XXVII. SLAVERY…

XXVII. 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

XXVIII. THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY

The meaning of the term "property," p. 1.--Savages accused of thievishness, p. 2.--Theft condemned by savages, pp. 2-13.--The condemnation of theft influenced by the value of the goods stolen, pp. 13-15.--The stealing of objects of a certain kind punished with particular severity, p. 14.--The appropriation of a small quantity of food not punished at all, p. 14 sq.--Exceptions to the rule that the punishment of theft is influenced by the worth or nature of the appropriated property, p. 15.--The degree of criminality attached to theft influenced by the place where it is committed, p. 15 sq.--A theft committed by night punished more heavily than one committed by day, p. 16.--Distinction made between ordinary theft and robbery, p. 16 sq.--Distinction made between manifest and non-manifest theft, p. 17.--Successful thieves not disapproved of but rather admired, pp. 17-19.--The moral valuation of theft influenced by the social position of the thief and of the person robbed, p. 19 sq.--Varies according as the victim is a tribesman or fellow-countryman or a stranger, pp. 20-25.--The treatment of ship-wrecked people in Europe, p. 25.--The destruction of property held legitimate in warfare, p. 25 sq.--The seizure of private property in war, p. 26 sq.--Military contributions and requisitions levied upon the inhabitants of the hostile territory, p. 27.--Proprietary incapacities of children, p. 27 sq.--Of women, pp. 28-31.--Of slaves, pp. 31-33.--The theory that nobody but the chief or king has proprietary rights, p. 33.

XXIX. THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY (concluded)

Acquisition of property by occupation, pp. 35-39.--By keeping possession of a thing, pp. 39-41.--By labour, pp. 41-43.--By a transfer of property by its owner, p. 43.--By inheritance, pp. 44-49.--By the fact that ownership in a thing directly follows from ownership in another thing, p. 49 sq.--By the custom which prescribes community of goods, p. 50.--The origin of proprietary rights and of the various modes of acquisition, pp. 51-57. --Explanation of the incapacity of children, wives, and slaves to acquire property, p. 57.--Why the moral judgments vary with regard to different acts of theft, pp. 57-59.--Theft {viii} supposed to be avenged by supernatural powers, pp. 59-69.--The removing of landmarks regarded as sacrilegious, p. 60 sq. --Cursing as a method of punishing thieves or compelling them to restore what they have stolen, p. 62 sq.--Cursing as a means of preventing theft, pp. 63-67.--Spirits or gods invoked in curses referring to theft, p. 66 sq.--Why gods take notice of offences against property, pp. 67-69.--The belief that thieves will be punished after death, p. 69.--The opposition against the established principles of ownership, pp. 69-71.

XXX. THE REGARD FOR TRUTH AND GOOD FAITH

Definition of lying, p. 72.--Of good faith, ibid.--The regard for truth and good faith among uncivilised races, pp. 72-88. --Foreigners visiting a savage tribe apt to underrate its veracity, pp. 86-88.--The regard for truth varies according as the person concerned is a foreigner or a tribesman, p. 87 sq.--The regard for truth and good faith among the Chinese, p. 88 sq.--Among the Japanese, Burmese, and Siamese, p. 89. --Among the Hindus, pp. 89-92.--In Buddhism, p. 92.--Among the ancient Persians, p. 93 sq.--Among Muhammedan peoples, p. 94. --In ancient Greece, pp. 94-96.--In ancient Rome, p. 96.--Among the ancient Scandinavians, p. 96 sq.--Among the ancient Irish, p. 97.--Among the ancient Hebrews, pp. 97-99.--In Christianity, pp. 99-101.--In the code of Chivalry, p. 101 sq.--In the Middle Ages and later, p. 102 sq.--In modern Europe, pp. 103-106.--The views of philosophers, ibid.--Deceit in the relations between different states, in peace and war, pp. 106-108.

XXXI. THE REGARD FOR TRUTH AND GOOD FAITH (concluded)

Explanation of the moral ideas concerning truthfulness and good faith, pp. 109-131.--When detected a deception implies a conflict between two irreconcilable ideas, which causes pain, p. 109.--Men like to know the truth, p. 109 sq.--The importance of knowing the truth, p. 110.--Deception humiliating, ibid.--A lie or breach of faith held more condemnable in proportion to the magnitude of the harm caused by it, ibid.--The importance of truthfulness and fidelity even in apparently trifling cases, p. 110 sq.--Deceit held permissible or obligatory when promoting the true interest of the person subject to it, p. 111.--The moral valuation of an act of falsehood influenced by its motive, p. 111 sq.--The opinion that no motive can justify an act of falsehood, p. 112.--Why falsehood is held permissible, or praiseworthy, or obligatory, when directed against a stranger, ibid.--Deceit condemned as cowardly, p. 113.--A clever lie admired or approved of, p. 114.--The duties of sincerity and good faith to some extent founded on prudential considerations, pp. 114-124.--Lying attended with supernatural danger, ibid.--A mystic efficacy ascribed to the untrue word, pp. 116-118.--The efficacy of oaths and the methods of charging them with supernatural energy, pp. 118-122.--Oaths containing appeals to supernatural beings, pp. 120-122.--By being frequently appealed to in oaths a god may come to be looked upon as a guardian of veracity and good faith, p. 123.--The influence of oath-taking upon veracity, p. 123 sq.--The influence of education upon the regard for truth, p. 124.--The influence {ix} of habit upon the regard for truth, p. 125.--Natural to speak the truth, p. 125 sq.--Intercourse with strangers destructive to savage veracity, pp. 126-129.--Social incoherence apt to lead to deceitful habits, p. 129.--Social differentiation a cause of deception, p. 129 sq.--Oppression an inducement to falsehood, p. 130 sq.--The duty of informing other persons of the truth, p. 131.--The regard for knowledge, pp. 131-136.

Chapter XXXII

THE RESPECT FOR OTHER MEN'S HONOUR AND SELF-REGARDING PRIDE--POLITENESS

Definition of "honour," p. 137.--The feeling of self-regarding pride in animals, p. 137 sq.--In savages, pp. 138-140.--The moral disapproval of insults, pp. 140-142.--The condemnation of an insult influenced by the status of, or the relations between, the parties concerned, p. 142 sq.--Pride disapproved of and humility praised as a virtue or enjoined as a duty, p. 144 sq.--Humility an object of censure, p. 145 sq.--Deviation from what is usual arouses a suspicion of arrogance, p. 146. --Politeness a duty rather than a virtue, ibid.--Many savages conspicuous for their civility, p. 146 sq.--Politeness a characteristic of all the great nations of the East, p. 147 sq.--The courtesies of Chivalry, p. 148.--The demands of politeness refer to all sorts of social intercourse and vary indefinitely in detail, p. 148 sq.--Salutations, pp. 149-151. --The rule of politeness most exacting in relation to superiors, p. 151 sq.--Politeness shown by men to women, p. 152. --Politeness shown to strangers, ibid.

Chapter XXXIII

REGARD FOR OTHER PERSONS' HAPPINESS IN GENERAL--GRATITUDE--PATRIOTISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM

The regard for other persons' happiness in general, p. 153 sq.--The moral ideas concerning conduct which affects other persons' welfare influenced by the relationship between the parties, pp. 154-166.--The feeling of gratitude said to be lacking in many uncivilised races, pp. 155-157.--Criticism of statements to this effect, pp. 157-161.--Savages described as grateful for benefits bestowed on them, pp. 161-165.--Gratitude represented as an object of praise or its absence as an object of disapproval, p. 165 sq.--Why ungratefulness is disapproved of, p. 166.--The patriotic sentiment defined, p. 167.--Though hardly to be found among the lower savages, it seems to be far from unknown among uncultured peoples of a higher type, p. 167 sq.--Many of the elements out of which patriotism proper has grown clearly distinguishable among savages, even the lowest, pp. 168-172.--National conceit, pp. 170-174.--The relation between the national feeling and the religious feeling, p. 174 sq.--The patriotism of ancient Greece and Rome, p. 175 sq.--The moral valuation of patriotism, p. 176.--Duties to mankind at large, pp. 176-179.--The ideal of patriotism rejected by Greek and Roman philosophers, p. 177 sq.--By Christianity, p. 178 sq.--The lack of patriotism and national feeling during the Middle Ages, pp. 179-181.--The development of the national feeling in England, p. 181 sq.--In France, p. 182.--The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, p. 182 sq.--European patriotism after the French revolution, p. 183 sq.--The theory cf nationalism, p. 184.--The cosmopolitan spirit, p. 184 sq.

{x} CHAPTER XXXIV

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTRUISTIC SENTIMENT

Maternal affection, pp. 186-189.--Prof. Espinas's theory, p. 186 sq.--Prof. Bain's theory, p. 187 sq.--Mr. Spencer's theory, p. 188.--Distinction between maternal love and the mere love of the helpless, p. 188 sq.--The paternal instinct, p. 189 sq.--Conjugal attachment, pp. 190-192.--The duration of conjugal attachment, p. 192 sq.--The duration of parental affection, p. 193.--Filial affection, p. 194.--Man originally, as it seems, not a gregarious animal, p. 195 sq.--How he became gregarious, p. 196 sq.--The gregarious instinct, p. 197. --Social affection, p. 197 sq.--The evolution of social aggregates influenced by economic conditions, pp. 198-201.--The social aggregates of savages who know neither cattle-rearing nor agriculture, pp. 198-200.--Of pastoral peoples, p. 201.--Of peoples subsisting on agriculture, ibid.--Social units based on marriage or a common descent, p. 201 sq.--The social force in kinship, pp. 202-204.--Mr. Hartland's theory, pp. 204-206.--The blood-covenant, pp. 206-209.--The social influence of a common cult among savages, pp. 209-213.--The "four generations" of the Chinese, p. 213.--Traces of a clan organisation in China, p. 213 sq.--The joint family among so-called Aryan peoples, pp. 214-216.--Village communities, clans, phratries, and tribes among these peoples, pp. 216-220.--The prevalence of the paternal system of descent among the peoples of archaic culture, p. 220.--Associations of tribes among uncivilised races, p. 220 sq.--Civilisation only thrives in states, p. 221 sq.--The origin of states p. 222.--The influence of the State upon the smaller units of which it is composed, p. 222 sq.--The State and the notion of a common descent, pp. 223-225.--The archaic State not only a political but a religious community, p. 225 sq.--The national importance of a common religion, p. 226.--The influence of social development upon the altruistic sentiment, p. 226 sq.--The altruistic sentiment has not necessarily reference only to individuals belonging to the same social unit, p. 227 sq.--The expansion of altruism in mankind, p. 228.

XXXV. SUICIDE

Suicide and civilisation, p. 229.--Suicide said to be unknown among several uncivilised races, p. 229 sq.--The prevalence of suicide among savages and barbarians, pp. 230-232.--The causes of suicide among savages, pp 232-235.--The moral valuation of suicide among savages, pp. 235-241.--The fate of self-murderers after death, pp. 235-239.--The treatment of the bodies of suicides among uncivilised races, pp. 238-240.--The opinions as to suicide in China, pp. 241-243.--In Japan, p. 243 sq.--Among the Hindus, pp. 244-246.--Among Buddhists, p. 246.--Among the Hebrews, p. 246 sq.--Among Muhammedans, p. 247.--In ancient Greece, pp. 247-249.--Among classical philosophers, pp. 248-250.--In ancient Rome, p. 250 sq.--Among the Christians, pp. 251-254.--Why suicide was condemned by the Church, pp. 252-254.--The secular legislation influenced by the doctrine of the Church, p. 254.--The treatment of suicides' bodies in Europe, pp. 254-257.--More humane feelings towards suicides in the Middle Ages, p. 257 sq.--Attacks upon the views of the Church and upon the laws of the State concerning suicide, pp. 258-260.--Modern philosophers' arguments against suicide, {xi} p. 260 sq.--The legislation on the subject changed, p. 261.--Explanation of the moral ideas concerning suicide, pp. 261-263.--Criticism of Prof. Durkheim's opinion as to the moral valuation of suicide in the future, p. 263 sq.

XXXVI. SELF-REGARDING DUTIES AND VIRTUES--INDUSTRY--REST

General statements referring to the nature and origin of self-regarding duties and virtues, pp. 265-268.--Man naturally inclined to idleness, pp. 268-271.--Among savages either necessity or compulsion almost the sole inducement to industry, ibid.--Savages who enjoin work as a duty or regard industry as a virtue, p. 271 sq.--Industrial activity looked down upon as disreputable for a free man, p. 272 sq.--Contempt for trade, p. 274. Progress in civilisation implies an increase of industry and leads to condemnation of idleness, ibid.--Idleness prohibited by law in ancient Peru p. 274 sq.--Industry enjoined in ancient Persia, p. 275 sq.--In ancient Egypt, p. 276.--In ancient Greece, p. 276 sq.--Greek views on agriculture, p. 277.--On trade and handicrafts, p. 278 sq.--Roman views on labour, p. 279 sq.--The Christian doctrine on the subject, pp. 280-282. --Not applicable to laymen, p. 282.--Modern views on labour, p. 282 sq.--Rest regarded as a duty, p. 283.--Work suspended after a death, p. 283 sq.--On certain other occasions, especially in connection with changes in the moon, pp. 284-286. --Tabooed days among the peoples of Semitic stock, pp. 286-288. --The Jewish Sabbath, p. 286 sq.--The seventh day among the Assyrians and Babylonians, p. 287 sq.--The Christian Sunday, p. 288 sq.

XXXVII. RESTRICTIONS IN DIET

The gluttony of savages and their views on it, p. 290 sq.--At higher stages of culture intemperance often subject to censure, p. 291.--Views on pleasures of the table, p. 291 sq.--Fasting as a means of having supernatural converse or acquiring supernatural powers, p. 292 sq.--Abstinence from food before or in connection with the performance of a magical or religious ceremony, pp. 293-298.--Fasting prevents pollution, pp. 294-296. --Sacrificial victims should be clean, and may therefore have to fast, p. 295 sq.--Fasting before the performance of a sacrifice may be due to the idea that it is dangerous or improper for the worshipper to partake of food before the god has had his share, pp 296-298.--Fasting after a death, pp. 298-308.--Observed only in the daytime, p. 299 sq.--Abstinence from certain victuals only, pp. 300-302.--Various attempts to explain the custom of fasting after a death, p. 302 sq.--Mourners fast for fear of being polluted by the food, pp. 303-306.--Or because they, by eating a piece of food, might pollute all victuals belonging to the same species, p. 306 sq.--Or because they are supposed to be in a delicate condition imposing upon them restrictions in their diet, p. 307 sq.--Or because grief is accompanied by a loss of appetite, p. 308.--The Lent fast, p. 308 sq.--Fasts connected with astronomical changes, pp. 309-315. --Among the Jews, pp. 310-312.--Among the Harranians and Manichæans, p. 312 sq.--The Muhammedan {xii} fast of Rama[d.]ân, pp. 313-315.--Fasting as a form of penance, pp. 315-318.--As a survival of an expiatory sacrifice, pp. 316-318. --Fasting and almsgiving, ibid.--Fasting "the beginning of chastity," p. 318.

XXXVIII. RESTRICTIONS IN DIET (concluded)

Certain kinds of food forbidden to certain classes of persons, pp. 319-324.--To young persons, p. 319 sq.--To women, p. 320 sq.--To men, p. 321 sq.--To priests or magicians, p. 322. --Restrictions in diet connected with totemism, p. 323 sq. --Abstinence from animals which excite disgust by their appearance, p. 324 sq.--From reptiles, p. 324.--From fish, p. 324 sq.--From fowl, p. 325.--From eggs, p. 325 sq.--From milk, ibid.--From animals which are regarded with disgust on account of their filthy habits or the nasty food on which they live, pp. 326-328.--From pork, ibid.--From foreign animals, p. 327.--From animals which are supposed to be metamorphosed ancestors or which resemble men, p. 328 sq.--From animals which excite sympathy, pp. 329-331.--From beef, p. 330 sq.--Restrictions in diet due to the disinclination to kill certain animals for food or, generally, to reduce the supply of a certain kind of victuals, pp. 330-332.--Abstinence from domestic animals which are regarded as sacred, p. 331 sq.--From food which is believed to injure him who partakes of it, pp. 332-334.--The sources to which the general avoidance of certain kinds of food may be traced, p. 334 sq.--The moral disapproval of eating certain kinds of food, p. 335. The moral prohibition sanctioned by religion, ibid.--Vegetarianism, pp. 335-338.--Among many peoples drunkenness so common that it can hardly be looked upon as a vice, pp. 338-341.--Sobriety or total abstinence from intoxicating liquors insisted upon by Eastern religions, p. 341 sq.--Explanation of the moral ideas concerning drunkenness and the use of alcoholic drink, pp. 342-345.--Wine or spirituous liquor inspires mysterious fear, p. 344 sq.--The Muhammedan prohibition of wine, p. 345.

XXXIX. CLEANLINESS AND UNCLEANLINESS--ASCETICISM IN GENERAL

Man naturally feeling some aversion to filth, p. 346.--Savages who are praised for their cleanliness, pp. 346-348.--Savages who are clean in certain respects but dirty in others, p. 348. --Savages who are described as generally filthy in their habits, p. 348 sq.--Various circumstances which may account for the prevalence of cleanly or dirty habits among a certain people, pp. 349-351.--The moral valuation of cleanliness, p. 351 sq.--Cleanliness practised and enjoined from religious or superstitious motives, pp. 352-354.--In other instances religious or superstitious beliefs have led to uncleanliness, pp. 354-356. --Uncleanliness as a form of asceticism, p. 355 sq.--Ascetic practices, p. 356 sq.--The idea underlying religious asceticism derived from several different sources, pp. 357-363.--Certain ascetic practices originally performed for another purpose, p. 358 sq.--An ascetic practice may be the survival of an earlier sacrifice, p. 359.--Ascetic practices due to the idea of expiation, pp. 359-361.--Self-mortification intended to excite divine compassion, p. 361.--Suffering voluntarily endured with a view to preventing the commission of sin, pp. 361-363.--The gratification of earthly desires deemed sinful or disapproved of, ibid.

{xiii} CHAPTER XL

MARRIAGE

Definition of the term "marriage," p. 364.--The horror of incest well-nigh universal in the human race, pp. 364-366.--The prohibited degrees as a rule more numerous among peoples unaffected by modern civilisation than in more advanced communities, p. 366.--The violation of the prohibitory rules regarded by savages as a most heinous crime, p. 366 sq.--The horror of incest among nations that have passed beyond savagery and barbarism, p. 367 sq.--Attempt to explain the prohibition of marriage between near kin, pp. 368-371.--Refutation of various objections raised against the author's theory, pp. 371-378.-- Incestuous unions stigmatised by religion, p. 375 sq.--Endogamous rules of various kinds, pp. 378-382.--Marriage by capture, p. 382. --Marriage by purchase, pp. 382-384.--The disappearance of marriage by purchase, p. 384 sq.--The morning gift, p. 385.--The marriage portion, p. 385 sq.--The form of marriage influenced by the numerical proportion between the sexes, p. 387 sq.--Polyandry, p. 387.--Group marriage of the Toda type, ibid.--The causes of polygyny, pp. 387-389.--Of monogamy, p. 389. Polygyny less prevalent at the lowest stages of civilisation than at somewhat higher stages, pp. 389-391.--Civilisation in its higher forms leads to monogamy, p. 391.--The moral valuation of the various forms of marriage, p. 392.--The assumed prevalence of group marriage in Australia, pp. 392-396.--The duration of marriage and the laws of divorce, pp. 396-398.

XLI. CELIBACY

Marriage considered indispensable among savage and barbarous races of men, p. 399.--Celibacy a great exception and marriage regarded as a duty among peoples of archaic culture, pp. 399-403. --Why celibacy is disapproved of, p. 403 sq.--Modern views on celibacy, p. 404 sq.--Celibacy of persons whose function it is to perform religious or magical rites, pp. 405-412.--Marriage looked down upon by the Essenes, p. 410.--By the Christians, pp. 410-412.--Religious celibacy due to the idea that the priestess is married to the god whom she is serving, pp. 412-414.--Goddesses jealous of the chastity of their priests, p. 414.--Religious celibacy connected with the idea that sexual intercourse is defiling, pp. 414-420.--Holiness easily destroyed by pollution, pp. 417-419.--Causes of religious celibacy among the Christians, p. 420 sq.--Religious celibacy enjoined or commended as a means of self-mortification, p. 421.

XLII. FREE LOVE--ADULTERY

Uncivilised peoples among whom both sexes enjoy perfect freedom previous to marriage, pp. 422-424.--Among whom unchastity before marriage is looked upon as a disgrace or a crime for a woman, p. 424.--The wantonness of savages in several cases due to foreign influence, ibid.--In many tribes the free intercourse which prevails between unmarried people not of a promiscuous nature, p. 424 sq.--Uncivilised peoples among {xiv} whom the man who seduces a girl is subject to punishment or censure, pp. 425-427. --Moral opinions as to sexual intercourse between unmarried people among the Chinese, p. 427.--Among the ancient Hebrews, p. 427 sq. --Among Muhammedan peoples, p. 428.--Among the Hindus, ibid.--In Zoroastrianism, ibid.--Among the ancient Teutons, p. 429.--In ancient Greece and Rome, pp. 429-431.--In Christianity, p. 431 sq. --During the Middle Ages, p. 432 sq.--After the Reformation, p. 433.--In present Europe, p. 433 sq.--Explanation of the moral ideas concerning sexual intercourse between unmarried people, pp. 434-443.--Prostitution, pp. 441-443.--Religious prostitution, connected with religious celibacy, p. 443 sq.--Of the Babylonian type, pp. 444-446.--Moral opinions as to the seduction of a married woman, pp. 447-450.--As to unfaithfulness in a wife, p. 450 sq. --As to the remarriages of widows, ibid.--As to unfaithfulness in a husband, pp. 451-455.

XLIII. HOMOSEXUAL LOVE

Homosexual practices among the lower animals, p. 456.--Among various races of men, pp. 456-464.--Between women, p. 464 sq.--The causes of homosexual practices, pp. 465-471.--Congenital sexual inversion, p. 465 sq.--Absence of the other sex or lack of accessible women, p. 466 sq.--Acquired inversion, pp. 467-470.--Homosexuality in ancient Greece partly due to the methods of training the youth, p. 469 sq.--Partly due to the great gulf which mentally separated the sexes, p. 470 sq.--Causes of pederasty in China and Morocco, p. 471.--Moral ideas concerning homosexual practices, pp. 471-489.--Among uncivilised peoples, pp. 471-475.--Among the ancient Peruvians, p. 473 sq.--Among the ancient Mexicans, Mayas, and Chibchas, p. 474.--Among Muhammedans, p. 475 sq.--Among the Hindus, p. 476.--In China, p. 476 sq.--In Japan, p. 477.--Among the ancient Scandinavians, p. 477 sq.--In ancient Greece, p. 478 sq.--In Zoroastrianism, p. 479 sq.--Among the ancient Hebrews, p. 480.--In early Christianity, p. 480 sq.--In Pagan Rome, ibid.--In Christian Rome, p. 481.--European legislation regarding homosexual practices during the Middle Ages and later, p. 481 sq.--Modern legislation on the subject, p. 482 sq.--Moral ideas concerning it in present Europe, p. 483.--Why homosexual practices are frequently subject to censure, p. 483 sq.--Criticism of Dr. Havelock Ellis's suggestion as to the popular attitude towards homosexuality, pp. 484-486.--The excessive sinfulness attached to homosexual practices by Zoroastrianism, Hebrewism, and Christianity, due to the fact that such practices were intimately associated with unbelief, idolatry, or heresy, pp. 486-489.

XLIV. REGARD FOR THE LOWER ANIMALS

Animals treated with deference for superstitious reasons, pp. 490-493.--Butchers regarded as unclean, p. 493.--Many peoples averse from killing their cattle from economic motives, p. 493 sq.--Domestic animals treated kindly by savages out of sympathy, pp. 494-496.--Savages who are said to be lacking in sympathy for the brute creation, {xv} p. 496.--Moral valuation of men's conduct towards the lower animals among savages, p. 496 sq.--In Brahmanism, p. 497.--In Buddhism, pp. 497, 498, 500.--In Jainism, p. 498 sq.--In Taouism, p. 499.--In China, p. 499 sq.--In Japan, p. 500.--In Zoroastrianism, p. 501 sq. --In Muhammedanism, p. 502 sq.--In ancient Greece and Rome, pp. 503-505.--In Hebrewism, p. 505 sq.--In Christianity, pp. 506-508.--The views of modern philosophers, p. 508.--Of legislators, p. 508 sq.--Indifference to animal suffering a characteristic of public opinion in European countries up to quite modern times, p. 509 sq.--Laws against cruelty to animals, p. 510.--Humane feelings towards animals in Europe, pp. 510-512.--The crusade against vivisection, pp. 512-514.--Explanation of the increasing sympathy with animal suffering in Europe, p. 512 sq.--The influence of human thoughtlessness upon the treatment of the lower animals and upon the moral ideas relating to it, pp. 512-514.

XLV. REGARD FOR THE DEAD

The belief in a future life, p. 515 sq.--Notions as regards the disembodied soul, p. 516.--The dead considered to have rights very similar to those they had whilst alive, pp. 516-520.--The soul must not be killed or injured, p. 516 sq.--Its living friends must positively contribute to its comfort and subsistence, p. 517 sq.--The right of ownership does not cease with death, p. 518 sq.--Robbery or violation committed at a tomb severely condemned, ibid.--Respect must be shown for the honour and self-regarding pride of the dead, p. 519.--The dead demand obedience, p. 519 sq.--The sacredness attached to a will, p. 519.--The rigidity of ancestral custom, p. 519 sq.--Duties to the dead that arise from the fact of death itself, pp. 520-524.--The funeral, the rites connected with it, and the mourning customs, largely regarded as duties to the dead, ibid.--The duties to the dead influenced by the relationship between the parties, p. 524 sq.--By the age and sex of the departed, pp. 525-527.--By class distinctions, p. 527.--By moral distinctions, p. 527 sq.--The causes from which the duties to the dead have sprung, pp 528-549.--These duties partly based on sympathetic resentment, p. 528.--The dead regarded as guardians of their descendants, p. 529 sq.--But the ancestral guardian spirit does not bestow his favours for nothing, p. 530 sq.--The dead more commonly regarded as enemies than friends, pp. 531-534. --Explanation of the belief in the irritable or malevolent character of the dead, p. 534 sq.--The fear of death and the fear of the dead, pp. 535-538.--The conduct of the survivors influenced by their beliefs regarding the character, activity, and polluting influence of the dead, pp. 538-546.--The origin of funeral and mourning customs, pp. 541-547.--Why practices connected with death which originally sprang from self-regarding motives have come to be enjoined as duties, p. 547 sq.--Why the duties to the dead are rarely extended to strangers, p. 548 sq.--Explanation of the differences in the treatment of the dead which depend upon age, sex, social position, and moral distinctions, p. 549.--The duties to the departed become less stringent as time goes on, p. 549 sq.--The duties to the dead affected by progress in intellectual culture, pp. 550-552.--The funeral sacrifice continued as a mark of respect or affection, p. 550.--Offerings made to the dead become alms given to the poor, pp. 550-552.

{xvi} CHAPTER XLVI

CANNIBALISM

The prevalence of cannibalism, p. 553.--Various forms of it, p. 554.--Cannibalism due to scarcity or lack of animal food, p. 555.--To gourmandise pp. 555-557.--To revenge, pp. 557-559. --The practice of eating criminals, p. 558 sq.--Cannibalism a method of making a dangerous individual harmless after death, p. 559 sq.--Due to the idea that the cannibal, by eating the supposed seat of a certain quality in a person, incorporates it with his own system, pp. 560-562.--Cannibalism in connection with human sacrifice, p. 562 sq.--The eating of man-gods, p. 563 sq.--Other instances in which a supernatural or medicinal effect is ascribed to human flesh or blood, pp. 564-566.--Cannibalism as a covenant rite, p. 566 sq.--Special reasons given for the practice of eating relatives or friends, pp. 567-569.--The cannibalism of modern savages represented as the survival of an ancient practice which was once universal in the human race, p. 569 sq.--Criticism of this theory pp. 570-580.--Savages who feel the greatest dislike of cannibalism, p. 570 sq.--Cannibals often anxious to deny that they are addicted to this practice, p. 572.--The rapid extinction of it among certain savages p. 572 sq.--Even among peoples very notorious for cannibalism there are individuals who abhor it, p. 573.--The aversion to cannibalism may be due to sympathy for the dead, p. 574.--In the first instance it is probably an instinctive feeling akin to those feelings which regulate the diet of the various animal species, ibid.--The eating of human flesh regarded with superstitious dread, pp. 574-576.--The feeling of reluctance may be overcome by other motives and may be succeeded by a taste for human flesh, p. 577 sq.--Early man probably not addicted to cannibalism, pp. 578-580.--Cannibalism much less prevalent among the lowest savages than among races somewhat more advanced in culture, p. 578 sq.--Among some savages cannibalism known to be of modern origin or to have spread in recent times, p. 579 sq.--The moral valuation of cannibalism, p. 580 sq.

XLVII. THE BELIEF IN SUPERNATURAL BEINGS

Distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena, p. 582 sq.--Supernatural mechanical energy, p. 583 sq.--Supernatural qualities attributed to the mental constitution of animate beings, especially to their will, p. 584.--The difference between religion and magic, ibid.--The meaning of the word religio, pp. 584-586.--That mystery is the essential characteristic of supernatural beings is testified by language, p. 586 sq.--This testimony corroborated by facts referring to the nature of such objects or individuals as are most commonly worshipped, pp. 587-593.--Startling events ascribed to the activity of invisible supernatural agents, p. 593 sq.--The origin of animism, p. 594 sq.--A mind presupposes a body, p. 595 sq.--The animist who endows an inanimate object with a soul regards the visible thing itself as its body, p. 596 sq.--The origin of anthropomorphism, p. 597 sq.--The difference between men and gods, p. 599. --Materiality at last considered a quality not becoming to a god, pp. 599-601.

{xvii} CHAPTER XLVIII

DUTIES TO GODS

Definition of the term "god," p. 602.--Gods have the rights to life and bodily integrity, pp. 602-604.--Not necessarily considered immortal, p. 602 sq.--The killing of totemic animals, p. 603 sq.--Divine animals killed as a religious or magical ceremony, pp. 604-606.--The killing of man-gods or divine kings, pp. 606-610.--The right to bodily integrity granted to gods occasionally suspended, p. 610.--Supernatural beings believed to be subject to human needs, p. 610 sq.--To require offerings, p. 611 sq.--Sacrificial gifts offered to supernatural beings with a view to averting evils, pp. 612-614. --With a view to securing positive benefits, pp. 614-616. --Thank-offerings, p. 615 sq.--Sacrificial victims intended to serve as substitutes for other individuals, whose lives are in danger, pp. 616-618.--Occasionally regarded as messengers, p. 618.--Sacrifices offered for the purpose of transferring curses, pp. 618-624.--The covenant sacrifice, pp. 622-624.--The sacrificial victim or offered article a vehicle for transferring benign virtue to him who offered it or to other persons, p. 624 sq.--Sacrifice becomes a symbol of humility and reverence, p. 625 sq.--Sacrifice as a duty, p. 626.--Supernatural beings possess property, and this must not be interfered with, p. 626 sq.--Sacred objects must not be appropriated for ordinary purposes, p. 627 sq.--The right of sanctuary, pp. 628-638.--Its prevalence, pp. 628-634.--Explanation of this right, pp. 634-638.

XLIX. DUTIES TO GODS (concluded)

Supernatural beings sensitive to insults and disrespect, p. 639 sq.--Irreverence to gods punished by men, ibid.--The names of supernatural beings tabooed, pp. 640-643.--Explanation of these taboos, p. 642 sq.--Atheism, p. 643 sq.--Unbelief, pp. 644-646.--Heresy, p. 646 sq.--Polytheism by nature tolerant, pp. 647-649.--The difference in toleration between monotheistic and polytheistic religions shows itself in their different attitudes towards witchcraft, pp. 649-652.--The highest stage of religion free from intolerance, p. 652 sq.--Prayer a tribute to the self-regarding pride of the god to whom it is addressed, pp. 653-655.--Prayers connected with offerings, p. 655 sq.--Magic efficacy ascribed to prayer, pp. 656-659.--Gods demand obedience, p. 659.--The influence of this demand upon the history of morals, p. 659 sq.--Explanation of the obligatory character attached to men's conduct towards their gods, pp. 660-662.

L. GODS AS GUARDIANS OF MORALITY

The supernatural beings of savage belief frequently described as utterly indifferent to all questions of worldly morality, pp. 663-665.--The gods of many savages mostly intent on doing harm to mankind, pp. 665-667.--Adoration of supernatural beings which are considered at least occasionally beneficent also very prevalent among uncivilised peoples, {xviii} pp. 667-669.--Their benevolence, however, does not prove that they take an active interest in morality at large, p. 669.--Instances in which savage gods are supposed to punish the transgression of rules relating to worldly morality, pp. 669-687.--Savages represented as believing in the existence of a supreme being who is a moral law-giver or judge, pp. 670-687.--The prevalence of such a belief in Australia, pp. 670-675.--In Polynesia and Melanesia, p. 675.--In the Malay Archipelago, p. 675 sq.--In the Andaman Islands, p. 676.--Among the Karens of Burma, p. 677.--In India, p. 677 sq.--Among the Ainu of Japan, p. 678.--Among the Samoyedes, ibid.--Among the Greenlanders, ibid.--Among the North American Indians, pp. 679-681.--Among the South American Indians, p. 681 sq.--In Africa, pp. 682-685.--Explanation of this belief, pp. 685-687.--The supreme beings of savages invoked in curses or oaths, p. 686 sq.--The oath and ordeal do not involve a belief in the gods as vindicators of truth and justice, pp. 687-690.--The ordeal essentially a magical ceremony, ibid.--Ordeals which have a different origin, p. 690.--The belief in a moral retribution after death among savages, pp. 690-695.--The sources to which it may be traced, pp. 691-695. --The influence of religion upon the moral consciousness of savages, p. 695 sq.

LI. GODS AS GUARDIANS OF MORALITY (continued)

The attitude of religion towards matters of worldly morality in ancient Mexico, p. 697 sq.--In ancient Peru, p. 698.--In ancient Egypt, pp. 698-701.--In ancient Chaldea, pp. 701-704.--In Zoroastrianism, pp. 704-706.--Among the Vedic people, pp. 706-709.--In post-Vedic times in India, pp. 709-711.--In Buddhism, p. 711 sq.--In China, p. 712 sq.--In ancient Greece, pp. 713-716.--In ancient Rome, p. 716 sq.--Among the Hebrews, p. 717 sq.--Christian doctrines of salvation and the future life, pp. 718-725.--The attitude of Muhammedanism towards matters of worldly morality and its doctrine of the future life, pp. 725-727.

LII. GODS AS GUARDIANS OF MORALITY (concluded)

Explanation of the malevolence of savage gods, p. 728 sq.--Of the growing tendency to attribute more amiable qualities to the gods, pp. 729-731.--Men selecting their gods, p. 729 sq.--The good qualities of gods magnified by their worshippers, p. 730 sq.--How various departments of social morality have come to be placed under the supervision of gods, p. 731 sq.--How the guardianship of gods has been extended to the whole sphere of justice, p. 732.--How gods have become guardians of morality at large, p. 733 sq.--The influence of the religious sanction of morality, p. 734 sq.--Religious devotion frequently accompanied by great laxity of morals, pp. 735-737.--Greater importance attached to ceremonies or the niceties of belief than to good behaviour towards fellow men, p. 736 sq.--The religious sanction of moral rules often leads to an external observance of these rules from purely selfish motives, p. 737.--The moral influence of Christianity, ibid.

{xix} CHAPTER LIII

CONCLUSION

Recapitulation of the theory of the moral consciousness set forth in vol. I., pp. 738-741.--This theory supported by the fact that not only moral emotions but non-moral retributive emotions are felt with reference to phenomena exactly similar in their general nature to those on which moral judgments are passed, p. 741.--As also by the circumstance that the very acts, forbearances, and omissions which are condemned as wrong are also apt to call forth anger and revenge, and that the acts and forbearances which are praised as morally good are apt to call forth gratitude, p. 741 sq.--The variations of the moral ideas partly due to different external conditions, p. 742.--But chiefly to psychical causes, pp. 742-746.--The duties to neighbours have gradually become more expansive owing to the expansion of the altruistic sentiment, p. 743 sq.--The influence of reflection upon moral judgments has been increasing, p. 744 sq.--The influence of sentimental antipathies and likings has been decreasing, ibid.--The influence which the belief in supernatural forces or beings or in a future state has exercised upon the moral ideas of mankind, p. 745 sq.--Remarks as to the future development of the moral ideas, p. 746.

ADDITIONAL NOTES . . . pp. 747-754

AUTHORITIES QUOTED . . pp. 755-835

SUBJECT INDEX . . . . pp. 837-865

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL IDEAS