Hugo Blumner

Slaves in Ancient Greece—Captives Taken in War—The Slave Trade—The Price of Slaves—Native Serfs—The Helots—The Penestae and the Clarotae—The Status of the Slave—Protection against Ill-treatment—The Slave’s Duties—Modes of Liberation.

All the social and economic conditions of antiquity are based on the institution of slavery, and without it would have been impossible; in fact, slavery is so closely interwoven with the whole life of antiquity that even the political development of the ancient nations and their achievements in the domain of art and industry would be inexplicable without the existence of a large slave population. So great was the importance of slavery in antiquity that any account of Greek life would be incomplete, which did not give some slight sketch of these peculiar conditions.

The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from time to time protesting against the necessity of the institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the very earliest times the right of the strongest had established the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold into slavery by them. This custom, which was universal in the Homeric age, continued to exist in the historic period also, so that not only was it adopted in contests between Hellenes and barbarians, but even in the numerous feuds between Hellenes and Hellenes they often condemned their own countrymen to the hard lot of slavery; in later times, however, it was only in cases of special animosity that they resorted to this expedient; as a rule, they exchanged or ransomed captive Greeks. Besides the wars, piracy, originally regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased, since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.

In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the first of every month; the slaves were arranged on platforms, so that the buyers might examine them on all sides, for they sought chiefly to obtain physical perfection and strength of limb for hard work, and therefore, if the purchasers desired it, the slaves had to be undressed. Of course, those slaves who were bought merely for the sake of their bodily strength were least valuable; a higher price was given for those who had any special skill or were suited for posts of confidence, and considerable prices were also given for pretty female slaves or handsome boys. Consequently, there was great variety of price; at the time of Xenophon the price for a common male slave, who was only suited for rough work, was half a mina (about £2), else the ordinary average was two minae (about £8); for slaves who possessed any technical skill or higher education the price rose from five to ten minae (£20-£40), and even in exceptional cases amounted to one talent (£240).

A large portion of the slave population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece was large or small. At Rome they formed a large proportion of the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class. In early times even free men might become slaves by legal methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors, a severe measure which was forbidden by Solon’s legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their owners.

Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic population originally resident there were subdued by foreign tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their position differed in but few respects from that of the barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive the statements of writers with great caution, since they undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. The constant fear of general insurrection on the part of the Helots entertained by the Spartans, whose own numbers were far fewer, and the terrible severity with which they punished, not only real insurrection, but even merely suspected revolution, prove to us that the statements concerning the cruel treatment of the Helots are not absolutely without foundation. But, as a rule, they did not perform menial slave offices in the houses of the free citizens, but cultivated their lands, and as they were only obliged to hand over a certain part of the profit to the owners, they were able to keep the remainder for themselves, and sometimes to accumulate fortunes and even to purchase their freedom. Nor do we hear of cases in which individual Spartans treated the Helots who were subordinate to them with especial severity—most of the cases of cruelty towards Helots are those in which State reasons seemed to require such proceedings, and were aimed, not at individuals, but at the whole mass of slaves. This was due to a curious arrangement by which the Helots were not, like other slaves, private property of the Individual citizens, but State property and assigned to a particular piece of land, and along with it to the owner for the time being, without enabling him to maintain right of ownership over them. We must not therefore regard the Helots in the same light as ordinary slaves; they were rather public serfs, and on this account they were better off than those who belonged to individual owners. There seems no doubt that besides the Helots there were also private slaves at Sparta, who rendered personal services in the households.

The position and treatment of the slaves varied in different periods, and differed also in the different parts of Greece. Here, too, the conditions of the heroic age were patriarchal, and the distinction between free men and slaves was not so great as afterwards. Trustworthy slaves superintended extensive farms and numerous herds; old female slaves had the whole direction of the household; they were often intimately connected with the inmates of the house, and showed touching fidelity and affection for their masters, with whom they lived on a familiar footing. Similar conditions existed in later times too, but only in remote pasture districts, such as Arcadia, where even in the historic age the slaves were almost regarded as members of the family, ate at the same table as their masters, and shared their labours and recreations. Generally speaking, the Dorians were regarded as stern masters, and the Athenians as kinder and more considerate; in fact, a common reproach against the Athenians was that their kindness degenerated into weakness, and that the slaves were nowhere so insolent as at Athens; they expressed themselves freely, it was said, did not give way even to free citizens in the street, they drank, they met together for common banquets, carried on love affairs, etc., just like free men. These reproaches seem not to have been altogether exaggerated, as is proved by the important part played by slaves in the newer Attic comedy; they were usually insolent, cunning fellows, who cared little for an occasional beating, and were always ready to play their masters a trick, or to intrigue with the sons against their stern fathers. Still it was not unusual in Attica for slaves to run away, and therefore the slave-owners tried to prevent this by stern supervision, and even by chaining and branding. It is natural that the temperament of the Athenians, which changed quickly from extreme to extreme, should not often succeed in finding the right mean between severity and kindness, and therefore, in their sudden transitions from excessive consideration to severest cruelty, a real feeling of attachment between slaves and masters was very rare; still there were instances of devoted fidelity on the part of the slaves, and many inscriptions still extant speak of such devotion continuing even to the grave.

The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour—for instance, in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but, at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. These severe punishments were generally reserved for special cases of obstinacy, theft, or such like; as a rule, the slaves were treated much as our servants are. Their masters gave them the ordinary dress of artisans and workmen—the exomis, or short garment with sleeves (compare the terra-cotta figure, No. 206);

Fig. 206.

their food was simple but nutritious, chiefly barley porridge and pulse, sometimes meat; their drink was the cheap wine of the country; they had their own sleeping apartments, usually those of the male slaves were separated from those of the female, except when the master allowed a slave to found a family and to live with one of his fellow-slaves. Legal marriages between slaves were not possible, since they possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves, and when they had saved the necessary amount they could purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to agree, for he was not compelled. Generally speaking, the position of the public slaves was even more favourable. There were certain occupations which free men were unwilling to undertake, and for this purpose the State used slaves; thus, for instance, at Athens the executioner, torturers, gaolers, and police were all slaves; they had their own dwellings assigned them by the State, could possess property, and received a small salary from the State out of which they had to feed and clothe themselves; they could also earn money by other kinds of work, and sometimes attained a position of fortune. Some of them, as for instance the Athenian police, held a position which gave them certain rights over the citizens, and, therefore, the position of these public slaves must have been a very independent one, while the numerous temple slaves also felt the hardness of their position much less than those whose owners were private persons.

The protection given to slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were differences in different states. It was only in cases of the utmost emergency that the State interfered between master and slave. In the oldest period the owner had power of life and death over his slave, but later legislation put an end to this, and at Athens, in particular, the master might not even kill a slave if he found him committing a crime, the penalty of which was death; cases of necessary defence, or such where the crime could only be prevented by killing the perpetrator, were, of course, excluded. If any owner had killed his slave without being able to justify himself, he was punished for so doing, not as severely as though he had murdered a free man, but only as if it were a case of manslaughter. Further protection against excessive ill-treatment from their masters was given by the right of sanctuary, which permitted the slave to take refuge at the altar of some god, where he found, at any rate, protection for the time being; they might even, supposing they were too cruelly used by their masters, ask to be sold to another master, and it even appears as if the owner could be legally compelled to grant this request. In other respects the State took little notice of slaves, except to forbid certain things, such as gymnastic exercises, love-making with free citizens, participation in certain festivals and sacrifices. Very curious and characteristic of the view they held of slaves, were the arrangements when a slave had to give evidence in a court of law. So bad was their opinion of the moral character of barbarians, and especially of those who were not free, that they thought the slaves could only be induced to speak the truth by direct physical compulsion, and consequently they were always questioned under torture. If in a suit one party required the testimony of his opponent’s slave, the latter could refuse it, but he did so at the risk of losing the suit. Sometimes a master voluntarily offered his slave as witness. If the torture, of which there were various grades, some of them very severe, inflicted any lasting injury on his body or health, the owner might demand compensation, supposing that he was not the loser in the case.

The mode in which slaves were used varied a good deal, according as an owner required his slaves for his own personal service or household, or used them for work in the field or at some trade, or sent them out to work for others. Among those in the personal service of their master were all who were occupied with the duties of the household and service and attendance on their master and his family. Their number was, of course, regulated by the size of the household; a poor family had often to content itself with a single slave, but very few were so poor as not to have any; in large houses a whole army of slaves was kept, who all had their special duties, though often very slight ones. There were the door-keeper, the slaves who attended their master or his family in the street, the paidagogos, the lady’s maid, the cook, the coachman, the stable boys, water carriers, wool workers, etc. This whole army of servants was usually under the direct supervision of a superintendent or steward, himself a slave, but a particularly trustworthy one, who was often trusted so much by his master as to have charge of his keys and his signet ring. The office of these stewards was of particular importance on the country estates, where they had all the slaves required for farming purposes immediately under them, and had to assign them occupations and superintend their work, unless the master undertook this or himself took up his dwelling on the estate. Slaves who could fill such posts of confidence would, of course, fetch a very high price, and their position can in no way be compared with that of ordinary slaves. The same may be said of those who possessed some intellectual culture, and could serve their masters as secretaries or readers, or even help them in scientific labours, by making extracts, etc.; but this was far rarer among the barbarian slaves of the Greeks than among the Greek slaves of the Romans. The slaves could also render their masters important assistance by technical skill; thus, in a rich household, there would be, besides the cook, a special baker for bread and cakes, also weavers, fullers, embroiderers, whose duty it was to provide the clothing. And as the slaves in the country had to work in field and meadow, to attend the vineyards, and olive gardens, to guard and attend the cattle, so the artisan set his slaves to work in his workshop, and either instructed them himself in his art or bought such as were already trained for the purpose. Even physicians often had slave assistants, and some of these were so much trusted by their masters that they took their place by the sick bed.

It was very common, too, for people who were not themselves artisans to own a number of slaves who practised some particular trade, as in a factory. Among the ancients slaves took the place of machinery, for they were tolerably cheap to buy and maintain, and thus a factory of this kind, worked by slaves, was a good investment for capital, especially if the owner understood enough business to undertake the direction himself, or if he had a good overseer. These factory owners also escaped the prejudices against artisans; to own slaves who made money by the work of their hands was not regarded as “mechanical” so long as they kept their own hands from the work. Thus the father of Demosthenes possessed a knife factory, that of Isocrates a flute factory, Lysias and his brother owned a shield factory of one hundred and twenty workers. The slaves who worked in these were not all necessarily the property of the owner. Very often a slave proprietor who did not understand a business himself, let his house to someone who carried it on at his own risk; or, supposing a master to possess among his slaves one who understood some particular trade, he let him out for a certain time at a fee (which was paid not to the slave, but to the master) to someone who could make use of him, perhaps in a large factory. In this way slaves were often let out for work in the mines, which required a great many hands; in fact, they might be let out for a long or short period, even for days and half-days, for work in the fields, domestic occupations, personal service, etc. Many of the flute girls and hetaerae were slaves, and were hired out by their owners by the hour, day, or month, an arrangement with which we are familiar from ancient comedy.

Moreover, it sometimes happened that slaves who had learned some profession made an agreement with their masters to pay them a certain proportion of their earnings, and keep the rest for themselves; sometimes these lived in their own houses and paid for their own food, and might easily earn enough to purchase their freedom.

There were various ways of liberating slaves, and the proceedings were different in different states; it was a matter of some importance too, whether a slave was private property or owned by the State or by some sanctuary. There was no definite legal formula for the manumission of private slaves as at Rome; the State did not interfere in the matter, but only demanded a certain tax from the liberated slave. As a rule, the act of manumission was performed before witnesses or publicly in some large assembly, at the Theatre, in courts of law, etc., in order to give the freed man a guarantee of its validity. It often happened that an owner gave all or some of his slaves their freedom in his will, either immediately upon his death or on the condition that the slave should serve his heirs for a certain period, or pay a certain sum to them out of his own earnings in return for his freedom. If a slave purchased his freedom during the lifetime of his master there was a curious arrangement for establishing the legality of the proceeding, since a slave was not able to conclude a legally valid contract. We owe our knowledge of this proceeding chiefly to documents at Delphi. A mock sale had to be carried on; the master sold the slave for a sum mentioned in the contract (which was paid by the slave himself, unless it was remitted by the master) to some god, e.g. at Delphi to Apollo, under the condition that he should be free as soon as he entered the possession of the god. The slave did not then become a temple slave, but was set free by the god, probably in return for some small payment to the sanctuary. As these contracts were concluded in the presence of witnesses, usually priests of the divinity in question, and deposited in the sanctuary, the freed slave had the security of not being afterwards claimed by his former master or his heirs, and again losing his freedom. Sometimes these contracts contained clauses which pledged the slave to certain obligations towards his master as long as he lived, or towards his heirs, or to care for the burial and grave of his former master, etc. In most cases the freed slave did not immediately lose all connection with his old master; he was not a citizen, and therefore his former owner became his legal patron. It was not unusual for the contract to specify that in case the slave should die without children, his property should belong to his former master or his heirs, and sometimes this even extended to the children of the slave, supposing they in turn died without legal heirs. It may have often happened, as was also the case among some of the Russian serfs in our own time, that the freed slave was richer than his master, and we may thus explain such obligations as those already mentioned, or the condition that the liberated slave should maintain his master until his death. The right of citizenship was seldom conferred on slaves when they were set free; supposing this was the case, of course, all such obligations were omitted. This was usually done when a slave had deserved especially well of his country; thus, for instance, all those who fought at the battle of Arginusae received their freedom and the right of citizenship. The conditions at Sparta were different; sometimes the Helots received their freedom from the State, especially those children of Helots who were educated and brought up together with the sons of citizens, but the right of citizenship was never combined with this freedom. Still, it was not unusual for children who were born of Spartan fathers and Helot mothers to be both free men and citizens; the celebrated Spartan generals Lysander, Gylippus and Callicratidas, were sons of Spartans and Helots.

It would be impossible to make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and those who were the property of the State and the temples, there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably exceeded that of the free population. The injurious influence of this part of the population, who were chiefly barbarians, was felt in many different ways; and though it is not as evident in Greece as in Rome, where the disastrous results of slavery are most marked, yet we cannot hesitate to affirm that the speedy fall of Greece from her political and social height, and the sad picture she offered under Roman dominion, was due, among other causes, in very great part to the institution of slavery.

THE END.