SLAVERY
SLAVERY is essentially an industrial institution, which implies
compulsory labour beyond the limits of family relations. The master
has a right to avail himself of the working power of his slave,
without previous agreement on the part of the latter. This I take to
be the essence of slavery; but connected with such a right there are
others which hardly admit of a strict definition, or which belong to
the master in some cases though not in all. He is entitled to claim
obedience and to enforce this claim with more or less severity, but
his authority is not necessarily absolute, and the restrictions
imposed on it are not everywhere the same. According to a common
definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master,[1] but
this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case
of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that
the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he
likes; a person may own a thing and yet be prohibited by law from
destroying it. But it seems that the owner's right over his property,
even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that
nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the
master's right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily {671}
exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of
liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from
that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is
the compulsory nature of the slave's relation to his master. Voluntary
slavery, as when a person sells himself as a slave, is only an
imitation of slavery true and proper; the person who gives up his
liberty confers upon another, by contract, either for a limited period
or for ever, the same rights over himself as a master possesses over
his slave. If slavery proper could be based upon a contract between
the parties concerned, I fail to see how to distinguish between a
servant and a slave.
[Footnote 1: Nieboer, _Slavery as an Industrial System_, p. 4 _sqq._
Dr. Nieboer himself defines slavery as "the fact, that one man is the
property or possession of another beyond the limits of the family
proper" (_ibid._ p. 29).]
Dr. Nieboer has recently with much minuteness examined the
distribution of slavery and its causes among savage races. It appears
from his work that slavery is unknown in Australia, and in Oceania
restricted to certain islands. In the Malay Archipelago, on the other
hand, it prevails very extensively. Among the aboriginal tribes of
India and the Indo-Chinese Peninsula it is fairly common, whereas no
certain traces of it are found among the lower races of Central Asia
and Siberia, with the exception of the Kamchadales. In North America
it exists along the Pacific Coast from Behring Strait to the northern
boundary of California, but beyond this district it seems to be
unknown. In Central and South America there are at any rate several
scattered cases of it, and if our knowledge of the South American
Indians were less fragmentary, many other instances might perhaps be
added. In savage Africa there are only one or two districts where no
certain cases of slavery are encountered, whilst large agglomerations
of slave-keeping tribes occur on the Coast of Guinea and in the
district formed by Lower Guinea and the territories bordering the
Congo.[2]
[Footnote 2: Nieboer, _op. cit._ p. 47 _sqq._]
Slaves are kept only where there is employment for them, and where the
circumstances are otherwise favourable to the growth of slavery. Its
existence or non-existence {672} in a tribe largely depends on the
manner in which that tribe lives. Among hunters it hardly occurs at
all. Mr. Spencer justly observes that, "in the absence of industrial
activity, slaves are almost useless; and, indeed, where game is
scarce, are not worth their food."[3] Moreover, they would have to be
procured from foreign tribes, and to prevent such slaves from running
away would be almost impossible for hunters who roam over vast tracts
of land in pursuit of game, especially if the slaves also were engaged
in hunting. For a small community of hunters--and their communities
generally are small[4]--it might even be dangerous to keep foreign
slaves in their midst.[5] Among fishing tribes, on the other hand,
slavery is much more common, attaining a special importance among
those who live on or near the Pacific Coast of North-Western America.
These tribes have an abundance of food, they have fixed habitations,
they live in comparatively large groups, and trade and industry,
property and wealth, are well developed among them. In consequence,
they find the services of slaves useful, and, at the same time, the
slaves have little chance of making their escape.[6]
[Footnote 3: Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, iii. 459.]
[Footnote 4: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 43 _sqq._
Hildebrand, _Recht und Sitte_, p. 1 _sqq._]
[Footnote 5: Nieboer, _op. cit._, p. 191 _sqq._]
[Footnote 6: _Ibid._ p. 199 _sqq._]
Of the pastoral tribes referred to in Dr. Nieboer's list only one half
keep slaves, and among some of these slave-keeping is said to be a
mere luxury. To pastoral peoples, as such, slave labour is of little
moment. Among them subsistence depends much more on capital than on
labour, and for the small amount of work which is required free
labourers are easily procured. As Dr. Nieboer observes, "among people
who live upon the produce of their cattle, a man who owns no cattle,
_i.e._ no capital, has no means of subsistence. Accordingly, among
pastoral tribes we find rich and poor men; and the poor often offer
themselves as labourers to the rich."[7] Pastoral peoples have thus no
strong motives for making slaves, but at the same {673} time "there
are no causes preventing them from keeping slaves. These tribes are,
so to speak, in a state of equilibrium; a small additional cause on
either side turns the balance. One such additional cause is the
slave-trade; another is the neighbourhood of inferior races." All
those pastoral peoples who keep slaves live in districts where an
extensive slave-trade has for a long time been carried on. The slaves
are often purchased from slave-traders, and in several cases they
belong to an inferior race.[8]
[Footnote 7: See also Hildebrand, _op. cit._ p. 38 _sq._]
[Footnote 8: Nieboer, _op. cit._ p. 261 _sqq._]
Among agricultural peoples slavery prevails more extensively; further,
it is more common among such tribes as subsist chiefly by agriculture
than among incipient agriculturists, who still depend on hunting or
fishing for a large portion of their food. In primitive agricultural
communities nobody voluntarily serves another, because subsistence is
independent of capital and easy to procure. "All freemen in new
countries," says Mr. Bagehot, "must be pretty equal; every one has
labour, and every one has land; capital, at least in agricultural
countries (for pastoral countries are very different), is of little
use; it cannot hire labour; the labourers go and work for
themselves."[9] Hence in such countries, if a man wants another to
work for him, he must compel him to do it--that is, he must make him
his slave. This holds true of most savage countries, namely, of all
those in which there is much more fertile land than is required to be
cultivated for the support of the actual population; but it does not
hold true of all. Where every piece of land fit for cultivation has
been appropriated, a man who owns no land cannot earn his subsistence
independently of a landlord; hence free labourers are available,
slaves are not wanted, and slavery is not likely to exist. And even
where there are no poor persons, but everybody has a share in the
resources of the country, the use of slaves cannot be great, since a
man who owns a limited capital, or a limited quantity of land, can
only employ a limited number of labourers. {674} For instance, the
absence of slavery in many Oceanic islands may be accounted for by the
fact that all land had been appropriated, which led to a state of
things inconsistent with slavery as a social system.[10]
[Footnote 9: Bagehot, _Physics and Politics_, p. 72.]
[Footnote 10: Nieboer, _op. cit._ pp. 294-347, 420 _sq._]
These are the main conclusions at which Dr. Nieboer has arrived by
means of much admirable and painstaking research. Most of them, I
think, are undoubtedly correct; yet it seems to me that the influence
of economic conditions upon the institution of slavery has perhaps
been emphasised too much at the cost of other factors. The prevalence
of slavery in a savage tribe and the extent to which it is practised
must also depend upon the ability of the tribe to procure slaves from
foreign communities and upon its willingness to allow its own members
to be kept as slaves within the tribe. It may be very useful for a
group of savages to have a certain number of slaves, and yet they may
not have them, for the reason that no slaves are to be had. It is only
in extraordinary cases that a person is allowed to enslave a member of
his own community. Intra-tribal slavery is a question not only of
economic but of moral concern, whilst extra-tribal slavery originally
depends upon success in war.
We have reason to believe that the earliest source of slavery was war
or conquest, and that slavery in many cases was a substitution for
putting prisoners of war to death.[11] Savages, who have little mercy
on their enemies, naturally make no scruple in reducing them to
slavery whenever they find their advantage in doing so. Among existing
savages, in fact, prisoners of war are very frequently enslaved.[12]
They and their descendants, together {675} with persons kidnapped or
purchased from foreign tribes, seem generally to form by far the
majority of the slave population in uncivilised countries.
[Footnote 11: _Cf._ Millar, _Origin of the Distinction of Ranks_, p.
245; Jacob, _Historical Inquiry into the Production and Consumption of
the Precious Metals_, i. 136; Buckle, _Miscellaneous and Posthumous
Works_, iii. 413; Comte, _Cours de philosophie positive_, v. 186
_sqq._; Cibrario, _Della schiavitù e del servaggio_, i. 16.]
[Footnote 12: Rink, _Eskimo Tribes_, p. 28 (Western Eskimo). Petroff,
'Report on Alaska,' in _Tenth Census of the United States_, pp. 152
(Aleuts), 165 (Thlinkets). Richardson, _Arctic Searching Expedition_,
i. 412 (Kutchin). Gibbs, 'Tribes of Western Washington and
Northwestern Oregon,' in _Contributions to North American Ethnology_,
i. 188. von Martius _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_, i. 232
(Guaycurus), 298 (Carajás). Azara, _Voyages dans l'Amérique
métridionale_, ii. 109 _sq._ (Mbayas). Lewin, _Hill Tracts of
Chittagong_, p. 35. _Idem_, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_, p.
194 (Toungtha). Modigliani, _Viaggio a Nías_, p. 521. Kohler, 'Recht
der Papuas auf Neu-Guinea,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._ vii.
370. Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 25. Polack, _Manners and Customs
of the New Zealanders_, ii. 52; Hale, _U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol.
VI.--Ethnography and Philology_, p. 33 (New Zealanders). Ellis,
_History of Madagascar_, i. 192. Andersson, _Lake Ngami_, p. 231;
Kohler, in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._ xiv. 311 (Herero).
Velten, _Sitten und Gebräuche der Suaheli_, p. 305. Baumann,
_Usambara_, p. 141 (Wabondei). Felkin, 'Notes on the Waganda Tribe,'
in _Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xiii. 746. Mungo Park, _Travels in
the Interior of Africa_, p. 19 (Mandingoes). Rowley, _Africa
Unveiled_, p. 176. Tuckey, _Expedition to Explore the River Zaire_, p.
367 (Negroes of Congo). Sarbah, _Fanti Customary Laws_, p. 6. Burton,
_Abeokuta_, i. 301. Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_,
p. 289. Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 309 _sq._ (Beni
Amer). Mademba, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse von eingeborenen
Völkern in Afrika und Ozeanien_, p. 83 (natives of the Sansanding
States). Nicole, _ibid._ p. 118 _sq._ (Diakité-Sarracolese). Tellier,
_ibid._ pp. 168, 171 (Kreis Kita of the French Soudan). Beverley,
_ibid._ p. 213 (Wagogo). Lang, _ibid._ p. 241 (Washambala).
Desoignies, _ibid._ p. 278 (Msalala). Nieboer _op. cit._ pp. 49, 52,
73-76, 78, 100.]
Whilst little regard is paid to the liberty of strangers, custom
everywhere, as a rule, forbids the enslaving of tribesmen. Yet
sometimes a father's power over his children,[13] as also a husband's
power over his wife,[14] involves the right of selling them as slaves;
and among various peoples a person may be reduced to slavery for
committing a crime,[15] or for insolvency.[16] Among the tribes of
Western {676} Washington and North-Western Oregon, if an Indian has
wronged another and failed to make compensation, he may be taken as a
slave.[17] The Papuans of Dorey had a law according to which an
incendiary with his family became the slave of the late proprietor of
the burned house.[18] Among the Line Islanders of Micronesia, if a man
of low class stole some food from a person belonging to the "gentry,"
he became the slave of the latter and lost all his property.[19]
Sometimes a man is induced by great poverty to sell himself as a
slave.[20] But most intra-tribal slaves are born unfree, being the
offspring of parents one or both of whom are slaves.[21]
[Footnote 13: _Supra_, p. 599.]
[Footnote 14: _Supra_, p. 629 _sq._]
[Footnote 15: Butler, _Travels and Adventures in Assam_, p. 94
(Kukis). Mason, 'Dwellings, &c., of the Karens,' in _Jour. Asiatic
Soc. Bengal_, xxxvii. pt. ii. p. 146 _sq._; Smeaton, _Loyal Karens of
Burma_, p. 86. Wilken, 'Het strafrecht bij de volken van het maleische
ras,' in _Bijdragen tot de taal- land- en volkenkunde van
Nederlandsch-Indië_, 1883, Land- en volkenkunde, p. 108 _sq._
Junghuhn, _Die Battalander auf Sumatra_, ii. 145 _sq._ (Bataks).
Raffles, _History of Java_, ii. p. ccxxxv. (people of Bali). Forbes,
_A Naturalist's Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago_, p. 320 (people
of Timor-laut). von Rosenberg, _Der malayische Archipel_, p. 166
(Niase). Hickson, _A Naturalist in North Celebes_, p. 194 (Sangirese).
Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, ii. 87. Paulitschke, _Ethnographie
Nordost-Afrikas_, p. 261. Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 244
_sq._ (Marca). Petherick, _Travels in Central Africa_, ii. 3 (Shilluk
of the White Nile). Bowdich, _Mission to Ashantee_, p. 258 n. *
(Fantis). Hübbe-Schleiden, _Ethiopien_, p. 152 (Mpongwe). Burton,
_Abeokuta_, i. 301. Tuckey, _op. cit._ p. 367 (Negroes of Congo).
Mungo Park, _op. cit._ p. 19 (Mandingoes). Tellier, in Steinmetz,
_Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 171 (Kreis Kita of the French Soudan). Lang,
_ibid._ p. 241 (Washambala). Dale, 'Customs of the Natives inhabiting
the Bondei Country,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxv. 230, Ellis, _History
of Madagascar_, i. 193. Velten, _op. cit._ p. 305 _sq._ (Waswahili).]
[Footnote 16: Gibbs, _loc. cit._ p. 188 (Indians of Western Washington
and North-western Oregon), Lewin, _Hill Tracts of Chittagong_, p. 34.
_Idem_, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_, pp. 194 (Khyoungtha), 235
(Mrús). Mason, 'Religion, &c., of the Karens,' in _Jour. Asiatic Soc.
Bengal_, xxxiv. pt. ii. 216. Blumentritt, 'Die Sitten und Bräuche der
alten Tagalen,' in _Zeitschr. f. Ethnol._ xxv. 13 _sqq._ Lala,
_Philippine Islands_, p. 111 (natives of Sulu). Low, _Sarawak_, p.
301. Bock, _Head-Hunters of Borneo_, p. 210 (Dyak tribes). Junghuhn,
_op. cit._ ii. 151 _sq._ Raffles, _op. cit._ i. 353 n. (Javanese); ii.
p. ccxxxv. (people of Bali). Nieboer, _op. cit._ pp. 110, 111, 114,
119 _sq._ (various peoples in the Malay Archipelago). Munzinger,
_Ostafrikanische Studien_, pp. 207 (Takue), 245 (Marea). Kingsley,
_West African Studies_, p. 370, Hübbe-Schleiden, _op. cit._ p. 152
(Mpongwe). Burton, _Abeokuta_, i. 301. Mungo Park, _op. cit._ p. 19
(Mandingoes). Dale, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxv. 230 (Wabondei).
Baskerville, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 193 _sq._
(Waganda), Lang, _ibid._ p. 240 (Washambala). Walter, _ibid._ p. 381
(Natives of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, Madagascar). Post, _Afrikanische
Jurisprudenz_, i. 90 _sq._ _Idem_, _Grundriss der ethnologischen
Jurisprudenz_, i. 363 _sqq._; ii. 564 _sqq._ Kohler, _Shakespeare vor
dem Forum der Jurisprudenz_, p. 14 _sq._]
[Footnote 17: Gibbs, _loc. cit._ p. 188.]
[Footnote 18: Earl, _Papuans_, p. 83.]
[Footnote 19: Tutuila, in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ i. 268 _sq._]
[Footnote 20: Azara, _op. cit._ ii. 109 (Mbayas). Hale, _op. cit._ p.
96 (Kingsmill Islanders). Burton, _Abeokuta_, i. 301. Andersson, _Lake
Ngami_, p. 231 (Herero). Ellis, _History of Madagascar_, i. 192 _sq._]
[Footnote 21: _Cf._ Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 89 _sq._;
Mademba, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 83 (natives of the
Sansanding States); Nicole, _ibid._ p. 119 (Diakité-Sarracolese);
Baskerville, _ibid._ p. 194 (Waganda); Desoignies, _ibid._ p. 278
(Malala); Dale, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxv. 230 (Wabondei); Ellis,
_History of Madagascar_, i. 193.]
In descriptions of slave-holding savages it is often said that a
master has absolute power over his slave. But even in such instances,
when details are scrutinised, it frequently appears that custom or
public opinion does not allow a person to treat his slave just as he
pleases. We have noticed above that in many cases the master is
expressly denied the right of killing him at his own discretion.[22]
More commonly than one would imagine the master has not {677} even an
unlimited right to sell his slave. Among some peoples he may sell at
will such slaves only as have been captured in war or purchased, not
such as have been born in the house.[23] In several instances a slave,
and especially a domestic slave, cannot be sold unless he has been
guilty of some crime or misdemeanour.[24] Among the Banaka and Bapuku
in the Cameroons the master may chastise or send away a slave who has
behaved badly, but is not allowed to sell him.[25] There are,
moreover, instances in which the master is entitled not to all the
services of his slave, but only to a limited portion of them. In some
parts of Africa the slave is obliged to work for his master on certain
days of the week or a certain number of hours, but has the rest of his
time free.[26] In the highlands of Palembang, Sumatra, a slave may
carry on trade and hire himself out as a day labourer on his own
behalf, and when he works in the field one-half of his harvesting
belongs to him and the other half to his master.[27] Where the slave
is allowed to possess property of his own he may in some cases,[28]
though not in all,[29] buy his freedom; and debtor-slaves are as a
rule entitled to regain their liberty by paying off the debt.[30] Many
peoples even permit a dissatisfied slave to change his master. Among
the Washambala, if a person does not fulfil his duties towards any of
his slaves, the latter has a right to complain of him to the chief,
and should the accusation prove true the chief buys the slave of his
master for an ox and two cows, and keeps {678} him for himself.[31]
Among other peoples a slave, in order to get a new master, has only to
cause a slight damage to somebody's property, or to commit some other
trifling offence, in which case he must be given up to the person he
"injured."[32] It is astonishing to notice how readily, in many
African countries, slaves are allowed by custom to rid themselves of
tyrannical or neglectful masters.[33] The Barea and Bazes have a law
according to which a slave becomes free by simply leaving his
lord.[34] Among the Manipuris, in Further India, if a slave flies from
one master and selects for himself another, it is presumed that he has
been badly treated by the first one, and the fugitive can consequently
not be reclaimed.[35]
[Footnote 22: _Supra_, p. 422 _sq._]
[Footnote 23: Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 95 _sqq._]
[Footnote 24: _Ibid._ i. 96 _sq._ Tellier, in Steinmetz,
_Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 169 (Kreis Kita). Lang, _ibid._ p. 241
(Washambala).]
[Footnote 25: Steinmetz, _Rechtsvershältnisse_, p. 43.]
[Footnote 26: Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 101. Mademba, in
Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 83 (natives of the Sansanding
States). Nicole, _ibid._ p. 118 (Diakité-Sarracolese). Tellier,
_ibid._ p. 169 _sqq._ (Kreis Kita).]
[Footnote 27: _Glimpses of the Eastern Archipelago_, p. 106.]
[Footnote 28: Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 111 _sq._]
[Footnote 29: _Ibid._ i. 111 _sq._ Tellier, in Steinmetz,
_Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 170 (Kreis Kita), Senfft, _ibid._ p. 442
(Marshall Islanders).]
[Footnote 30: Post, _Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz_, i.
366. Nieboer, _op. cit._ pp. 38, 432. Nicole, in Steinmetz,
_Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 118 (Diakité-Sarracolese). Baskervilie,
_ibid._ p. 194 (Waganda). Lang, _ibid._ p. 240 _sqq._ (Washambala).]
[Footnote 31: Lang, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 242.]
[Footnote 32: Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 102 _sqq._ _Idem_,
_Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz_, i. 377. Steinmetz,
_Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 168. Pechuel-Loesche, 'Aus dem Leben der
Loango-Neger,' in _Globus_, xxxii. 238.]
[Footnote 33: See also Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 102
_sqq._; Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 309 (Beni Amer);
_Idem_, _Die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos_, p. 43.]
[Footnote 34: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 484.]
[Footnote 35: Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 51.]
A slave among the lower races can thus by no means be described as a
being destitute of all rights. As a rule, it seems, he is treated
kindly, very commonly as an inferior member of the family.[36] Among
the Aleuts a slave suffering want would bring dishonour upon his
master.[37] The South American Mbayás, says Azara, {679} "aiment
extraordinairement tous leurs esclaves; jamais ils ne leur commandent
d'un ton imperieux; jamais ils ne les reprimandent, ni ne les
châtient, ni ne les vendent, quand même ce seraient des prisonniers de
guerre. . . . Quel contraste avec le traitement que les européens font
éprouver aux africains!"[38] In West Africa "the condition of slavery
is not regarded as degrading, and a slave is not considered an
inferior being."[39] On the Gold Coast, with the exception of the
unpleasant liability of being sent at any moment to serve his master
in the other world, the lot of a slave is not generally one of
hardship, but is on the whole far better than that of the agricultural
labourer in England. The slave is generally considered a member of the
family, and if native-born succeeds in some cases in default of an
heir to the property of his master.[40] In the Yoruba country it was
quite common for a slave to be named by his master in his last will to
be the factor or general manager of the estate, and to be left to take
care of the entire establishment.[41] Among the Kreis Kita, of the
French Soudan, the master calls his domestic slaves his sons, and they
call him their father; nay, the natural guardian of an heir who is not
yet of age is not his mother, but the eldest domestic slave of the
household.[42] Speaking of the natives in the region of Lake Nyassa,
Mr. Macdonald remarks that most Africans like to see their slaves
become rich; "Are they not," they say, "our own children?"[43] Among
the Wabondei, "if a man buys a slave, he calls his own children and
says, 'Behold your brother.' The slave is treated as a son, and is
neither beaten nor tied."[44] In Madagascar the slaves "are kindly
treated by their masters, they are considered as a kind of inferior
members of the family to whom they belong, and many of the slaves have
a {680} practical freedom of action to which the free population are
quite strangers."[45] The slavery prevalent among the native races of
the Malay Archipelago is generally mild. In Borneo, says Mr. Boyle,
"we always found a difficulty in distinguishing the servile portion of
a household from the freeborn population, and the honours and
distinctions open to the latter class are likewise accessible to the
former."[46] The slave-debtors of the Dyaks are "just as happy in this
state--living in their creditors' houses and working on their
farms--as if perfectly free, enjoying all the liberty of their
masters."[47] Among the Chittagong Hill tribes the debtor-slaves were
treated as members of the creditor's family, and were never exposed to
harsh usage.[48] Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush slaves are
sometimes chosen among the annually elected magistracy, and Sir Scott
Robertson knew of a case in which a master and his slave went through
the ceremony of brotherhood together.[49]
[Footnote 36: _Ibid._ pp. 51 (Manipuris), 58 (Garos). Lewin, _Hill
Tracts of Chittagong_, p. 34 _sq._ _Idem_, _Wild Races of
South-Eastern India_, p. 90 (Chittagong Hill tribes). Colquhoun,
_Amongst the Shans_, p. 267. Mouhot, _Travels in the Central Parts of
Indo-China_, i. 250 (Stiêns). Riedel, _De sluik- en kroesharige rassen
tusschen Selebes en Papua_, pp. 194 (Watubela Islanders), 293 (people
of Tenimber and Timor-laut), 434 (people of Wetter). Earl, _op. cit._
p. 81 (Papuans of Dorey). New, _Life, Wanderings, and Labours in
Eastern Africa_, p. 128 (Wanika). Chanler, _Through Jungle and
Desert_, p. 404 (Eastern Africans). Baumann, _Usambara_, p. 141
(Wabondei). Felkin, in _Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xiii. 746;
Baskerville, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 194 (Waganda).
_Ibid._ p. 43 (Banaka and Bapuku). Mademba, _ibid._ p. 84 (natives of
the Sansanding States). Nicole, _ibid._ p. 118 (Diakité-Sarracolese).
Lang, _ibid._ p. 242 (Washambala). Desoignies, _ibid._ p. 278
(Msalala). Kraft, _ibid._ p. 291 (Wapokomo). Reade, _Savage Africa_,
p. 582. Rowley, _Africa Unveiled_, pp. 174, 176. Steinmetz,
_Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe_, i. 313.
Nieboer, _op. cit._ pp. 52, 78, 79, 81, 141-143, 305, 439, _sq._]
[Footnote 37: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 152.]
[Footnote 38: Azara, _op. cit._ ii. 110.]
[Footnote 39: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_,
p. 219. See also Wilson, _Western Africa_, pp. 179, 180, 271 _sq._]
[Footnote 40: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 290.]
[Footnote 41: MacGregor, 'Lagos, Abeokuta, and the Alake,' in _Jour.
African Soc._ 1904, p. 473.]
[Footnote 42: Tellier, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 169.]
[Footnote 43: Macdonald, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxii. 102.]
[Footnote 44: Dale, _ibid._ xxv. 230.]
[Footnote 45: Sibree, _The Great African Island_, p. 181. See also
Little, _Madagascar_, p. 77; Ellis, _History of Madagascar_, i. 196.]
[Footnote 46: Boyle, _Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo_, p. 284.]
[Footnote 47: Low, _Sarawak_, p. 302. See also St. John, _Life in the
Forests of the Far East_, i. 83; Bock, _Head-Hunters of Borneo_, p.
210; Kükenthal, _Ergebnisse einer zoologischen Forschungsreise in den
Molukken und Borneo_, i. 276 (Kyans); Crawford, _History of the Indian
Archipelago_, i. 52; Raffles, _op. cit._ i. 352; Marsden, _History of
Sumatra_, p. 253; Junghuhn, _op. cit._ ii. 150 (Bataks).]
[Footnote 48: Lewin, _Hill Tracts of Chittagong_, p. 34.]
[Footnote 49: Scott Robertson, _Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 100 _sq._]
It appears that intra-tribal slaves, especially such as are born in
the house, are generally treated better than extra-tribal or purchased
slaves,[50] and that slaves are most oppressed by their masters when
they belong to a different race.[51] We are told that among the South
American Guaycurus the two causes of slavery, captivity and birth,
imply a certain difference of caste, which is maintained {681} with
great rigour.[52] Mungo Park observes that in Africa the domestic
slaves or such as are born in their master's house are treated more
leniently than those who are purchased.[53] "I was told," he says,
"that the Mandingo master can neither deprive his slave of life, nor
sell him to a stranger, without first calling a palaver on his
conduct, or, in other words, bringing him to a public trial; but this
degree of protection is extended only to the native or domestic
slave."[54] Tuckey makes exactly the same observation as regards the
natives of Congo.[55] On the Gold Coast slaves are of three
kinds--native-born, imported, and prisoners of war; and "a distinction
is always made between the first and the two latter, who are treated
with far less consideration."[56] Speaking of the Central African
tribes generally, Mr. Rowley states that slavery assumes a much
severer character among the pastoral than among the agricultural
tribes, because the slaves of the former are for the most part
captives of war, whereas those of the latter have rarely been acquired
by conquest but mostly by inheritance. Among the agricultural tribes,
he adds, persons who are in bondage are not called slaves but
children, and those to whom they are in bondage are not called masters
but fathers.[57] Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush all slaves "are
not of the same social position, for the house slave is said to be
much higher in grade than the artisan slave. . . . The domestic slaves
live with their masters."[58]
[Footnote 50: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 484 _sq._
(Barea and Kunáma). New, _op. cit._ p. 56 (Waswahili). Baumann,
_Usambara_, p. 61 (natives of the Tanga Coast). Sarbah, _op. cit._ p.
6 _sq._ (Fantis). Nicole, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_ p. 118
_sq._ (Diakité-Sarracolese). Tellier, _ibid._ p. 169 (Kreis Kita).
Beverley, _ibid._ p. 213 (Wagogo). Sibree, _op. cit._ p. 256 _sq._
(natives of Madagascar). Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 88 _sq._]
[Footnote 51: Mademba, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 84
(natives of the Sansanding States). Sibree, _op. cit._ p. 181 (natives
of Madagascar).]
[Footnote 52: von Spix and von Martius, _Travels in Brazil_, ii. 74.]
[Footnote 53: Mungo Park, _op. cit._ p. 262.]
[Footnote 54: _Ibid._ p. 19.]
[Footnote 55: Tuckey, _op. cit._ p. 367.]
[Footnote 56: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples_, p. 289.]
[Footnote 57: Rowley, _Africa Unveiled_, p. 174 _sqq._]
[Footnote 58: Scott Robertson, _op. cit._ p. 99 _sq._]
Among the nations of archaic civilisation slavery presents essentially
the same characteristics as among the lower races. In ancient Mexico
there were various classes of slaves--prisoners of war, criminals
condemned to lose their freedom, children sold by their parents, and
persons who had sold themselves. The relations between master and
slave are represented as friendly.[59] "Slavery {682} in Mexico." says
Mr. Bancroft, "was, according to all accounts, a moderate subjection,
consisting merely of an obligation to render personal service, nor
could that be exacted without allowing the slave a certain amount of
time to labour for his own advantage."[60] Masters could not sell
their slaves without their consent, unless they were slaves with a
collar, that is, runaway, rebellious, or vicious slaves, who in spite
of two or three warnings did not mend their behaviour.[61] Their
children were invariably born free;[62] and when their masters died
they generally became free themselves.[63]
[Footnote 59: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 217,
221.]
[Footnote 60: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 220
_sq._]
[Footnote 61: Clavigero, _History of Mexico_, i. 360.]
[Footnote 62: Bancroft, _op. cit._ ii. 221.]
[Footnote 63: Clavigero, _op. cit._ i. 360.]
In China the slave class is composed of prisoners of war, of persons
who sell themselves or are sold by others, and of the children of
slaves;[64] and in former days public slavery was a punishment for
crime.[65] It is true that the penal code forbids the sale of free
persons; according to the letter of the text even the father of a
family must not sell his children,[66] and persons who voluntarily
submit themselves to be sold are punished by law.[67] But these
regulations are frequently transgressed; in times of distress children
are often sold by their parents, and the kidnapping of children is an
even more common source from which the supply of slaves is kept
up.[68] The master's power over his slave is not quite absolute,[69]
but it seems to be fully as great as the father's power over his
child.[70] A master who falsely accuses his slave suffers no
punishment for it; on the other hand, a slave cannot complain in a
court of justice of ill-treatment from his master.[71] Yet the
condition of slaves in China is generally easy enough.[72] "In all
Chinese families of 'the upper ten {683} thousand,' an intimacy exists
between masters and men-servants on the one hand, and mistresses and
female servants on the other. Servants not unfrequently make
suggestions in reference to the well-being of the family, and in many
instances, domestic matters of a grave nature are discussed before
them."[73] In Chinese novels the servant is the confidant of his
master, and harsh behaviour towards slaves is only attributed to
vicious persons;[74] according to the Divine Panorama, he who beats or
injures his slave without estimating the punishment by the fault is
tormented in hell.[75] Many travellers have pointed out the difference
between the comparatively happy condition of slaves in China and the
degraded position of the former negro slaves in European colonies and
the United States of America.[76] "In China," it is observed, "the
identity of blood, colour, race, and habit between master and servant,
operates as a restraint on the avarice, vices, and cruelty of the
former, which would not be the case if they were of different races as
in America."[77]
[Footnote 64: Biot, 'Mémoire sur la condition des esclaves et des
serviteurs gagés en Chine,' in _Journal Asiatique_, ser. iii. vol.
iii. 257 _sqq._]
[Footnote 65: _Ibid._ p. 249 _sqq._]
[Footnote 66: _Supra_, p. 607.]
[Footnote 67: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cclxxv. p. 201.]
[Footnote 68: Biot, _loc. cit._ p. 260. Giles, _Strange Stories from a
Chinese Studio_, p. 211, n. 8. Gray, _China_, i. 241, 242, 246.]
[Footnote 69: _Supra_, p. 424.]
[Footnote 70: Gray, _op. cit._ i. 243 _sqq._]
[Footnote 71: Biot, _op. cit._ p. 292. _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec.
cccxxxvii. p. 373.]
[Footnote 72: Biot, _loc. cit._ p. 296 _sq._ Giles, _op. cit._ i. 211
_sq._ n. 8. Gray, _op. cit._ i. 245. Wells Williams, _The Middle
Kingdom_, i. 413. Douglas, _Society in China_, p. 349.]
[Footnote 73: Gray, _op. cit._ i. 247.]
[Footnote 74: Biot, _loc. cit._ p. 296.]
[Footnote 75: Giles, _op. cit._ ii. 377.]
[Footnote 76: Biot, _loc. cit._ p. 297 _sq._]
[Footnote 77: _Chinese Repository_, xviii. 362.]
It has been suggested that in ancient Egypt the aboriginal inhabitants
of the country were made slaves by the conquering race. "Si nous
consultons les monuments," says M. Amélineau, "nous remarquons dans
les peintures qui ornent les parois des tombeaux de Saqqarah une
certaine race d'hommes sur laquelle Mariette avait déjà appelé
l'attention. . . . Je crois que ce sont là des esclaves, vieux restes
des populations primitives soumises par les conquérants nouvellement
arrivés dans la vallée du Nil, descendants des premières tribus
humaines qui s'étaient installées en Égypt."[78] During the eighteenth
and nineteenth dynasties, which form the chief period of Egypt's
foreign conquests, mention is frequently made of the employment of
prisoners of war as slaves. Every Pharao of these dynasties recounts
how he filled the god Amon's storehouses with male and female slaves
from his {684} spoil. These slaves are occasionally represented in
tombs; thus in the tomb of Rekhmere some slaves who are making bricks
and building a wall are designated as "the spoil which his Majesty
brought for the construction of the temple of Amon."[79] M. Amélineau
believes that slavery was in Egypt milder than in Greece and Rome.[80]
According to the Book of the Dead, the pity of the god extends to
slaves; not only does he command that no one should ill-treat them
himself, but he forbids that their masters should be led to ill-treat
them.[81]
[Footnote 78: Amélineau, _Essai sur l'évolution des idées morales dans
l'Égypt Ancienne_, p. 78.]
[Footnote 79: For these statements I am indebted to my friend Dr. Alan
Gardiner.]
[Footnote 80: Amélineau, _op. cit._ p. 349.]
[Footnote 81: _Book of the Dead_, ch. 125. _Cf._ Maspero, _Dawn of
Civilization_, p. 191.]
In ancient Chaldæa, beneath the free Semite and Sumerian population,
there was a class of slaves largely consisting of captives from
foreign races and their descendants, but continually reinforced by
individuals of the native race such as foundlings, women sold by their
husbands, children sold by their fathers, and probably debtors whom
their creditors had deprived of their liberty.[82] Their position was
evidently not one of excessive hardship.[83] As a rule, they were
permitted to marry and bring up a family; and it seems that masters,
when selling their slaves, as much as possible avoided separating
parents and children.[84] The master often apprenticed the children of
his slaves, and as soon as they knew a trade he set them up in
business in his own name, allowing them a share in the profits.[85] A
slave could hire himself out for wages, and could himself acquire
slaves to work for him.[86] He was even entitled to purchase his
freedom.[87] "La loi babylonienne," says M. Oppert, "lassait aux
esclaves sur quelques points {685} plus de prérogatives que le Code
français n'en accorde à nos épouses."[88]
[Footnote 82: Meissner, _Beiträge zur altbabylonischen Privatrecht_,
p. 6. Oppert, 'La condition des esclaves à Babylone,' in _Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres--Comptes rendus des séances de l'année_
1888, ser. iv. vol. xvi. 122. Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 743.]
[Footnote 83: Meissner, _op. cit._ p. 7. Oppert, _loc. cit._ p. 121
_sqq._]
[Footnote 84: Oppert, _loc. cit._ p. 125 _sqq._]
[Footnote 85: Kohler and Peiser, _Aus dem babylonischen Rechtsleben_,
ii, 52 _sqq._]
[Footnote 86: Oppert, _loc. cit._ pp. 122, 128.]
[Footnote 87: Meissner, _op. cit._ p. 7. Oppert, _loc. cit._ p. 122.
Oppert and Ménant, _Documents juridiques de l'Assyrie et de la
Chaldée_, p. 14.]
[Footnote 88: Oppert, _loc. cit._ p. 121.]
Among the Hebrews the slave class consisted of captives taken in
war;[89] of persons bought with money from neighbouring nations or
from foreign residents in the land;[90] of children of slaves born in
the house;[91] of native Hebrews who had been sold by their
fathers,[92] or who either alone or with their wives and children had
fallen into slavery in consequence of poverty,[93] or who had been
sold by the authorities as slaves on account of theft when unable to
pay compensation for the stolen property.[94] To deprive an Israelite
of his freedom for any other reason, to steal him, use him as a slave,
or sell him, was a crime punishable with death.[95] And even the
Israelite who lost his liberty because he had become poor on account
of poverty was not to be treated in the same way as the slave of
foreign origin. He could not be compelled to serve as a bondservant,
only as a hired servant.[96] He should not be ruled over with
rigour.[97] He might not only be redeemed at any time by his
relatives, but if not redeemed he was bound to receive his freedom
without payment in the seventh year, and then the master should not
let him go away empty, but furnish him liberally out of his flock, his
floor, and his wine-press.[98] Slaves of foreign extraction, on the
other hand, were not to be emancipated, but should remain slaves for
ever, descending to children and children's children.[99] But in no
case had the master absolute power over his slave. Whether the latter
was an Israelite or a foreigner, his life, and to some extent his
body, were protected by law;[100] and if a slave escaped from a hard
master, he {686} should not be given up, but be allowed to live
unmolested in the place which he should choose in one of the cities of
Israel.[101] From everything that we read about slaves among the
Hebrews it appears that they were regarded as inferior members of the
family, and that the house-father cared for their well-being hardly
less than for that of his own children.[102] In the Talmud masters are
repeatedly admonished to treat their slaves with kindness;[103]
traffic in human beings is regarded as an occupation which
incapacitates the dealer to sit as judge;[104] and emancipation of
slaves is practically encouraged in various ways,[105] in spite of the
dictum of certain rabbis that he who emancipates his slave
transgresses the positive precept of Leviticus xxv. 46, "They shall be
your bondmen for ever."[106]
[Footnote 89: _Deuteronomy_, xx. 14.]
[Footnote 90: _Leviticus_, xxv. 44 _sqq._]
[Footnote 91: _Genesis_, xiv. 14.]
[Footnote 92: _Exodus_, xxi. 7.]
[Footnote 93: _Ibid._ xxi. 2 _sq._ _Leviticus_, xxv. 39, 47.]
[Footnote 94: _Exodus_, xxii. 3.]
[Footnote 95: _Ibid._ xxi. 16. _Deuteronomy_, xxiv. 7.]
[Footnote 96: _Leviticus_, xxv. 39, 40, 53.]
[Footnote 97: _Ibid._ xxv. 43, 46, 53.]
[Footnote 98: _Exodus_, xxi. 2. _Leviticus_, xxv. 40, 41, 48 _sqq._
_Deuteronomy_, xv. 12 _sqq._]
[Footnote 99: _Leviticus_, xxv. 44 _sqq._]
[Footnote 100: _Supra_, pp. 424, 516.]
[Footnote 101: _Deuteronomy_, xxiii. 15 _sq._]
[Footnote 102: See Mielziner, _Die Verhältnisse der Sklaven bei den
alten Hebräern_, p. 61 _sqq._; André, _L'esclavage chez les anciens
Hébreux_, p. 149 _sqq._; Benzinger, 'Slavery,' in Cheyne and Black,
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4657 _sq._]
[Footnote 103: Katz, _Der wahre Talmudjude_, p. 59 _sqq._ See also
_Ecclesiasticus_, xxxiii. 31:--"If thou have a servant, entreat him as
a brother: for thou hast need of him as of thine own soul."]
[Footnote 104: Benny, _Criminal Code of the Jews according to the
Talmud Massecheth Synhedrin_, p. 36.]
[Footnote 105: Winter, _Die Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden_, p. 41.]
[Footnote 106: _Berakhoth_, fol. 47 B, quoted by Hershon, _Treasures
of the Talmud_, p. 81. _R. Samuel_, quoted by André, _op. cit._ p. 180
_sq._]
According to Islam, a Muhammedan who is born free can never become a
slave. "The slave," says Mr. Lane, "is either a person taken captive
in war or carried off by force from a foreign country, and being at
the time of capture an infidel; or the offspring of a female slave by
another slave, or by any man who is not her owner, or by her owner if
he do not acknowledge himself to be the father."[107] The slave should
be treated with kindness; the Prophet said, "A man who behaves ill to
his slave will not enter into Paradise."[108] The master should give
to his slaves of the food which he eats himself, and of the clothes
with which he clothes himself.[109] He should not {687} order them to
do anything beyond their power, and in the hot season, during the
hottest hours of the day, he should let them rest.[110] He may marry
them to whom he will, but he may not separate them when married.[111]
He may, generally, give them away or sell them as he pleases, but he
must not separate a mother from her child. The Prophet said, "Whoever
is the cause of separation between mother and child, by selling or
giving, God will separate him from his friends on the day of
resurrection."[112] Nor is a master allowed to alienate a female slave
who has borne to him a child which he recognises as his own; and at
his death the mother is entitled to emancipation.[113] To liberate a
slave is regarded as an act highly acceptable to God, and as an
expiation for certain sins.[114] These rules, it should be added, are
not only recognised in theory, but derive additional support from
general usage. In the Muhammedan world the slave generally lives on
easy terms with his master. He is often treated as a member of the
family, and occasionally exercises much influence upon its
affairs.[115] In certain countries at least, it is held disreputable
or disgraceful for a person to sell his slave, except perhaps in case
of absolute necessity or in consequence of intolerable behaviour on
the part of the slave.[116] In Persia custom demands that on certain
festive occasions, such as the birth of a child or a wedding, one
{688} or several of the slaves of the family should be set free;[117]
and both there and in other Muhammedan countries testamentary
manumissions are of frequent occurrence.[118] In Morocco a slave is
sometimes allowed a certain amount of liberty that he may earn enough
to buy his freedom;[119] whilst among the Bedouins of the Arabian
Desert described by Burckhardt, slaves are always emancipated after a
certain lapse of time.[120] No stigma attaches to the emancipated
slave. It has been truly said that in Islam slavery is regarded as an
accident, not as a "constitution of nature,"[121] hence the freedman
is socially on an equal footing with a free-born citizen. He may
without discredit marry his former master's daughter, and become the
head of the family. Emancipated slaves have repeatedly risen to the
highest offices, they have ruled kingdoms and founded dynasties.[122]
[Footnote 107: Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_,
p. 116. _Cf._ Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 245 _sq._;
Ameer Ali, _Life and Teachings of Mohammed_, p. 376 _sq._]
[Footnote 108: Lane, _Arabian Society in the Middle Ages_, p. 255.
Lane-Poole, _Speeches and Table-Talk of the Prophet Mohammad_, p. 163.]
[Footnote 109: Lane, _Arabian Society_, p. 254. Lane-Poole,
_Speeches_, p. 163.]
[Footnote 110: Lane, _Arabian Society_, p. 254. Lane-Poole,
_Speeches_, p. 163. Sachau, _Muhammedanisches Recht_, pp. 18, 102.]
[Footnote 111: Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, p. 115.]
[Footnote 112: _Ibid._ p. 115. Lane, _Arabian Society_, p. 255. Ameer
All, _Life of Mohammed_, p. 374 _sq._]
[Footnote 113: Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, p. 116.]
[Footnote 114: _Koran_, xxiv. 33. Ameer Ali, _Life of Mohammed_, pp.
373, 377. Beltrame, _Il Sènnaar e lo Sciangàllah_, i. 46. Lane,
_Modern Egyptians_, p. 119.]
[Footnote 115: Lane, _Arabian Society_, p. 253 _sqq._ Polak,
_Persien_, i. 251, 255. Urquhart, _Spirit of the East_, ii. 403.
Burton, _Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah & Mecca_, i. 61. Munzinger,
_Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 155. Beltrame, _Il Sènnaar_, i. 46
_sqq._ Loir, 'L'esclavage en Tunisie,' in _Revue scientifique_, ser.
iv. vol. xii. 592 _sq._ Villot, _M[oe]urs, coutumes et institutions
des indigènes de l'Algérie_, p. 250. Meakin, _Moors_, p. 133.
Chavanne, _Die Sahara_, p. 389 (Arabs of the Sahara). Pommerol, _Among
the Women of the Sahara_, p. 161 _sqq._ Dyveyrier, _Exploration du
Sahara_, p. 339. Hourst, _Sur le Niger et au pays des Touaregs_, p.
206 (Touareg). Hanoteau and Letourneux, _La Kabylie_, ii. 143. Reade,
_Savage Africa_, p. 582.]
[Footnote 116: Polak, _Persien_, i. 250. Beltrame, _Il Sènnaar_, i.
47, 248. Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 155.]
[Footnote 117: Polak, _op. cit._ i. 250.]
[Footnote 118: _Ibid._ i. 250. Meakin, _op. cit._ p. 139.]
[Footnote 119: Meakin, _op. cit._ p. 139.]
[Footnote 120: Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_,
p. 202.]
[Footnote 121: Ameer Ali, _Life of Mohammed_, p. 375.]
[Footnote 122: _Ibid._ p. 375 _sq._ Bosworth Smith, _Mohammed and
Mohammedanism_, pp. 206, 211 _sq._]
According to the Laws of Manu, the mythical legislator of ancient
India, there are slaves of seven kinds, namely, "he who is made a
captive under a standard, he who serves for his daily food, he who is
born in the house, he who is bought and he who is given, he who is
inherited from ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of
punishment."[123] The last mentioned class consists of persons who
have lost their freedom because they have been unable to pay a debt or
a fine, or because they have left a religious order.[124] The slave is
not necessarily a Sûdra, or member of the lowest of the four Indian
castes, but Kshatriyas may become the slaves of Brâhmanas and Vaisyas
of Brâhmanas and Kshatriyas.[125] On the other hand, the Sûdras as
such were not slaves, though it was their duty to serve the other
castes; they chose the persons to whom they would offer service, and
claimed adequate compensation.[126] {689} The power which a
house-holder in India possessed over his slaves is not exactly
defined; but he is admonished not to have quarrels with them, and if
offended by any of them, to bear it without resentment.[127] In
Âpastamba's Aphorisms it is said that a person may at his pleasure
stint himself, his wife, or his children, "but by no means a slave who
does his work."[128] Elphinstone wrote in 1839 in his 'History of
India':--"Domestic slaves are treated exactly like servants, except
that they are more regarded as belonging to the family. I doubt if
they are ever sold; and they attract little observation, as there is
nothing apparent to distinguish them from freemen."[129] The
priesthood of modern Buddhism teach that there are five ways in which
a master ought to assist his slave:--"He must not appoint the work of
children to men, or of men to children, but to each according to his
strength; he must give each one his food and wages, according as they
are required; when sick, he must free him from work, and provide him
with proper medicine; when the master has any agreeable and savoury
food, he must not consume the whole himself, but must impart a portion
to others, even to his slaves; and if they work properly for a long
period, or for a given period, they must be set free."[130]
[Footnote 123: _Laws of Manu_, viii. 415.]
[Footnote 124: Bühler, in his translation of the Laws of Manu, in
_Sacred Books of the East_, xxv. 326, n. 415.]
[Footnote 125: _Ibid._ p. 326, n. 415.]
[Footnote 126: Ingram, _History of Slavery and Serfdom_, p. 272.]
[Footnote 127: _Laws of Manu_, iv. 180, 185.]
[Footnote 128: _Âpastamba_, ii. 4. 9. 11.]
[Footnote 129: Elphinstone, _History of India_, p. 203.]
[Footnote 130: Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, p. 500.]
In Greece, especially in earlier times, capture in war, piracy, and
kidnapping were common causes of slavery,[131] and the condition was
hereditary. Other legitimate sources were exposure of infants, except
at Thebes,[132] and sale of children by their parents.[133] At Athens
insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors up to the time
of Solon;[134] and metics--that is, resident aliens--who did not
discharge the obligations imposed on them by the State, {690} were
sold as slaves, as were also foreigners who had fraudulently possessed
themselves of the rights of citizens.[135] At least in a later age the
majority of slaves seem to have been of barbarian origin;[136] indeed,
after the Peloponnesian war the principle that captives taken in wars
between Greek states should be ransomed and not enslaved was commonly
recognised, though not always followed in practice.[137] As we have
seen, the master had not the power of life and death over his
slave.[138] At sanctuaries the latter found a refuge from cruel
oppression.[139] If maltreated he could demand to be sold; and he
could purchase his liberty with his _peculium_ by agreement with his
master.[140] But by manumission he only entered into an intermediate
condition between slavery and complete freedom; thus, at Athens the
freedman was in relation to the State a metic and in relation to his
master a client.[141] Domestic slaves often lived on terms of intimacy
with their masters,[142] but as a class slaves were regarded with
contempt even by men like Plato and Aristotle. The former, whilst
warning his hearers against insolent and unjust behaviour towards
slaves, observes that they should be treated with severity, not
admonished as if they were freemen, but punished, and only addressed
in words of command.[143] Aristotle compares the relation of the
master to his slave with that of the soul to the body and of the
craftsman to his tool, and adds that there can be friendship between
them only in so far as the slave is regarded not as a slave but as a
fellow human being.[144] But whilst the state of slavery always
entailed disgrace, the question was raised whether the master's power
over his slave was based on justice or {691} on force, and in Greece,
for the first time, we meet with the opinion that the institution of
slavery is contrary to Nature, and that it is the law which, unjustly,
makes one man a slave and another free.[145] However, Aristotle was no
doubt in general agreement with his age when he declared that the
barbarians, on account of their inferiority, are intended by Nature to
be the slaves of the Greeks.[146]
[Footnote 131: Wallon, _Histoire de l'esclavage dans l'antiquité_, i.
161 _sqq._ Richter, _Die Sklaverei im griechischen Altertume_, p. 39
_sqq._]
[Footnote 132: Aelian, _Historia varia_, ii. 7.]
[Footnote 133: Wallon. _op. cit._ i. 159 _sq._]
[Footnote 134: Plutarch, _Vita Solonis_, xiii. 4.]
[Footnote 135: Wallon, _op. cit._ i. 160 _sq._ Richter, _op. cit._
p. 46.]
[Footnote 136: Hermann-Blümner, _Lehrbuch der griechischen
Privatalterthümer_, p. 86. Richter, _op. cit._ p. 48.]
[Footnote 137: Schmidt, _Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 204, 205, 283.
Hermann-Blümner, _op. cit._ p. 86 _sq._]
[Footnote 138: _Supra_, p. 425.]
[Footnote 139: Wallon, _op. cit._ i. 310 _sq._ Schmidt, _op. cit._ ii.
218 _sq._ Richter, _op. cit._ p. 140 _sq._]
[Footnote 140: Ingram, _op. cit._ p. 27 _sq._ Wallon, _op. cit._ i. 335
_sq._ Richter, _op. cit._ p. 151.]
[Footnote 141: Richter, _op. cit._ p. 157. Wallon, _op. cit._ i. 346
_sqq._]
[Footnote 142: Schmidt, _op. cit._ ii. 212. Richter, _op. cit._ p. 151.]
[Footnote 143: Plato, _Leges_, vi. 777 _sq._]
[Footnote 144: Aristotle, _Ethica Nicomachea_, viii. 11. 6 _sq._
_Idem_, _Politica_, i. 5, p. 1254.]
[Footnote 145: _Idem_, _Politica_, i. 3, p. 1253 b.]
[Footnote 146: _Ibid._ i. 2, 6, pp. 1252 b, 1255 a. See Euripides,
_Iphigenia in Aulide_, 1400 _sq._]
The Roman jurists held up slavery as a mitigation of the horrors of
war: the capture and preservation of enemies, they said, was its sole
and exclusive origin in the past.[147] But in Rome as elsewhere, when
once established, it contained in itself the germ of extension; all
the children of a female slave followed the condition of the mother,
according to the principle applicable to the offspring of the lower
animals--"Partus sequitur ventrem." And sooner or later, when these
sources proved insufficient to maintain the supply, a regular commerce
in slaves was established, which was based on the systematically
prosecuted hunting of men in foreign lands.[148] To a much smaller
extent the slave class was recruited by Roman citizens--by children
sold by their fathers, by insolvent debtors, or by criminals condemned
to servitude as a punishment for some heinous offence.[149] The idea
of a Roman becoming the slave of a fellow-citizen was never quite
agreeable to the Roman mind. According to an ancient law the debtor,
after being made over to the creditor, should be sold abroad or _trans
Tiberim_.[150] Subsequently, in 326 B.C., the creditor's lien was
restricted to the goods of his debtor, if the latter was a Roman
citizen;[151] and during the Pagan Empire the sale of freeborn {692}
children by their fathers was prohibited.[152] The power, originally
unlimited, which the master had over his slave was also, in the course
of time, subjected to limitations. We have seen that since the days of
Claudius and Antoninus Pius legal check was put on the master's right
of killing his slave.[153] The Lex Petronia, A.D. 61, forbade masters
to compel their slaves to fight with wild beasts.[154] In the time of
Nero an official was appointed to hear complaints of the wrongs done
by masters to their slaves.[155] Antoninus Pius directed that slaves
treated with excessive cruelty, who had taken refuge at an altar or
imperial image, should be sold; and this provision was extended to
cases in which the master had employed a slave in a way degrading to
him or beneath his character.[156] In public auctions of slaves regard
was paid to the claims of relationship,[157] and in the interpretation
of testaments it was assumed that members of the same family were not
to be separated by the division of the succession.[158] In those days
when Roman slavery had lost its original patriarchal and, to speak
with Mommsen,[159] "in some measure innocent" character, when the
victories of Rome and the increasing slave trade had introduced into
the city innumerable slaves, when those simpler habits of life which
in early times somewhat mitigated the rigour of the law had
changed--the lot of the Roman slave was often extremely hard, and
numerous acts of shocking cruelty were committed.[160] But we also
hear, from the early days of the Empire, that masters who had been
cruel to their slaves were pointed at with disgust in all parts of the
city, and were hated and loathed.[161] And with a fervour which can
hardly be surpassed Seneca and other Stoics argued that the slave is a
being with human dignity and human rights, born of the same race as
ourselves, living the same life, {693} and dying the same death--in
short, that our slaves "are also men, and friends, and our
fellow-servants."[162] Epictetus even went so far as to condemn
altogether the keeping of slaves, a radicalism explicable from the
history of his own life. "What you avoid suffering yourself," he says,
"seek not to impose on others. You avoid slavery, for instance; take
care not to enslave. For if you can bear to exact slavery from others,
you appear to have been yourself a slave."[163] These teachings could
not fail to influence both legislation and public sentiment. Imbued
with the Stoic philosophy, the jurists of the classical period
declared that all men are originally free by the law of Nature, and
that slavery is only "an institution of the Law of Nations, by which
one man is made the property of another, in opposition to natural
right."[164]
[Footnote 147: Hunter, _Exposition of Roman Law_, p. 160 _sq._
_Institutiones_, i. 3. 3:--"Slaves are called _servi_, because
generals are wont to sell their captives, and so to preserve
(_servare_), and not to destroy them. They are also called _mancipia_,
because they are taken from the enemy with the strong hand (_manu
capiuntur_)."]
[Footnote 148: Mommsen, _History of Rome_, iii. 305 _sq._ Wallon, _op.
cit._ ii. 46 _sqq._ Ingram, _op. cit._ p. 38.]
[Footnote 149: Wallon, _op. cit._ ii. 18 _sqq._ Ingram, _op. cit._ p.
39. _Institutiones_, i. 12. 3.]
[Footnote 150: Mackenzie, _Studies in Roman Law_, p. 94.]
[Footnote 151: Livy, _Historiæ Romanæ_, viii. 28. Wallon, _op. cit._
ii. 29, n. 1.]
[Footnote 152: _Supra_, p. 615.]
[Footnote 153: _Supra_, p. 425 _sq._]
[Footnote 154: _Digesta_, xlviii. 8. 11. 2.]
[Footnote 155: Seneca, _De beneficiis_, iii. 22. 3.]
[Footnote 156: Wallon, _op. cit._ iii. 57 _sq._ Ingram, p. 63.]
[Footnote 157: Hunter, _Exposition of Roman Law_, p. 159.]
[Footnote 158: Wallon, _op. cit._ iii. 53.]
[Footnote 159: Mommsen, _History of Rome_, iii. 305.]
[Footnote 160: See Lecky, _History of Morals_, i. 302 _sq._]
[Footnote 161: Seneca, _De clementia_, i. 18. 3.]
[Footnote 162: _Idem_, _Epistolæ_, 47. _Idem_, _De beneficiis_, iii.
28. Epictetus, _Dissertationes_, i. 13. See also the collection of
statements referring to slavery made by Holland, _Reign of the
Stoics_, p. 186 _sqq._]
[Footnote 163: Epictetus, _Fragmenta_, 42.]
[Footnote 164: _Institutiones_, i. 3. 2.]
Considering that Christianity has commonly been represented as almost
the sole cause of the mitigation and final abolishment of slavery in
Europe, it deserves special notice that the chief improvement in the
condition of slaves at Rome took place at so early a period that
Christianity could have absolutely no share in it. Nay, for about two
hundred years after it was made the official religion of the Empire
there was an almost complete pause in the legislation on the
subject.[165] Under Justinian certain reforms were introduced:
--enfranchisement was facilitated in various ways;[166] the rights of
Roman citizens were granted to emancipated slaves, who had previously
occupied an intermediate position between slavery and perfect
freedom;[167] and though the law still refused to recognise the
marriages of slaves, Justinian gave them a legal value after
emancipation in establishing rights of succession.[168] But the inferior
position of the slave was asserted as sternly as ever. He belonged to
the {694} "corporeal" property of his master, he was reckoned among
things which are tangible by their nature, like land, raiment, gold, and
silver.[169] The constitution of Antoninus Pius restraining excessive
severity on the part of masters was enforced, but the motive for this
was not evangelic humanity.[170] It is said in the Institutes of
Justinian, "This decision is a just one; for it greatly concerns the
public weal, that no one be permitted to misuse even his own
property."[171]
[Footnote 165: _Cf._ Lecky, _History of European Morals_, ii. 64.]
[Footnote 166: _Institutiones_, i. 5 _sqq._]
[Footnote 167: _Ibid._ i. 5. 3; iii. 7. 4.]
[Footnote 168: _Ibid._ iii. 7 pr.]
[Footnote 169: _Institutiones_, ii. 2. 1.]
[Footnote 170: _Cf._ Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_, ii. 14.]
[Footnote 171: _Institutiones_, i. 8. 2.]
It is curious to note that the inconsistency of slavery with the
tenet, "Do to others as you would be done by," though emphasised by a
pagan philosopher, never seems to have occurred to any of the early
Christian writers. Christianity recognised slavery from the beginning.
The principle that all men are spiritually equal in Christ does not
imply that they should be socially equal in the world. Slavery does
not prevent anybody from performing the duties incumbent on a
Christian, it does not bar the way to heaven, it is an external affair
only, nothing but a name. He only is really a slave who commits
sin.[172] Slavery is of course a burden, but a burden which has been
laid upon the back of transgression. Man when created by God was free,
and nobody was the slave of another until that just man Noah cursed
Ham, his offending son; slavery, then, is a punishment sent by Him who
best knows how to proportionate punishment to offence.[173] The slave
himself ought not to desire to become free,[174] nay, if the master
offers him freedom he ought not to accept it.[175] Not one of the
Fathers even {695} hints that slavery is unlawful or improper.[176] In
the early age martyrs possessed slaves, and so did abbots, bishops,
popes, monasteries, and churches;[177] Jews and pagans only were
prohibited from acquiring Christian slaves.[178] So little was the
abolition of slavery thought of that a Council at Orleans, in the
middle of the sixth century, expressly decreed the perpetuity of
servitude among the descendants of slaves.[179] On the other hand, the
Church showed a zeal to prevent accessions to slavery from capture,
but her exertions were restricted to Christian prisoners of war.[180]
As late as the nineteenth century the right of enslaving captives was
defended by Bishop Bouvier.[181]
[Footnote 172: Gregory Nazianzen, _Orationes_, xiv. 25 (Migne,
_Patrologiæ cursus_, Ser. Graeca, xxxv. 891 _sq._). _Idem_, _Carmina_,
i. 2. 26. 29 (_ibid._ xxxvii. 853); i. 2. 33. 133 _sqq._ (_ibid._
xxxvii. 937 _sq._). St. Chrysostom, _In cap. IX. Genes. Homilia XXIX._
7 (_ibid._ liii. 270). _Idem_, _In Epist. I. ad Cor. Homilia XIX._ 5
(_ibid._ lxi. 158). St. Ambrose, _In Epistolam ad Colossenses_, 3
(Migne, _op. cit._ Ser. Lat. xvii. 439).]
[Footnote 173: St. Augustine, _De civitate Dei_, xix. 15 (Migne, _op.
cit._ xli. 643 _sq._).]
[Footnote 174: St. Ignatius, _Epistola ad Polycarpum_, 4 (Migne, _op.
cit._ Ser. Graeca, v. 723 _sq._). St. Augustine, _Ennaratio in Psalmum
CXXIV._ 7 (Migne, _op. cit._ xxxvii. 1653).]
[Footnote 175: Laurent, _Études sur l'histoire de l'humanité_, iv. 117.]
[Footnote 176: _Cf._ Babington, _Influence of Christianity in
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery in Europe_, p. 29.]
[Footnote 177: _Ibid._ p. 22. Potgiesser, _Commentarii juris Germanici
de statu servorum_, i. 4. 8, p. 176. Muratori, _Dissertazioni sopra le
antichità italiane_, i. 244.]
[Footnote 178: _Concilium Toletanum IV._ A.D. 633, can. 66
(Labbe-Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio_, x. 635). Blakey,
_Temporal Benefits of Christianity_, p. 397. Digby, _Mores Catholici_,
ii. 341. Cibrano, _Della schiavitù e del servaggio_, i. 272. Rivière,
_L'Église et l'esclavage_, p. 350.]
[Footnote 179: _Concilium Aurelianense IV._ about A.D. 545, can. 32
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ ix. 118 _sq._).]
[Footnote 180: _Concilium Rhemense_, about A.D. 630, can. 22
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 597). Gratian, _Decretum_, ii. 12. 2. 13
_sqq._ Baronius, _Annales Ecclesiastici_, A.D. 1263, ch. 74 vol. xxii.
124. Le Blant, _Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule_, ii. 284 _sqq._
Babington, _op. cit._ pp. 51 _sqq._, 94 _sq._ Nys, _Le droit de la
guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius_, p. 114.]
[Footnote 181: Bouvier, _Institutiones philosophicæ_, p. 566.]
The Apostles reminded slaves of their duties towards their masters and
masters of their duties towards their slaves.[182] The same was done
by Councils and Popes. The Council of Gangra, about the year 324,
pronounced its anathema on anyone who should teach a slave to despise
his master on pretence of religion;[183] and so much importance was
attached to this decree that it was inserted in the epitome of canons
which Hadrian I. in 773 presented to Charlemagne in Rome.[184] But
there are also many instances in which masters are recommended to show
humanity to their slaves.[185] According to Gregory IX. {696} "the
slaves who were washed in the fountain of holy baptism should be more
liberally treated in consideration of their having received so great a
benefit."[186] Slaves who had taken refuge from their masters in
churches or monasteries were not to be given up until the master had
sworn not to punish the fugitive;[187] or they were never given up,
but became slaves to the sanctuary.[188] The Church, as we have seen,
protected the life of the slave by excommunicating for a couple of
years masters who killed their slaves.[189] She prohibited the sale of
Christian slaves to Jews and heathen nations.[190] The Council of
Chalons, in the middle of the seventh century, ordered that no
Christians should be sold outside the kingdom of Clovis, so that they
might not get into captivity or become the slaves of Jewish
masters;[191] and some Anglo-Saxon laws similarly forbade the sale of
Christians out of the country, and especially into bondage to heathen,
"that those souls perish not that Christ bought with his own
life."[192] The clergy sometimes remonstrated against slave markets;
but their indignation never reached the trade in heathen slaves,[193]
nor was the master's right of selling any of his slaves whenever he
pleased called in question at all. The assertion made by many writers
that the Church exercised an extremely favourable influence upon
slavery[194] surely involves a great exaggeration. As late as the
thirteenth century the master practically had the power of life and
death over his slave.[195] Throughout Christendom the purchase and
{697} the sale of men, as property transferred from vendor to buyer,
was recognised as a legal transaction of the same validity with the
sale of other merchandise, land or cattle.[196] Slaves had a title to
nothing but subsistence and clothes from their masters, all the
profits of their labour accruing to the latter; and if a master from
indulgence gave his slaves any _peculium_, or fixed allowance for
their subsistence, they had no right of property in what they saved
out of that, but all that they accumulated belonged to their
master.[197] A slave or a freedman was not allowed to bring a criminal
charge against a free person, except in the case of a _crimen læsæ
majestatis_,[198] and slaves were incapable of being received as
witnesses against freemen.[199] The old distinction between the
marriage of the freeman and the concubinage of the slave was long
recognised by the Church: slaves could not marry, but had only a right
of _contubernium_, and their unions did not receive the nuptial
benediction of a priest.[200] Subsequently, when conjunction between
slaves came to be considered a lawful marriage, they were not
permitted to marry without the consent of their master, and such as
transgressed this rule were punished very severely, sometimes even
with death.[201]
[Footnote 182: _Ephesians_, vi. 5 _sqq._ _Colossians_, iii. 22 _sqq._;
iv. 1.]
[Footnote 183: _Concilium Gangrense_, about A.D. 324, can. 3
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ ii. 1102, 1106, 1110).]
[Footnote 184: 'Epitome canonum, quam Hadrianus I. Carolo magno
obtulit, A.D. DCCLXXIII.' in Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xii. 863.]
[Footnote 185: Babington, _op. cit._ p. 58 _sqq._]
[Footnote 186: Baronius, _Annales Ecclesiastici_, A.D. 1238, ch. 62,
vol. xxi. 204.]
[Footnote 187: Milman, _op. cit._ ii. 51. Rivière, _op. cit._ p. 306.
Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 246,
n. 1.]
[Footnote 188: 'Concilium Kingesburiense sub Bertulpho,' in Wilkins,
_Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ et Hiberniæ_, i. 181.]
[Footnote 189: _Supra_, p. 426.]
[Footnote 190: _Concilium Rhemense_, about A.D. 630, can. 11
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 596). _Concilium Liptinense_, A.D. 743,
can. 3 (_ibid._ xii. 371). Hefele, _Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte_,
i. 218. _Idem_, _History of the Councils of the Church_, v. 211.]
[Footnote 191: _Concilium Cabilonense_, about A.D. 650, can. 9
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 1191).]
[Footnote 192: _Laws of Ethelred_, v. 2; vi. 9. _Laws of Cnut_, ii. 3.]
[Footnote 193: Hüllmann, _Stædtewesen des Mittelalters_, i. 80 _sq._
Loring Brace, _Gesta Christi_, p. 229. Rivière, _op. cit._ p. 325.]
[Footnote 194: Yanoski, _De l'abolition de l'esclavage ancien au moyen
age_, p. 74 _sq._ Allard, _Les esclaves chrétiens depuis les premiers
temps de l'Église_, p. 487; &c.]
[Footnote 195: _Supra_, p. 427 _sq._]
[Footnote 196: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ ii. 4. 5, p. 429. Milman, _op.
cit._ ii. 16.]
[Footnote 197: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ ii. 10, p. 528 _sqq._ Du Cange,
_Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis_, vi. 451.
Robertson, _History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V._ i. 274.]
[Footnote 198: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iii. 3. 2, p. 612.]
[Footnote 199: Beaumanoir, _Coutumes du Beauvoisis_, xxxix. 32, vol.
ii, 103. Du Cange, _op. cit._ vi. 452. Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iii. 3.
1, p. 611.]
[Footnote 200: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ ii. 2. 10 _sq._, p. 354 _sq._]
[Footnote 201: _Ibid._ ii. 2. 12, p. 355 _sq._]
The gradual disappearance of slavery in Europe during the latter part
of the Middle Ages has also commonly been in the main attributed to
the influence of the Church.[202] But this opinion is hardly supported
by facts. It is true that the Church in some degree encouraged the
manumission of slaves. Though slavery was considered a {698} perfectly
lawful institution, the enfranchisement of a fellow-Christian was
deemed a meritorious act, and was sometimes strongly recommended on
Christian principles. At the close of the sixth century it was
affirmed that, as Christ had come to break the chain of our servitude
and restore our primitive liberty, so it was well for us to imitate
Him by making free those whom the law of nations had reduced to
slavery;[203] and the same doctrine was again proclaimed at various
times down to the sixteenth century.[204] In the Carlovingian period
the abbot Smaragdus expressed the opinion that among other good and
salutary works each one ought to let slaves go free, considering that
not nature but sin had subjected them to their masters.[205] In the
latter part of the twelfth century the prelates of France, and in
particular the Archbishop of Sens, pretended that it was an obligation
of conscience to accord liberty to all Christians, relying on a decree
of a Council held at Rome by Pope Alexander III.[206] And in one of
the later compilations of German mediæval law it was said that the
Lord Jesus, by his injunction to render unto Cæsar the things which
are Cæsar's and unto God the things that are God's, indicated that no
man is the property of another, but that every man belongs to
God.[207] Slaves were liberated "for God's love," or "for the remedy"
or "ransom of the soul."[208] In the formularies of manumission given
by the monk Marculfus in the seventh century we read, for
instance:--"He that releases his slave who is bound to him, may trust
that God will recompense him in the next world";[209] "For the
remission of my sins, I absolve thee";[210] "For the glory {699} of
God's name and for my eternal retribution," &c.[211] Too much
importance, however, has often been attached to these phrases; the
most trivial occurrences, such as giving a book to a monastery, are
commonly accompanied by similar expressions,[212] and it appears from
certain formulas that slaves were not only liberated, but also bought
and sold, "in the name of God."[213] Nor can we suppose that it was
from religious motives only that manumissions were encouraged by the
clergy. It has been pointed out that, "as dying persons were
frequently inclined to make considerable donations for pious uses, it
was more immediately for the interest of churchmen, that people of
inferior condition should be rendered capable of acquiring property,
and should have the free disposal of what they had acquired." It also
seems that those who obtained their liberty by the influence of the
clergy had to reward their benefactors, and that the manumission
should for this reason be confirmed by the Church.[214] And whilst the
Church favoured liberation of the slaves of laymen, she took care to
prevent liberation of her own slaves; like a physician she did not
herself swallow the medicine which she prescribed to others. She
allowed alienation of such slaves only as showed a disposition to run
away.[215] The Council of Agatho, in 506, considered it unfair to
enfranchise the slaves of monasteries, seeing that the monks
themselves were daily compelled to labour;[216] and, as a matter of
fact, the slaves of monasteries were everywhere among the last who
were manumitted.[217] In the seventh century a Council at Toledo
threatened with damnation any bishop who should liberate a slave
belonging to the Church, without giving {700} due compensation from
his own property, as it was thought impious to inflict a loss on the
Church of Christ;[218] and according to several ecclesiastical
regulations no bishop or priest was allowed to manumit a slave in the
patrimony of the Church unless he put in his place two slaves of equal
value.[219] Nay, the Church was anxious not only to prevent a
reduction of her slaves, but to increase their number. She zealously
encouraged people to give up themselves and their posterity to be the
slaves of churches and monasteries, to enslave their bodies--as some
of the charters put it--in order to procure the liberty of their
souls.[220] And in the middle of the seventh century a Council decreed
that the children of incontinent priests should become the slaves of
the churches where their fathers officiated.[221]
[Footnote 202: Clarkson, _Essay on Slavery_, p. 19, _sq._ Biot, _De
l'abolition de l'esclavage ancien en Occident_, p. xi. Thérou, _Le
Christianisme et l'esclavage_, p. 147. Martin, _Histoire de France
jusqu'en_ 1789, iii. 11, n. 2. Balmes, _El Protestantismo comparado
con el Catolicismo_, i. 285. Blakey, _op. cit._ p. 170. Yanoski, _op.
cit._ p. 75. Cochin, _L'abolition de l'esclavage_, ii. 349, 458.
Littré, _Études sur les Barbares et le Moyen Age_, p. 230 _sq._
Allard, _op. cit._ p. 490. Tedeschi, _La schiavitù_, p. 68. Lecky,
_History of Rationalism in Europe_, ii. 216, 236 _sqq._ Maine,
_International Law_, p. 160. Kidd, _Social Evolution_, p. 168.]
[Footnote 203: St. Gregory the Great, _Epistolæ_, vi. 12 (Migne,
_Patrologiæ cursus_, lxxvii. 803 _sq._). Gratian, _op. cit._ ii. 12.
2. 68. Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iv. 1. 3, p. 666 _sq._]
[Footnote 204: Babington, _op. cit._ p. 180.]
[Footnote 205: Smaragdus, _Via Regia_, 30 (d'Achery, _Spicilegium_,
i. 253).]
[Footnote 206: de Boulainvilliers, _Histoire de l'ancien gouvernement
de la France_, i. 312.]
[Footnote 207: _Speculum Saxonum_, iii. 42 (Goldast, _Collectio
consuetudinum et legum imperialium_, p. 158).]
[Footnote 208: Du Cange, _op. cit._ iv. 460 _sqq._ Potgiesser, _op.
cit._ iv. 12. 5, p. 751 _sqq._ Muratori, _op. cit._ i. 249. Robertson,
_op. cit._ i. 323. Milman, _op. cit._ ii. 51 _sq._]
[Footnote 209: Marculfus, _Formulæ_, ii. 32 (Migne, _op. cit._
lxxxvii. 747).]
[Footnote 210: _Ibid._ ii. 33 (Migne, _op. cit._ lxxxvii. 748).]
[Footnote 211: Marculfus, _Formulæ_, ii. 34 (Migne, _op. cit._
lxxxvii. 748).]
[Footnote 212: Babington, _op. cit._ p. 61, n. 6.]
[Footnote 213: _Formulæ Bignonianæ_, 2, 'Venditio de servo' (Baluze,
_Capitularia regum Francorum_, ii. 497):--"Domino magnifico fratri
illi emptori, ego in Dei nomine ille venditor."]
[Footnote 214: Millar, _Origin of the Distinction of Ranks_, p. 274
_sq._]
[Footnote 215: Gratian, _op. cit._ ii. 12. 2. 54.]
[Footnote 216: _Concilium Agathense_, A.D. 506, can. 56 (Labbe-Mansi,
_op. cit._ viii. 334).]
[Footnote 217: Hallam, _View of the State of Europe during the Middle
Ages_ (ed. 1837), i. 221.]
[Footnote 218: _Concilium Toletanum IV._ A.D. 633, can. 67
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 635).]
[Footnote 219: Gratian, _op. cit._ ii. 12. 2. 58. Potgiesser, _op.
cit._ iv. 2. 4, p. 673.]
[Footnote 220: Du Cange, _op. cit._ iv. 1286. Potgiesser, _op. cit._
i. 1. 6 _sq._, p. 5 _sqq._ Muratori, _op. cit._ i. 234 _sqq._
Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 326.]
[Footnote 221: _Concilium Toletanum IX._ A.D. 655, can. 10
(Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xi. 29).]
The disappearance of mediæval slavery has further, to some extent,
been attributed to the efforts of kings to weaken the power of the
nobles.[222] Thus Louis X. and Philip the Long of France issued
ordinances declaring that, as all men were by nature free, and as
their kingdom was called the kingdom of the Franks, they would have
the fact to correspond with the name, and emancipated all persons in
the royal domains upon paying a just compensation, as an example for
other lords to follow.[223] Muratori believes that in Italy the wars
during the twelfth and following centuries contributed more than
anything else to the decline of slavery, as there was a need of
soldiers and soldiers must be freemen.[224] According to others the
disappearance of slavery was largely effected by the great famines and
epidemics with which Europe was visited during the tenth, eleventh,
and twelfth {701} centuries.[225] The number of slaves was also
considerably reduced by the ancient usage of enslaving prisoners of
war being replaced by the more humane practice of accepting ransom for
them, which became the general rule in the later part of the Middle
Ages, at least in the case of Christian captives.[226] But it seems
that the chief cause of the extinction of slavery in Europe was its
transformation into serfdom.
[Footnote 222: Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 47 _sq._ Millar, _op. cit._
p. 276 _sqq._]
[Footnote 223: Decrusy, Isambert, and Jourdan, _Recueil général des
anciennes lois françaises_, iii. 102 _sqq._]
[Footnote 224: Muratori, _op. cit._ i. 234 _sq._ _Idem_, _Rerum
Italicarum scriptores_, xviii. 268, 292.]
[Footnote 225: Biot, _op. cit._ p. 318 _sqq._ Saco, _Historia de la
esclavitud_, iii. 241 _sqq._]
[Footnote 226: Ward, _Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the
Law of Nations in Europe_, i. 298 _sq._ Babington, _op. cit._ p. 147.
Ayala, _De jure et officiis bellicis_, i. 5. 19. In the sixteenth
century the statutes of some Italian towns make mention of the sale of
slaves, who probably were Turkish captives (Nys, _Le droit de la
guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius_, p. 140).]
This transformation has been traced to the diminished supply of
slaves, which made it the interest of each family to preserve
indefinitely its own hereditary slaves, and to keep up their number by
the method of propagation. The existence and physical well-being of
the slave became consequently an object of greater value to his
master, and the latter found it most profitable to attach his slaves
to certain pieces of land.[227] Moreover, the cultivation of the
ground required that the slaves should have a fixed residence in
different parts of the master's estate, and when a slave had thus been
for a long time engaged in a particular farm, he was so much the
better qualified to continue in the management of it for the future.
By degrees he therefore came to be regarded as belonging to the stock
upon the ground, and was disposed of as a part of the estate which he
had been accustomed to cultivate.[228]
[Footnote 227: Storch, _Cours d'économie politique_, iv. 260. Ingram,
_op. cit._ p. 72.]
[Footnote 228: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 263 _sqq._]
But serfdom itself was merely a transitory condition destined to lead
up to a state of entire liberty. As the proprietor of a large estate
could not oversee the behaviour of his villeins, scattered over a wide
area of land, the only means of exciting their industry would be to
offer them a reward for the work which they performed. Thus, besides
the ordinary maintenance allotted {702} to them, they frequently
obtained a part of the profits, and became capable of having separate
property.[229] In many cases this no doubt enabled the serf to
purchase his liberty out of his earnings;[230] whilst in others the
master would have an interest in allowing him to pay a fixed rent and
to retain the surplus for himself. The landlord was then freed from
the hazard of accidental losses, and obtained not only a certain, but
frequently an additional, revenue from his land, owing to the greater
exertions of cultivators who worked for their own benefit;[231] and at
the same time the personal subjection of the peasants naturally came
to an end, as it was of no consequence to the landlord how they
conducted themselves provided that they punctually paid the rents. Nor
was there any reason to insist that they should remain in the farm
longer than they pleased; for the profits it afforded made them
commonly not more willing to leave it than the proprietor was to put
them away.[232] Another factor which led to the disappearance of
serfdom was the encouragement which Sovereigns, always jealous of the
great lords, gave to the villeins to encroach upon their
authority.[233] We have convincing proof that in England, before the
end of Edward III.'s reign, the villeins found themselves sufficiently
powerful to protect one another, and to withhold their ancient and
accustomed services from their lord.[234] In Germany, again, the
landlords sometimes furnished their villeins with arms to defend the
cause of their master, and this undoubtedly tended to their
enfranchisement, as persons who are taught to use and allowed to
possess weapons will soon make {703} themselves respected.[235] A
great number of villeins also shook off the fetters of their servitude
by fleeing for refuge to some chartered town,[236] where they became
free at once,[237] or, more commonly, after a certain stipulated
period--a year and a day,[238] or more;[239] and it seems, besides,
that the rapid disappearance of serfdom in the prospering free towns
indirectly, by way of example, promoted the enfranchisement of rural
serfs.[240] There are, further, instances of lords liberating their
villeins at the intercession of their spiritual confessors, the clergy
availing themselves of every opportunity to lessen the formidable
power of their great rivals, the temporal nobility.[241] But the
influence which the Church exercised in favour of the enfranchisement
of serfs was even less than her share in the abolition of slavery
proper.[242] She represented serfdom as a divine institution,[243] as
a school of humility, as a road to future glory.[244] She was herself
the greatest {704} serf-holder;[245] and so strenuously did she
persist in retaining her villeins, that after Voltaire had raised his
powerful outcry in favour of liberty and Louis XVI. himself had been
induced to abolish "the right of servitude" in consideration of "the
love of humanity," the Church still refused to emancipate her
serfs.[246] But whilst the cause of freedom owes little to the
Christian Church, it owes so much the more to the feelings of humanity
and justice in some of her opponents.
[Footnote 229: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 264. Simonde de Sismondi,
_Histoire des républiques italiennes du moyen âge_, xvi. 365 _sq._
Guérard, _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Père de Chartres_, i. p.
xli. Dunham, _History of the Germanic Empire_, i. 230.]
[Footnote 230: See Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_, p. 87;
Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law before the Time of
Edward I._ i. 36, 427.]
[Footnote 231: Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, p. 173. Millar, _op.
cit._ p. 267 _sqq._ Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_, i. 309,
311. Dunham, _op. cit._ i. 228 _sq._ On the inefficiency of slave
labour, see also Storch, _op. cit._ iv. 275 _sqq._]
[Footnote 232: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 269 _sq._]
[Footnote 233: Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, p. 173.]
[Footnote 234: Eden, _State of the Poor_, i. 30.]
[Footnote 235: Dunham, _op. cit._ i. 229.]
[Footnote 236: Guibertus de Novigento, 'De vita sua,' in Bouquet,
_Rerum Gallicarum et Franciarum scriptores_, xii. 257. 'Fragmentum
historicum vitam Ludovici VII. summatim complectens,' _ibid._ xii.
286. Beaumanoir, _op. cit._ xlv. 36, vol. ii. 237. Eden, _op. cit._ i.
30. Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 531 _sq._ Saco, _op. cit._ iii. 252.]
[Footnote 237: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 532.]
[Footnote 238: Glanville, _Tractates de Legibus et Consuetudinibus
Regni Angliæ_, v. 5. Bracton, _De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ_,
fol. 198 b, vol. iii. 292 _sq._ Beaumanoir, _op. cit._ xlv. 36, vol.
ii. 237. Pollock and Maitland, _op. cit._ i. 429, 648 _sq._ Grimm,
_Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 337 _sq._ Laurent, _op. cit._ vii.
532.]
[Footnote 239: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 532.]
[Footnote 240: _Ibid._ vii. 533 _sq._]
[Footnote 241: Thomas Smith, _Common-wealth of England_, p. 250. Eden,
_op. cit._ i. 10. Sugenheim, _Geschichte der Aufhebung der
Leibeigenschaft und Hörigkeit in Europa_, p. 109.]
[Footnote 242: _Cf._ Rivière, _op. cit._ p. 511. Babington says (_op.
cit._ p. 148 _sq._) that in the five-hundred pages of Wilkins'
_Concilia_, which comprise the ecclesiastical documents of the British
churches in the thirteenth century, we only find the following
regulations concerning the unfree population:--that neither freemen
nor villeins are to be impeded in making their wills when death
approaches; that monks are not to alienate their less useful slaves
(_famulos_); that Jews are not allowed to possess Christian
slaves.--It was said that "he puts a disgrace on God who raises a
villein above his station" (_ibid._ p. 150).]
[Footnote 243: Adalbero, _Carmen ad Rotbertum regem Francorum_, 291,
292, 297 _sqq._ (Bouquet, _op. cit._ x. 70):--"Thesaurus, vestis,
cunctis sunt pascua servi. Nam valet ingenuus sine servis vivere
nullus. . . . Triplex ergo Dei domus est, quæ creditur una. Nunc orant
alii; pugnant; aliique laborant: Quæ tria sunt simul, et scissuram non
patiuntur." St. Bonaventura, quoted by Laurent, _op. cit._ vii.
522:--"Non solum secundum humanam institutionem, sed etiam secundum
divinam dispensationem, inter Christianos sunt domini et servi."]
[Footnote 244: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 523.]
[Footnote 245: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 524.]
[Footnote 246: Hettner, _Geschichte der französischen Literatur im
achtzehnten Jahrhundert_, p. 169. Babington, _op. cit._ p. 108.
Sugenheim, _op. cit._ p. 156 _sqq._ Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 537
_sq._]
* * * * *
Not long after serfdom had begun to disappear in the most advanced
communities of Christendom a new kind of slavery was established in
the colonies of European states. It grew up under circumstances
particularly favourable to the employment of slaves. Whether slave
labour or free labour is more profitable to the employer depends on
the wages of the free labourer, and these again depend on the numbers
of the labouring population compared with the capital and the land. In
the rich and underpeopled soil of the West Indies and in the Southern
States of America the balance of the profits between free and slave
labour was on the side of slavery. Hence slavery was introduced there,
and flourished, and could be abolished only with the greatest
difficulty.[247]
[Footnote 247: Mill, _Principles of of Political Economy_, i. 311.]
From a moral point of view negro slavery is interesting chiefly
because it existed in the midst of a highly developed Christian
civilisation, and nevertheless, at least in the British colonies and
the United States, was the most brutal form of slavery ever known. It
may be worth while to consider more closely some points of the
legislation relating to it.
In America, as elsewhere, the state of slavery was hereditary. The
child of a female slave was itself a slave and belonged to the owner
of its mother even if its father was a freeman, whereas the child of a
free woman was {705} free even if its father was a slave.[248] When
the slave-trade was prohibited, heredity remained the only legitimate
source of slavery; but even then a freeborn negro was far from safe.
In the British colonies and in all the Slave States except one, every
negro was presumed to be a slave until he could prove the
reverse.[249] A man who, within the limits of a slave-holding State,
could exhibit a person of African extraction in his custody was
exempted from all necessity of making proof how he had obtained him or
by what authority he claimed him as a slave. Nay more, through the
direct action of Congress it became law that persons known to be free
should be sold as slaves in order to cover the costs of imprisonment
which they had suffered on account of the false suspicion that they
were runaway slaves. This law was repeatedly put into effect. "How
many crowned despots," says Professor von Hoist, "can be mentioned in
the history of the old world who have done things which compare in
accursedness with this law to which the democratic republic gave
birth?"[250]
[Footnote 248: Stroud, _Laws relating to Slavery in the United States
of America_, p. 16 _sqq._ Cobb, _Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery
in the United States of America_, p. 68. Stephen, _Slavery of the
British West India Colonies_, i. 122. _Code Noir_, Édit du mois de
Mars 1685, art. 13, p. 35 _sq._; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art.
10, p. 288 _sq._ In Maryland, according to an early enactment, which
obtained till the year 1699 or 1700, all the children born of a slave
were slaves "as their fathers were" (Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 14 _sqq._).
In Cuba the nobler parent determined the rank of the offspring
(Newman, _Anglo-Saxon Abolition of Negro Slavery_, p. 17).]
[Footnote 249: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 369 _sq._ Stroud, _op. cit._ pp.
125, 126, 130. Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 67. Wheeler, _Treatise on the Law
of Slavery_, p. 5.]
[Footnote 250: von Holst, _Constitutional and Political History of the
United States_, i. 305.]
Slaves were defined as "chattels personal in the hands of their
respective owners or possessors, and their executors, administrators,
and assigns, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."[251] In the
British colonies and the American Slave States they were at all times
liable to be sold or otherwise alienated at the will of their masters,
as absolutely as cattle, or any other personal effects. They were
{706} also liable to be sold by process of law for satisfaction of the
debts of a living, or the debts or bequests of a deceased master, at
the suit of creditors or legatees. They were transmitted by
inheritance or by will to heirs at law or to legatees, and in the
distribution of estates they were distributed like other
property.[252] No regard was paid to family ties. Except in Louisiana,
where children under ten years of age could not be sold separately
from their mothers,[253] no law existed to prevent the violent
separation of parents from their children or from each other.[254] And
what the law did not prevent, the slave-owners did not omit doing;
thus Virginia was known as a breeding place out of which the members
of one household were sold into every part of the country.[255] All
this, however, holds true of the British colonies and Slave States
only. In the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies plantation
slaves were real estate, attached to the soil they cultivated. They
partook therewith of all the restraints upon voluntary alienation to
which the possessor of the land was there liable, and they could not
be seized or sold by creditors, for satisfaction of the debts of the
owner.[256] As regards the sale of members of the same family the Code
Noir expressly says, "Ne pourront être saisis et vendus séparément, le
mari et la femme, et leurs enfans impubéres, s'ils sont tous sous la
puissance du même Maître."[257] A slave could make no contract; he
could not even contract marriage, in the juridical sense of the word.
The association which took place among slaves and was called marriage
was virtually the same as the Roman _contubernium_, a relation which
had no sanctity and to which no civil rights were attached.[258] The
master could whenever {707} he liked separate the "husband" and
"wife"; he could, if he pleased, commit "adultery" with the "wife,"
and was the absolute owner of all the children born by her. A slave
had "no more legal authority over his child than a cow has over her
calf." On the other hand, the common rules of sexual morality were not
enforced on the slaves. They were not admonished for incontinence, nor
punished for adultery, nor prosecuted for bigamy. Incontinence was
rather thought a matter of course in the slave. We are told that even
in Puritan New England female slaves in ministers' and magistrates'
families bore children, black or yellow, without marriage, that no one
inquired who their fathers were, and that nothing more was thought of
it than of the breeding of sheep or swine. And concerning the
"slave-quarters" connected with the plantations the universal
testimony was that the sexes were there "herded together
promiscuously, like beasts."[259]
[Footnote 251: Brevard, _Digest of the Public Statute Law of
South-Carolina_, p. 229. Prince, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_,
p. 777. In the French _Code Noir_ (Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art.
44, p. 49; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 40, p. 305)
slaves are declared to be "meubles."]
[Footnote 252: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 62. Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 84.
Goodell, _American Slave Code in Theory and Practice_, p. 63 _sqq._]
[Footnote 253: Peirce, Taylor, and King, _Consolidation and Revision
of the Statutes of the State_ [_Louisiana_], pp. 523, 550 _sq._]
[Footnote 254: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 62 _sq._ Stroud, _op. cit._
p. 82.]
[Footnote 255: Pearson, _National Life and Character_, p. 210.]
[Footnote 256: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 69.]
[Footnote 257: _Code Noir_, Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 47, p. 51;
Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 43, p. 306.]
[Footnote 258: Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 240 _sqq._ Stroud, _op. cit._ p.
99. Goodell, _American Slave Code_, p. 105 _sqq._ Wheeler, _op. cit._
p. 199. According to the Civil Code of Louisiana, "slaves cannot marry
without the consent of their masters, and their marriages do not
produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract"
(Morgan, _Civil Code of Louisiana_, art. 182, p. 29).]
[Footnote 259: Goodell, _American Slave Code_, p. 111. In 1835 the
query was presented to a Baptist Association of ministers, "whether,
in case of involuntary separation of such a character as to preclude
all future intercourse, the parties may be allowed to marry again?"
The answer was, "that such separation among persons situated as our
slaves are, is civilly a separation by death, and they believe that,
in the sight of God, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages
in such cases would be to expose the parties not only to greater
hardships and stronger temptations, but to church censure for acting
_in obedience to their masters_." Incidentally here the fact leaks out
that slave cohabitation is enforced by the authority of the masters
for the increase of their human chattels (Goodell, _Slavery and
Anti-Slavery_, p. 185).]
Yet though slaves were regarded as chattels, the master could not do
with his slave exactly what he pleased. We have noticed that the life
of the slave was in some degree, though very insufficiently, protected
by law,[260] and that a master who mutilated his slave was subject to
a slight penalty.[261] The law also took care to prohibit the master
from doing things which were considered injurious to the community or
the State. There was a great fear of teaching negroes to read and
write. William Knox, in a tract addressed to "the venerable Society
for propagation {708} of the Gospel in foreign parts" in the year
1768, remarks that "instruction renders them less fit or less willing
to labour," and that, if they were universally taught to read, there
would undoubtedly be a general insurrection of the negroes leading to
the massacre of their owners.[262] A similar fear underlies the laws
on the subject which we meet with in the codes of some of the Slave
States. According to the Negro Act of 1740 for South Carolina, any
person who instructed a slave in writing was subject to a fine of one
hundred pounds;[263] but this enactment was later on considered too
liberal. A law of 1834 placed under the ban all efforts to teach the
coloured race either reading or writing, and the punishment was no
longer a pecuniary fine only, but, besides, imprisonment for six
months or a shorter time or, if the offender was a free person of
colour, whipping not exceeding fifty lashes.[264] In Georgia a law of
1770, which prohibited the instruction of slaves in reading and
writing, was in 1833 followed by an act which extended the prohibition
to free persons of colour.[265] In Louisiana the teaching of slaves
was punished with imprisonment for not less than one month nor more
than twelve months.[266] North Carolina allowed slaves to be made
acquainted with arithmetical calculations, but sternly interdicted
instruction in reading and writing;[267] whilst Alabama warred with
the rudiments of reading, forbidding any coloured persons, bond or
free, to be taught not only reading and writing, but spelling.[268] In
all these States the prohibitions referred to the master of the slave
as well as to other persons. In Virginia, on the other hand, the
master might teach his slave whatever he liked, but others might
not.[269]
[Footnote 260: _Supra_, p. 428 _sq._]
[Footnote 261: _Supra_, p. 517.]
[Footnote 262: Knox, _Three Tracts respecting the Conversion and
Instruction of the Free Indians and Negroe Slaves in the Colonies_,
p. 15 _sq._]
[Footnote 263: Brevard, _op. cit._ ii. 243.]
[Footnote 264: McCord, _Statutes at large of South Carolina_, vii.
468.]
[Footnote 265: Prince, _op. cit._ pp. 785, 658.]
[Footnote 266: Peirce, Taylor, and King, _op. cit._ p. 552.]
[Footnote 267: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina passed by the
General Assembly at the Session of_ 1836-7, xxxiv. 74, cxi. 27, vol.
i. 209, 578.]
[Footnote 268: Clay, _Digest of the Laws of Alabama_, p. 543.]
[Footnote 269: _Code of Virginia_, cxcviii. 31 _sq._ Stroud, _op.
cit._ p. 142.]
{709} There is yet another point in which the master's power was
restricted in a most unusual way: in many cases he was not allowed to
liberate his slave, or formidable obstacles were put in the way of
manumission. Thus, in North Carolina a slave could formerly not be
enfranchised except for meritorious services;[270] but this enactment
was altered by the Revised Statutes of 1836-1837, according to which
any emancipation granted to any slave "shall be upon the express
condition, that he, she or they will leave the State, within ninety
days from the granting thereof, and never will return within the State
afterwards."[271] The Civil Code of Louisiana required that a slave,
to be emancipated, should have attained the age of thirty years and
behaved well at least for four years preceding the emancipation,
unless, indeed, the slave had saved the life of his master or of one
of his children, in which case he might be set free at any age;[272]
and, according to a statute of 1852, the emancipated slave should be
sent out of the United States within twelve months after his
emancipation.[273] In several other States manumission was likewise
hampered by various regulations;[274] and throughout the British West
Indies there were restraints on manumission prior to the Emancipation
Act.[275] By an act passed in Saint Christopher in the year 1802, a
tax of £1,000 was imposed on the manumission of any slave who was not
a native of, or had not resided for two years within, the island,
whilst natives or residents might be enfranchised at half that price.
But the authors of this act went further still. They considered that a
master, though unwilling to pay £500 or £1,000 for the legal
enfranchisement of a slave, might, during his own life, make him or
her practically free by not exercising his own rights as master. Hence
{710} they enacted "that if any proprietor of a slave should, by any
contract in writing or otherwise, dispense with the slave's service,
or should be proved before a justice of peace not to have exercised
any right of ownership over such slave, and maintained him or her at
his own expense, within a month, the slave should be publicly sold at
vendue by the provost marshall; and should become the property of the
purchaser, and the purchase-money should be paid into the colonial
treasury."[276] In St. Vincents one hundred pounds sterling was
required to be paid into the treasury for each slave sought to be
manumitted,[277] whilst in Barbados a person minded to manumit a slave
should pay £50 to the churchwarden of the parish in which he
resided.[278] Very different were the Spanish laws on the subject of
manumission. According to a law of 1528 a negro slave who had served a
certain length of time was entitled to his liberty upon the payment of
a certain sum, not less than twenty marks of gold, the exact amount to
be settled by the royal authorities.[279] In 1540 a law was issued to
the effect that "if any negro, or negress, or any other persons
reputed slaves, should publicly demand their liberty, they should be
heard, and justice be done to them, and care be taken that they should
not on that account be maltreated by their masters."[280] Nay, a slave
who wished to change his master and could prevail on any other person
to buy him by appraisement, could demand and compel such a
transfer,[281] and a master who treated his slaves inhumanly could be
by the judge deprived of them.[282] In most of the British colonies
and American Slave States, on the other hand, the slave had no legal
right to obtain a change of master when cruel treatment made it
necessary for his relief or preservation.[283] {711} The exceptions to
this rule[284] were few and of little practical value.
[Footnote 270: Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 233.]
[Footnote 271: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina_, cxi. 58, vol. i.
585.]
[Footnote 272: Morgan, _Civil Code of Louisiana_, art. 185 _sq._, p.
30 _sqq._]
[Footnote 273: _Ibid._ Stat. 18th March, 1852, §1, p. 29.]
[Footnote 274: Brevard, _op. cit._ ii. 255 _sq._ (South Carolina).
Prince, _op. cit._ p. 787 (Georgia). Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 231
(Alabama). Alden and van Hoesen, _Digest of the Laws of Mississippi_,
p. 761. Haywood and Cobbs, _Statute Laws of the State of Tennessee_,
i. 327 _sq._]
[Footnote 275: Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 282.]
[Footnote 276: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 401 _sq._]
[Footnote 277: Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 282 _sq._]
[Footnote 278: Moore, _Public Acts passed by the Legislature of
Barbados_, p. 224 _sq._]
[Footnote 279: Helps, _Spanish Conquest in America_, iv. 373.]
[Footnote 280: _Recopilacion de leyes de los reinos de las Indias_,
vii. 5. 8, vol. ii. 321.]
[Footnote 281: Barre Saint Venant, quoted by Stephen, _op. cit._ i.
119 _sq._]
[Footnote 282: Edwards, _History of the British West Indies_, iv.
451.]
[Footnote 283: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 106. Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 93.]
[Footnote 284: Morgan, _Civil Code of Louisiana_, art. 192, p. 33.
Morehead and Brown, _Digest of the Statute Laws of Kentucky_, ii.
1481. Edwards, _op. cit._ ii. 192 (Jamaica). Stephen, _op. cit._ i.
106 (some other British colonies). In the French islands a negro who
had been cruelly treated, contrary to royal ordinances, was forfeited
to the crown, and acquired, if not freedom, at least deliverance from
a tyrannical master (_Code Noir_, Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 42,
p. 48 _sq._; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 38, p. 303 _sq._);
but the Court which adjudged the offence might also decree the
sufferer to be manumitted (Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 119).]
This system of slavery, which at least in the British colonies and the
Slave States surpassed in cruelty the slavery of any pagan country
ancient or modern, was not only recognised by Christian governments,
but was supported by the large bulk of the clergy, Catholic[285] and
Protestant alike. In the beginning of the abolitionist movement the
Churches acknowledged slavery to be a great evil, but with the making
of this acknowledgment they believed that they had done their share,
and denied that there was any obligation on them, or even that they
had any right, to proceed against the slave-holders. But things did
not stop here. The lamentations of resignation were gradually changed
into excuses, and the excuses into justifications.[286] The Bible, it
was said, contains no prohibition of slavery; on the contrary, slavery
is recognised both in the Old and New Testaments. Abraham, the father
of the faithful and the friend of God, had slaves; the Hebrews were
directed to make slaves of the surrounding nations; St. Paul and St.
Peter approved of the {712} relation of master and slave when they
gave admonitions to both as to their reciprocal behaviour; the Saviour
Himself said nothing in condemnation of slavery, although it existed
in great aggravation while He was upon earth. If slavery were sinful,
would it have been too much to expect that the Almighty had directed
at least one little word against it in the last revelation of His
will?[287] Nay, God not only permitted slavery, but absolutely
provided for its perpetuity;[288] it is the very legislation of Heaven
itself;[289] it is an institution which it is a religious duty to
maintain,[290] and which cannot be abolished, because "God is pledged
to sustain it."[291] According to some, slavery was founded on the
judgment of God on a damned race, the descendants of Ham; according to
others, it was only in this way that the African could be raised to a
participation in the blessings of Christianity and civilisation.[292]
With the name of "abolitionist" was thus associated the idea of
infidelity, and the emancipation movement was branded as an attempt to
spread the evils of scepticism through the land.[293] According to
Governor Macduffie, of South Carolina, no human institution is more
manifestly consistent with the will of God than slavery, and every
community ought to punish the interference of abolitionists with
death, without the benefit of clergy, "regarding the authors of it as
enemies of the human race."[294] It is true that religious arguments
were also adduced in favour of abolition. To hold men in bondage was
said to be utterly inconsistent with the inalienable rights which the
Creator had granted mankind, and still more obviously {713} at
variance with the dictates of Christian love.[295] Many clergymen also
joined the abolitionists. But it seems that in the middle of the
nineteenth century the Quakers and the United Brethren were the only
religious bodies that regarded slave-holding and slave-dealing as
ecclesiastical offences.[296] The American Churches were justly said
to be "the bulwarks of American slavery."[297]
[Footnote 285: The attempts to represent the Roman Catholic clergy as
ardent abolitionists (Cochin, _L'abolition de l'esclavage_, ii. 443;
de Locqueneuille, _L'esclavage, ses promoteurs et ses adversaires_, p.
193) are certainly not justified by facts. Among the Catholics of the
United States there were some advocates of emancipation, but their
number was not large (Goodell, _Slavery and Anti-Slavery_, 195 _sq._;
Parker, _Collected Works_, vi. 127 _sq._). Dr. England, the Catholic
bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, undertook in public to prove
that the Catholic Church had always been the uncompromising friend of
slave-holding (Parker, _op. cit._ v. 57). In Brazil it was common for
clergymen not only to possess slaves, but to buy and sell them with as
little scruple as other merchandises (da Fonseca, _A esravidão, o
clero e o abolicionismo_, pp. 28, 33). Bishop Bouvier wrote (_op.
cit._ p. 568):--"Servi autem dominis suis obedire, sortem suam
patienter tolerare et officia sibi imposita fideliter exsequi debent,
quoadusque libertas ipsis concedatur. Meminerint præsentem vitam esse
momentaneam, futuram vero æternam."]
[Footnote 286: von Holst, _op. cit._ ii. 231 _sqq._]
[Footnote 287: Barnes, _The Church and Slavery_, p. 15. Birney,
_Letter to the Churches_, p. 3 _sq._ Bledsoe, _Essay on Liberty and
Slavery_, p. 138 _sqq._ Gerrit Smith, _Letter to Rev. James Smylie_,
p. 3. Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 54 _sqq._ Goodell, _Slavery and
Anti-Slavery_, pp. 154-156, 167, 176, 181, 184, 186, &c. Parker,
_Collected Works_, v. 157.]
[Footnote 288: Thornton, quoted by Goodell, _Slavery and
Anti-Slavery_, p. 147. Fisk, quoted _ibid._ p. 147.]
[Footnote 289: Bledsoe, _op. cit._ p. 138.]
[Footnote 290: Smylie, quoted by Gerrit Smith, _op. cit._ p. 3.]
[Footnote 291: Quoted by Goodell, _Slavery and Anti-Slavery_, p. 347.]
[Footnote 292: Barnes, _op. cit._ p. 16.]
[Footnote 293: _Ibid._ p. 18. Newman, _Anglo-Saxon Abolition of Negro
Slavery_, p. 56. Bledsoe, _op. cit._ p. 223.]
[Footnote 294: Newman, _op. cit._ p. 53. von Holst, _op. cit._ ii.
118, n. 1.]
[Footnote 295: Gurney, _Views and Practices of the Society of
Friends_, p. 390. 'Anti-Slavery Declaration of 1833,' quoted by
Goodell, _Slavery and Anti-Slavery_, p. 398. Birney, _Second Letter_,
p. 1.]
[Footnote 296: Parker, _op. cit._ v. 56.]
[Footnote 297: von Holst, _op. cit._ ii. 230.]
Nobody would suppose that this attitude towards slavery was due to
religious zeal. It was one of those cases, only too frequent in the
history of morals, in which religion is called in to lend its sanction
to a social institution agreeable to the leaders of religious opinion.
Many clergymen and missionaries were themselves slave-holders,[298]
the chapel funds largely rested on slave property,[299] and the
ministers naturally desired to be on friendly terms with the more
important members of their respective congregations, who were commonly
owners of slaves. Adam Smith observes that the resolution of the
Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their slaves, was due to
the fact that the principal produce there was corn, the raising of
which cannot afford the expense of slave cultivation; had the slaves
"made any considerable part of their property, such a resolution could
never have been agreed to."[300]
[Footnote 298: Barnes, _op. cit._ p. 13. Goodell, _Slavery and
Anti-Slavery_, pp. 151, 186 _sq._]
[Footnote 299: Newman, _op. cit._ p. 53.]
[Footnote 300: Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, p. 172.]
To explain the establishment of colonial slavery, the difficulties in
the way of its abolition, and the laws relating to it, it is necessary
to consider not only economic conditions and the motive of
self-interest, but, as a factor of equal importance, the want of
sympathy for, or positive antipathy to, the coloured race. The negro
was looked upon almost as an animal, according to some he was a being
without a soul.[301] Even when free he was a pariah, subject to
special laws and regulations. In the Code of {714} Louisiana it is
said:--"Free people of colour ought never to insult or strike white
people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but,
on the contrary, they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and
never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of
imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence."[302] The Code
Noir prohibited white men and women from marrying negroes, "à peine de
punition et d'amende arbitraire";[303] and in the Revised Statutes of
North Carolina we read:--"If any white man or woman, being free, shall
intermarry with an Indian, negro, mustee or mulatto man or woman, or
any person of mixed blood to the third generation, bond or free, he
shall, by judgment of the county court, forfeit and pay the sum of one
hundred dollars to the use of the county."[304] In Mississippi a free
negro or mulatto was legally punished with thirty-nine lashes if he
exercised the functions of a minister of the Gospel.[305] Coloured men
in the North were excluded from colleges and high schools, from
theological seminaries and from respectable churches, as also from the
town hall, the ballot, and the cemetery where white people were
interred.[306] The Anglo-Saxon aversion to the black race is thus
expressed by an English writer:--"We hate slavery, but we hate the
negroes still more."[307] Among the Spaniards and Portuguese racial
antipathies were not so strong, and their slaves were consequently
better treated.[308]
[Footnote 301: von Holst, _op. cit._ i. 279. Malloch, 'How the Church
dealt with Slavery,' in _The Month_, xxvii. 454.]
[Footnote 302: Quoted by Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 157.]
[Footnote 303: _Code Noir_, Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 6,
p. 286.]
[Footnote 304: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina_, lxxi. 5, vol. i.
386 _sq._]
[Footnote 305: Alden and van Hoesen, _op. cit._ p. 771.]
[Footnote 306: Parker, _op. cit._ v. 58. Goodell _Slavery and
Anti-Slavery_, p. 200.]
[Footnote 307: Seward, quoted by Newman, _Abolition of Negro Slavery_,
p. 54.]
[Footnote 308: Couty, _L'esclavage au Brésil_, p. 8 _sqq_.]
Thus we notice in the opinions regarding slavery throughout the same
distinction as in the judgments on other matters of moral concern. A
person is, as a rule, allowed to enslave or to keep as slaves only
persons belonging to a different community or a different race from
his own, or their descendants. To deprive anybody of his liberty is to
inflict an injury on him, and is regarded as {715} wrong whenever the
act gives rise to sympathetic resentment, whereas nothing is thought
of it where no sympathy is felt for its victim. Thus, whilst slavery
grows up only under economic conditions favourable to slave labour, it
is always limited by feelings of an altruistic character, and where
these feelings are sufficiently broad and powerful it is not tolerated
at all. The same factor also influences the condition of the slaves
where slavery exists. We have seen that native slaves are better
treated than foreign ones and slaves born in the household better than
those who have been captured or purchased. The advancement of a
nation, again, is frequently attended with greater severity in the
treatment of the slaves, because, whilst the simplicity of early ages
admits of little distinction between the master and his servants in
their employments and manner of living, the introduction of wealth and
luxury gradually destroys the equality. Besides, the number of slaves
maintained in a wealthy nation makes them formidable both to their
owners and to the State, hence it is necessary that they should be
strictly watched and kept in the utmost subjection.[309]
[Footnote 309: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 256 _sqq._]
The condition of slaves is in various respects influenced by the
selfish considerations of their masters. Stuart Mill observes:--"When,
as among the ancients, the slave-market could only be supplied by
captives either taken in war, or kidnapped from thinly scattered
tribes on the remote confines of the human world, it was generally
more profitable to keep up the number by breeding, which necessitates
a far better treatment of them, and for this reason, joined with
several others, the condition of slaves . . . was probably much less
bad in the ancient world, than in the colonies of modern
nations."[310] Among the Bedouins, says Burckhardt, "the slaves are
treated with kindness, and seldom beaten, as severity might induce
them to run away."[311] Superstition may also help to {716} improve
the lot of the slave. In West Africa "the authority which a master
exercises over a slave is very much modified by his constitutional
dread of witchcraft. If he treats his slave unkindly, or inflicts
unmerited punishment upon him, he exposes himself to all the
machinations of witchcraft which that slave may be able to
command."[312] It is said in the Proverbs, "Accuse not a servant unto
his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty."[313] The
same danger threatens the cruel master. We read in the Apostolic
Constitutions, "Thy man-servant or thy maid-servant who trust in the
same God, thou shalt not command with bitterness of spirit; lest they
groan against thee, and wrath be upon thee from God."[314]
[Footnote 310: Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_, i. 307. _Cf._
_supra_, p. 701.]
[Footnote 311: Burckhardt, _Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 103.]
[Footnote 312: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 271. See also _ibid._ p.
179; Cruickshank, _Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast_, ii. 180 _sqq._;
Du Chaillu, _Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa_, p.
331; Landtman, _Origin of Priesthood_, p. 198, n. 2.]
[Footnote 313: _Proverbs_, xxx. 10.]
[Footnote 314: _Constitutiones Apostolicæ_, vii. 13.]
END OF VOL. I
* * * * *
_Printed by_ LOWE & BRYDONE (PRINTERS) LTD., _London, N.W. 1._
* * * * *
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE MORAL IDEAS
[Macmillan icon]
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO
DALLAS . SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
THE ORIGIN
AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
MORAL IDEAS
BY
EDWARD WESTERMARCK
_Ph.D., LL.D._ (_Aberdeen_)
MARTIN WHITE PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
LONDON
PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FINLAND,
HELSINFORS
AUTHOR OF "THE HISTORY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE," "MARRIAGE CEREMONIES
IN MOROCCO," ETC
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. II
_SECOND EDITION_
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1917
_COPYRIGHT_
_First Edition_, 1908
_Second Edition_, 1917
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION OF VOL. II
WHILE the text of the first edition has been left almost
unchanged, some notes have been added at the end of it.
E. W.
LONDON,
_September_, 1916.
CONTENTS