. Geral do Brasil_, I, 115, 178, 181, 269,

273.

[692] v. Martius, 72.

[693] Varnhagen, _Hist. do Brasil_, I, 431; v. Martius, 131.

[694] _Caduvei_, I, 100.

[695] _Voice for South Amer._, XIII, 201.

[696] _Melanesians_, 346.

[697] _Völkerkunde_, II, 279.

[698] JAI, XXVI, 400.

[699] _Samoafahrten_, 170.

[700] Lewin, _Wild Races of S. E. India_, 85.

[701] Lewin, _Wild Races of S. E. India_, 86.

[702] _Ibid._, 91.

[703] Carey and Tuck, _The Chin Hills_, I, 203 ff.

[704] Schmidt, _Ceylon_, 273.

[705] Raap in _Globus_, LXXXIII, 174.

[706] Marsden, _Sumatra_, 252.

[707] Wilken in _Bijdragen tot T. L. en V.-kunde_, XL, 175.

[708] Bock, _Reis in Borneo_, 9, 78, 94.

[709] _Ibid._, 92.

[710] JAI, XIII, 15.

[711] Ling Roth, _Sarawak_, II, 209.

[712] _Ibid._, 209.

[713] _Ibid._, 213.

[714] JAI, XIII, 417.

[715] Schwaner, _Borneo_, I, 205.

[716] _Ibid._, II, 149.

[717] Ling Roth, _Sarawak_, CLXXXV; JAI, XXII, 32.

[718] Perelaer, _Dajaks_, 153.

[719] Perelaer, _Dajaks_, 155.

[720] _Volkenkunde_, 423.

[721] JAI, XVI, 142.

[722] Williams, _Middle Kingdom_, I, 413.

[723]_ Ibid._, 277.

[724] Medhurst in _China Br._, RAS, IV, 17

[725] _Web of Indian Life_, 69.

[726] Hearn, _Japan_, 256, 258, 353.

[727] Winckler, _Gesetze Ham._, 21.

[728] Laws 15 and 16.

[729] Kohler und Peiser, _Aus d. Babyl. Rechtsleben_, IV, 47. Cf.

I, 1 and II, 6.

[730] _Ibid._, I, 1.

[731] Levit. xxv. 39.

[732] Nehem. v. 5.

[733] Exod. xxi. 16.

[734] Exod. xxi.

[735] Exod. xxii. 2.

[736] Levit. xxv. 49; Buhl, _Soc. Verhält. d. Israel._, 35, 106.

[737] Deut. xv. 12-18; Exod. xxi. 2 ff.; Levit. xxv. 39-46.

[738] _Od._, XVII, 322.

[739] _Ibid._, XV, 403.

[740] Buchholz, _Homer. Realien_, II, 63.

[741] Beloch, _Griech. Gesch._, I, 469.

[742] _De Repub._, I, 309.

[743] _De Legibus_, VI, 376.

[744] _Polit._, I, ii, 7; _Nich. Ethics_, VIII, 10.

[745] _Polit._, I, 2.

[746] Drumann, _Arbeiter und Communisten_, 155.

[747] _Bender_, Rom, 150, 159.

[748] Livy, XLI, 28, 8.

[749] Plutarch, _Ti. Gracchus_, 8.

[750] _Aufstände d. Unfreien Arbeiter_, 36.

[751] Livy, XXVII, 16; XXVIII, 9; XXXI, 21.

[752] _De Agri Cultura_, 2, 7; Plutarch, _Cato_, 5; Schmidt,

_Société Civile dans le Monde Romain_, 93.

[753] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 9; Appianus, I, c. 120.

[754] Dion. Halic., V, 51; X, 16; Livy, III, 15.

[755] Livy, IV, 45.

[756] _Ibid._, XXXII, 36.

[757] Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, I, 382.

[758] Bücher, _Aufstände d. Unfreien Arbeiter_, 31.

[759] _Ibid._, 45.

[760] XXXIV, frag. 2, 8-11.

[761] Bücher, 52.

[762] _Ibid._, 56.

[763] Rossbach, _Röm. Ehe_, 23; Plutarch, _Coriolanus_.

[764] Wallon, _L'Esclavage_, I, 406; II, 262.

[765] Plutarch, _Sulla_, 9.

[766] Livy, XXII, 57.

[767] Plutarch, _Marius_, 35.

[768] Grupp, _Kulturgesch. der Röm. Kaiserzeit_, I, 306.

[769] _Ibid._, 271.

[770] Dezobry, _Rome au Siècle d'Auguste_, I, 260.

[771] Wallon, _L'Esclavage_, III, Chap. X.

[772] _Annals_, XIII, 26.

[773] Moreau-Christophe, _Droit à l'Oisiveté_, 257.

[774] Seneca, _De Ira_, III, 40.

[775] Tacitus, _Annals_, XIV, 42.

[776] Bücher, _Aufstände_, 17.

[777] Blair, _Slavery amongst the Romans_, 164.

[778] _Ibid._, 32.

[779] _Ibid._, 48.

[780] _Digest_, I, 1, 4.

[781] _Ibid._, L, 17, 32.

[782] Dill, _Nero to M. Aurel._, 117.

[783] _Ibid._, 251-252.

[784] Dill, _Nero to M. Aurel._, 253.

[785] Grupp, _Kulturgesch. der Röm. Kaiserzeit_, I, 312-314.

[786] _Ibid._, 301.

[787] Dill, _Nero to M. Aurel._, 100.

[788] _Ibid._, 102.

[789] Dill, _Nero to M. Aurel._, 105.

[790] _Ibid._, 94.

[791] _Ibid._, 106.

[792] Dill, _Nero to M. Aurel._, 114-116.

[793] _Ibid._, 112.

[794] _Orat._, X, 13; XV, 5.

[795] Dill, _Nero to M. Aurel._, 182.

[796] _Ibid._, 117.

[797] _Digest_, III, tit. 4, 1.

[798] Dill, 265.

[799] _Ibid._, 254, 266, 268.

[800] _Ibid._, 271.

[801] Dill, 282.

[802] _Instit._, I, 8; _Digest_, I, 6, 2.

[803] Wallon, _L'Esclavage_, III, 51 ff.

[804] _Eur. Morals_, II, 65.

[805] Muratori (_Dissert._ XV) thinks that all ecclesiastics were

bound not to allow the income of their places to be reduced

during their tenancy. This duty set their attitude to slavery.

[806] _Roman Society in the Last Century of Rome_, 161.

[807] _Cod. Theod._, IX, 9.

[808] Bodin, _Republic_, Book I, Chap. V.

[809] Lecky, _Eur. Morals_, II, 64.

[810] _Cod. Theod._, II, 25.

[811] Lecky, _Eur. Morals_, II, 65.

[812] _Sentent._, lib. III, cap. 47.

[813] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, II, 233.

[814] _Ibid._, 234.

[815] _Entstehung des Colonats_, 11.

[816] _L'Esclavage_, III, 282.

[817] _Ibid._, 313.

[818] _Ibid._, 308.

[819] Suetonius, _Vespas._, 1.

[820] Jul. Capitol., _M. Aurel._, 22.

[821] Herodianus, II, 4, sec. 12.

[822] _Cod. Just._, XI, LVIII.

[823] Vopisc., _Aurelian_, 48.

[824] Am. Marcel., XXVIII, 5.

[825] Moreau-Christophe, _Le Droit à l'Oisiveté_, 274.

[826] Rodbertus, _Hildeb. Ztsft._, II, 241.

[827] _Colonat_, 67.

[828] _Ibid._, 63.

[829] _Hildeb. Ztsft._, 206.

[830] _Colonat_, 143.

[831] _Hom. on Matthew_, 62; Migne, _Patrol. Graec._, LVIII, 591.

[832] Cook, _Fathers of Jesus_, II, 25.

[833] Achelis, _Virg. Subintrod._, 29-31.

[834] _Relig. des Judent._, 447.

[835] Cook, _Fathers of Jesus_, II, 18-28.

[836] Estrup, _Skrifter_, I, 261.

[837] Weinhold, _D. F._, I, 104.

[838] _Corpus Poet. Bor._, I, 235.

[839] Rothe, _Nordens Staatsvrfssg._, I, 35.

[840] _Ibid._, 17.

[841] _Ibid._, 18.

[842] _Ibid._, II, 266.

[843] Estrup, _Skrifter_, I, 263.

[844] _Heimskringla_, II, 77.

[845] _Corpus Poet. Bor._, I, 340.

[846] _Ibid._, 361.

[847] Wachsmuth, _Bauernkriege_, in Raumer, _Taschenbuch_, V.

[848] Gjessing, _Ann. f. Nordiske Oldkyndighed_, 1862, 85 ff.

[849] Geijer, _Svenska Folkets Hist._, I, 206.

[850] Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, 461.

[851] Vinogradoff, _Vileinage_, 152.

[852] _West. Europe in the Eighth Century_, 11.

[853] Grimm, _Rechtsalt._, 178.

[854] Bourquelot, _Foires de Champagne, Acad. d. Belles Lettres

et Inscrip._, 1865, 307.

[855] D'Avenel, _Hist. Econ._, I, 186.

[856] _Abol. de l'Esclav._, 264.

[857] Wilkins, _Conc. Mag. Brit._, I, 471.

[858] _Opusc._, XX, ii, 10.

[859] Heyd, _Levanthandel_, II, 442.

[860] _Navig. Françaises_, 19.

[861] Mason in _Amer. Anthrop._, IX, 197.

[862] Biot, _Abol. de l'Esclav._, 422.

[863] _Ibid._, 431.

[864] Libri, _Sciences Mathématiques en Italie_, II, 509.

[865] _Ibid._, 510.

[866] _Ibid._, 515.

[867] _Ibid._, 513.

[868]_ Ibid._, 511.

[869] Cibrario, _Econ. Polit._, III, 274.

[870] Biot, _Abol. de l'Esclav._, 426.

[871] Molmenti, _Venezia nella Vita Privata_, I, 280.

[872] _Abol. de l'Esclav._, 441.

[873] Raumer, _Hist. Taschenbuch_, 2 ser., III, 111.

[874] _Repub._, Book I, Chap. V.

[875] Dozy, _Musulm. d'Espagne_, II, 43; _Koran_, IV, 94; V, 91;

LVIII, 4.

[876] Hauri, _Islam_, 84.

[877] Juynboll, _Moham._ Wet., 231.

[878] Suras II, IV, XXIV.

[879] Hauri, _Islam_, 155.

[880] Dozy, II, 25.

[881] _Ibid._, III, 61.

[882] _Ibid._, II, 29.

[883] _Heart of Africa_, I, 374.

[884] Von Kremer, _Kulturgesch. d. Orients_, II, 128.

[885] Pischon, _Einfluss d. Islam_, 25-29.

[886] _Ibid._, 31.

[887] _Globus_, XXX, 127; Vambery, _Sittenbilder aus dem

Morgenlande_, 25.

[888] Hauri, _Islam_, 149.

[889] _Ibid._, 150.

[890] _Ibid._, 153.

[891] _Utopia_, II, 53.

[892] _Utopia_, II, 132, 144, 147.

[893] _Brit. Peasantry_, 71.

[894] Mad. Knight's _Journey_ (1704).

[895] Hildreth, _Hist. U. S._, I, 372.

[896] Fauriel, _Last Days of the Consulate_, 31.

[897] Cator, _Head-hunters_, 198.

[898] _Heart of Africa_, II, 421.

[899] _N. S., Amer. Anthrop._, VI, 563.

[900] Nassau, _Fetishism in West Afr._, 14 ff.