SECTION LXXIV.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

It cannot be doubted, that an entirely direct leap from complete servitude to complete freedom may be attended by many

1840, I, 479.) Italy, at the end of the fourteenth century, was entirely free from Christian serfdom. (Muratori, Antt. Ital., I, 798.) In the canton of Berne, Switzerland, slavery was gradually abolished, the process commencing about the beginning of the fifteenth century. It continued, however, in the case of ordinary masters until 1798. Sugenheim, p. 530 seq. In England, Alfred the Great's efforts towards the gradual abolition of slavery (Wilkins, Leges, 29) remained without result. The steps taken by William I, towards a much narrower end, however, seem to have been more successful. (Leges Will. Conq., 225, 229; Turner, Hist. of England, I, 135.) From the time of the Norman conquest, prisoners of war ceased to recruit the ranks of slavery. Under Henry III and Edward I, socage tenants became more and more frequent; but, before long, their duties became less onerous, and might be discharged by others hired for the purpose, instead of by themselves. The first remarkable vestige of a class working for wages is met with in the law of 1351, which may be considered an effort made by the nobility to oppose the tendencies in favor of emancipation, which were a consequence of the development of cities. (Eden, State of the Poor, I, 7, 12, 30, 41,) Infra, § 175. Although the peasant war under Wat Tyler and Straw, who wished to abolish servitude at a blow, failed of its object, we find that there were a great many instances of emancipation by individuals in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when death or sickness overtook them, in which they declared the moral unfitness of slavery. (Wycliffe: "When Adam dalve and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?") Elizabeth liberated the last serfs of the crown. Compare 12 Charles II, ch. 24, 1660. Emancipation in the lowlands of Scotland was completed in 1574. (Tytler, Hist. of Scotland, II, 260.)

10 Modern Emancipation Laws: in Prussia, 1719, 1807, 1819; Lausitz; 1820, Westphalia; in Austria, 1781 (Bohemia and Moravia), 1782 (other German countries and Galicia); 1785 (Hungaria); Schleswig-Holstein, 1804, after many of the landed gentry had voluntarily emancipated their own serfs; in Bavaria, in 180S; in the kingdom of Westphalia, in 1808; in Hessen-Darmstadt, in 1811; in Württemberg, in 1817; in Baden, in 1783, 1820 in newly acquired countries; in Mecklenburg, in 1820; in the kingdom of Saxony, in 1832; in Hanover, in 1833. The law of 1702, abolishing serfdom in Denmark, was evaded until 1788, and in part, even until 1800 by the Schollband

evils. No man is "born free," but only with a faculty for freedom; but this faculty must be developed. The knowledge and respect for law, and the self-control, which are the conditions and limits of freedom, are never acquired without labor, seldom without the making of grave mistakes, and never except through the practice of them. As a rule, both parties, masters as well as servants, would like to get rid immediately of all the inconveniences of the former condition and yet continue to enjoy its advantages. The servant, for instance, will now yield no more the specific obedience of former times, but demands still specific mildness from the land-owner, or loaner of capital, his former master. It is inevitable that there should be complaints on both sides. But in the higher stages of economic culture, the relation of paternal protection and childlike

2

(clod-bond) introduced in its stead. The only Christian people in Europe, who, until recently, kept serfs, was the Russian. The serfs of Russia, in 1834, numbered 22,000,000, i. e., about 40 per cent. of the entire population In the meantime, the law of February 19, 1861, passed after four years of preparation, fixed the date of emancipation at the beginning of the year 1863. Slavery has been abolished in the United States since January 1, 1863; first of all in all portions of the country engaged in rebellion.

11 There is a very interesting discussion in the Journ. des Economistes for June 1863, of the question whether the owners of serfs are entitled to compensation on their emancipation, by Laboulaye, Wolowski, Lavergne, Garnier, Simon and others. In the United States it would have required $2,000,000,000 to fully compensate the slave-holders for depriving them of their slaves. (Quart. R., Jan., 1874, 142.) Compare my view, Roscher, Nationalökonomik des Ackerbaues, § 124.

Leave a new-born child to its "natural freedom" for twenty-four hours, and it will in all probability be dead at the end of the time!

Compare Edinburgh Review, LXXXIII, 64 ff., April, 1851, 333. Klein's Annalen XXV, 70, ff. Even in the fifth book of Moses, 15, 13, ff., we see that experience had taken into consideration that a freed serf without capital or landed property might very readily be in a worse condition than he was before. In the United States, the anticipation that the emancipated negroes might diminish in numbers has not been realized. The census of 1870 showed a negro population of 4,880,000, nearly ten per cent. more than in 1860. The increase of the number of churches, schools and savings banks also bears testimony to the prosperity of the negro. (R. Somers, The Southern States since the War, 1871.)

VOL. I.-15

obedience between the different classes of the people, which, even in medieval times, never obtained in all its purity, is certainly unrecallable. Hence it is, that all hope of a better condition of things is based only on this, that the lower classes may as soon as possible attain to true independence.3

SECTION LXXV.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Even in antiquity, the principal nations of the world could not keep the humanizing influence of civilization from making itself felt on their slaves. And if they did not go so far as to bring about the total abolition of slavery, it is unhesitatingly to be attributed to their religious inferiority.1 In Athens, during the Peloponnesian war, it was almost impossible to distinguish the slaves from the poorer freemen by their looks or dress. Their treatment was mild in proportion as desertion was easier by reason of the smallness of the state or the frequency of war. It was forbidden to beat them; and only a court of justice could punish them with death. Emancipation, in individual cases, was very frequent, and the names of Agoratos and of the law-reviser Nicomachos show how great a part an emancipated slave might play in the nation.

3 F. S. Mill, Principles, 10, ch. 7.

1 As to the Jews, see Ewald, Geschichte von Israel, I 2, p. 198. In general, see H. Wallon, Hist. de l'Esclavage dans l'Antiquité, II, 1847.

2 Thucyd. IV, 27; Xenoph. De Re. rep. Art. I, 10 ff., Aristoph. Nubes, 6; Antiph. De Caede Herod, 727. In the "Frogs" of Aristophanes, the relation between the slave Xanthias and his master is eloquent testimony to the good treatment he received. Slaves enjoyed great freedom of speech. (Demosth. Phil. III, 111.) Concerning masters accused of cruelty, see Demosth. Mid. 529, 7. Athen. VI, 266. The slave who had been ill-treated might seek refuge in a temple, after which his master was compelled to sell him. (Schol. Aristoph. Equitt. 1309. Plutarch, Thes. 36.)

Slaves might purchase their own freedom with their peculium. See Petit. Legg., Art. II, 179. There were many who lived entirely on their own account, paying a certain duty or tax to their masters, and who were well able

The helot system of the Lacedemonians preserved much longer a great deal more of medieval barbarism; but even here, we may infer from the frequent uprisings and emancipations of the helots, from their services in war etc., that their lot was made less hard than it had been.1

Among the Romans, with whom war and conquest were so long considered the principal means of acquisition, slavery was relatively very hard. But, later, there came to be several different grades of slavery (servi ordinarii and mediastini etc.); and in slavery every, gradation denotes some amelioration of condition. The slave obtained the right to possess resources of his own (peculium). In addition to this,

to make savings. R. F. Hermann, Privatalterthümer, § 13, 9, 58, 11 ff. See the instance in Plato, De Rep. VI, 495, where a slave who had grown wealthy asks the daughter of his former master in marriage. Moreover, there was a general indisposition to hold Greeks as slaves. (Philostr. Apoll. VIII, 7, 12.) The case cited in Demosth. adv. Nicostr. 1249 ff., is all the stronger on this account.

4 Under Cleomenes, many purchased their freedom with their own means. Plutarch, Cleom. 23. At an earlier period, men like Lysandros, Gylippos, Kallikratidos had belonged to a class composed of the children of slaves brought up as citizens.

5 Cicero, pro Muræna, IX, 22.

Think of the subterranean ergastula, the fettered door-keepers and the gladiatorial exhibitions.

"Even from the time of Plautus, the servi honestiores were wont to keep vicarios, or subordinate slaves. Plaut. Asin. I, 4, Seneca De Tranq. Anim. S. Compare Cicero, Parad. V, 2. Of the slaves of the state, the public scribes were sometimes found in excellent circumstances.

8 The peculium was fully developed in the time of Plautus and Terence. Compare Terent., Phorm. I, 1. It was customary to promise slaves their freedom as soon as they had acquired a certain peculium. (Dionys. Hal., Antt. Rom., IV, 24. Tac., Ann., XIV, 42.) Humane masters permitted their slaves to dispose freely of their peculium by will. (Plin., Ep., VIII, 16.) There were many of the Romans who gave their slaves a fixed salary, from which they could make savings. (Senec., Epist., So, 7.) Shepherds raised some sheep for themselves alone. (Plaut., Asin., III, 1, 36; Varro, R. R., I, 17, 7.) Premiums were offered for certain products (Athen., VI, 274 d), and there were cases even in which businesses were farmed out to slaves. (Corp. Inscr. Gr., No. 4,713 f.) The servi publici had the right to dispose of the half of what they owned, by will. (Ulpian, XX, 16.) Contracts of loan

9

emancipation became much more frequent in the later republic; so much so, that Augustus considered it necessary to pass laws taxing frivolous emancipation. (L. Aelia Sentia and Furia.) Where men like Terence, Roscius, Tiro, Phædrus and the father of Horace rose from the condition of slavery, the treatment of slaves cannot have been entirely brutalizing.10 Under the emperors who oppressed the free citizens, legislation was directed more than ever towards the protection of the slaves.11 Instead of permanent slavery, a condition of things was introduced and became more general every day, one in which the bondman might contract a legal marriage, have property of his own, and in which he was protected against an arbitrary increase of the quota he had to pay his master, whether in money or produce, although he still remained bound to the land. This class was formed not only of the originarii, or those born into it, but also of a large number of impoverished freemen, barbarian prisoners of war etc.1

12 13

were sometimes made between master and slave. (Plut., Cato, I, 21, L., 49, § 2, Digest, XV, 1.)

9 Compare Tacit., Ann., XIII, 26 seq. During the time from 356 to 211 A. C., it seems that there were, on an average, 1,380 slaves emancipated yearly. (Dureau de la Malle, Economie polit. des Romains, I, 290 ff.)

10 Concerning the highly educated slaves of Atticus, of the like of whom the Greeks had formerly few examples, see Drumann, Geschichte Roms., V, 66. The high prices, 100,000, and even 200,000 sesterces, paid for slaves, suppose a very high degree of education. (Martial, I, 59; III, 62; XI, 70; Seneca, Ep., 27.) But even Cicero was ashamed of his affliction over the death of an exceptionally clever slave. (Ad. Att., I, 12.)

11 At an earlier period, even the censor had punished cruel masters. But most of what was done to prevent the arbitrary condemnation to death of slaves, their castration etc., and to give them rights against their masters for libidinous acts towards them, for cruelty and insufficient support, or the furnishing them with bad food, was done after the time of Hadrian. (Compare Seneca, de Benef., III, 22; de Ira, III, 40, Sueton., Claud, 25, Dom., 7; Spartian., Hadr., 18; Gaius, I, 53; L., 1, § 2, Digest, I, 6; L., 1, § 8, D., I, 12; L., 1, § 2, D., XLVII, 8; L., 1; Cod., IX, 14; Contra, see Dio Cass, I, V, 17.) However, the vitæ necisque potestas existed in the time of Justinian. (Zimmern, Geschichte des röm., Privatrechts, I, 2, 661 ff.)

12 Salvian, De Gubern. Dei, V, 8. Theod., Cad. V, 4. Eumeris, Paneg