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.
J. A. St. John. “The Hellenes.” London, 1844.
J. P. Mahaffy. “Social Life in Greece from Homer to Menander.” London, 1875.
W. A. Becker. “Charikles neu bearbeitet von H. Goell.” Berlin, 1877.
C. F. Hermann. “Griechische Privataltertümer,” 3rd ed., edited by H. Blümner. Freiburg and Tübingen, 1882.
Panofka. “Bilder antiken Lebens.” Berlin, 1843.
Panofka. “Griechen und Griechinnen.” Berlin, 1844.
Weiszer. “Lebensbilder aus dem Klassichen Altertum.” Stuttgart, 1862.
A. Baumeister. “Denkmäler des Klassichen Altertums.” Munich, 1884.
Th. Schreiber. “Kulturhistorischer Atlas des Altertums.” Leipzig, 1885.
H. Blümner. “Kunstgewerbe im Altertum.” Leipzig and Prague.
W. Helbig. “Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert.” Leipzig, 1884, pp. 115-180.
J. Boehlau. “Quaestiones de re vestiaria Graecorum.” Weimar, 1884.
Fr. Studniczka. “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht.” Vienna, 1886.
Th. Schreiber. “Mitteilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts in Athen.” Vol. VIII. (1883), pp. 246 f.; IX. (1884), pp. 232 f.
H. v. Swiecicki. “Die Pflege der Kinder bei den Griechen.” Breslau, 1877.
Becq de Fouquières. “Les jeux des anciens.” Paris, 1869.
L. Grasberger. “Erziehung und Unterricht im Klassischen Altertum.” Würzburg, 1864-1881.
L. Grasberger. (See 2.)
J. L. Ussing. “Erziehung und Jugendunterricht bei den Griechen und Römern.” Berlin, 1885.
No special books quoted.
G. Bilfinger. “Die Zeitmesser der antiken Völker.” Stuttgart, 1886.
Anastasios Maltos. A modern Greek work on the symposia of the Ancient Greeks. Athens, 1880.
Welcker. “Kleine Schriften.” III., pp. 1 f.
L. Grasberger. (See 2.)
J. H. Krause. “Die Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hellenen.” 2 vols. Leipzig, 1841.
Ed. Pinder. “Ueber den Fünfkampf der Hellenen.” Berlin, 1867.
H. Marquardt. “Zum Pentathlon der Hellenen.” 1886.
K. v. Jan. “Die Griechischen Saiteninstrumente. Programm des Lyceums von Saargemünd.” Leipzig, 1882.
Gevaert. “Histoire et théorie de la musique dans l’antiquité.” Vol. II. (1881), pp. 241 f.
K. v. Jan. An article in “Baumeister’s Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums.” I., 553 f.
K. F. Hermann. “Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Altertümer der Griechen.” Second edition. Revised by K. B. Stark. Heidelberg, 1858.
Metzger. An article entitled Divinatio in Pauly’s “Realencyklopädie.” II., pp. 1113 f.
Bouché-Leclerque. “Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité.” Paris, 1880.
Büchsenschütz. “Traum und Traumdeutung im Altertum.” Berlin, 1882.
J. H. Krause. “Ἑλληνικά.” Part I. Olympia. Vienna, 1838. Part II., Pythien, Nemien, und Isthmien. Leipzig, 1841.
E. Curtius. Olympia. Berlin, 1852.
Ad. Böttiger. Olympia. “Das Fest und seine Stätte.” Second Edition. Berlin, 1886.
Holwerda. An article in the “Archæologische Zeitung” for 1880, pp. 169 f.
A. Mommsen. “Delphica.” Leipzig, 1878, pp. 149-214.
H. Guhrauer. “Der Pythische Nomos” in “Supplemente der neuen Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogie.” Vol. VIII., pp. 309 f.
A. Mommsen. “Heortologie. Antiquarische Untersuchungen über die städtischen Feste der Athener.” Leipzig, 1864.
A. Michaelis. “Der Parthenon.” Leipzig, 1871.
Preller. An article in Pauly’s “Realencyklopädie.” Vol. III., pp. 83 f.
Preller. “Demeter und Persephone.” pp. 342 f.
Wieseler. An article entitled “Griechisches Theater,” in Ersch. Gruber’s “Encyklopädie.” First series. Vol. LXXXIII., pp. 243 f.
Wieseler. “Theatergebäude und Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens.” Göttingen, 1851.
Alb. Müller. “Lehrbuch der szenischen Altertümer.” Freiburg-im-Br., 1886.
W. Donaldson. “Theatre of the Greeks.” Ninth edition, London, 1879.
Lüders. “Die Dionysischen Künstler.” Berlin, 1873.
Sommerbrodt. “Scaenica.” Berlin, 1876. pp. 199 f.
Arnold. An article in “Verhandlungen der 29ten Philologen Versammlung,” 1875. pp. 16 f.
Wieseler. “Das Satyrspiel.” Göttingen, 1848.
O. Benndorf. “Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Attischen Theaters,” an article in the “Zeitschrift für österreichische Gymnasien.” 1875.
W. Rüstow and H. Köchly. “Geschichte des Griechischen Kriegswesens.” Aarau, 1852.
Helbig. “Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert.” pp. 195-250.
Jähns. “Handbuch einer Geschichte des Kriegswesens von der Urzeit bis zur Renaissance.” Leipzig, 1880.
A. Müller. An article in Baumeister’s “Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums.” Vol. I., pp. 525 f.
Boeckh. “Urkunden über das Seewesen des Attischen Staates.” Berlin, 1840.
Graser. “De veterum re navali.” Berlin, 1864.
A. Cartault. “La trière Athénienne.” Paris, 1880.
A. Breusing. “Die Nautik der Alten.” Bremen, 1886.
Raoul Lemaître. “Sur la disposition des rameurs sur la trière antique,” an article in the Revue Archéologique for 1883. pp. 89 f.
14. Agriculture, Trade, and Commerce.
Büchsenschütz. “Besitz und Erwerb.” Halle, 1869.
Büchsenschütz. “Die Haupstätten des Gewerbfleiszes im klassischen Altertum.” Leipzig, 1869.
W. Drumann. “Die Arbeiter und Kommunisten in Griechenland und Rom.” Königsberg, 1860.
Blümner. “Die gewerbliche Thätigkeit der Völker des klassischen Altertums.” Leipzig, 1869.
Blümner. “Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern.” 4 vols. Leipzig, 1875-1887.
15. Slaves.
Wallon. “Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité.” Second edition. Paris, 1879.
Büchsenschütz. “Besitz und Gewerb.” pp. 104—208.
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z