§ 16. Slaves kept as a luxury.

Sometimes we are told that it is considered an honour to possess many slaves. We shall give a few instances.

Among the Lampongs the keeping of slaves is indicative of wealth and power. [De Groot, p. 455.]

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, a man's influence, power and reputation depended on the number of his slaves. [Blumentritt, Conqnista, p. 53.]

Among the Ininga and Galloa it is the ambition of a freeman to have as many slaves as possible. [Lenz, p. 59.]

Compiegne states that a Mpongwe asked him to give him a portion of his wages in advance, in order to buy a slave. "He will work for me and my wife" said the man, "and I shall be a person of rank". [Compiegne, Okanda, pp. 194, 195.]

Among the Bambala, "when a man buys a new slave, he ornaments him on the first day with his best clothes and ornaments, and walks round the village with him to show him to his friends". [Torday and Joyce, Ba-Mbala, p. 411.]

We have only taken a few instances at random. It cannot be interesting to the reader to know how often the same fact has been noticed by ethnographers. For we may suppose that wherever slavery exists, the possession of a great number of slaves is a mark of distinction. The possession of slaves, like other property, is indicative of wealth; and where slaves are acquired by capture in war it shows the bravery of the captor. Moreover, among agricultural tribes the labour of the slaves augments the revenue of their owner, and so the keeping of slaves is not only a sign but a source of wealth; therefore the slave-owner is looked upon as one who has at his disposal a means of acquiring wealth. Martius, speaking of the wild tribes of Brazil, remarks that a chief who keeps many slaves can [404] take more land into cultivation than other people. He has therefore always an abundant supply of food, which tends to increase the esteem in which he is held. [Martius, p. 63.]

Where industry and art are little developed, slaves, besides wives and domestic animals, are almost the only luxury that is to be had. The reader will remember Levchine's statement about a rich Kazak Kirghiz, whose numerous horses gave him no profit, but great renown. [See above, p. 269.] In the lower stages of culture a rich man cannot build a palace, or keep a motor-car, or buy pictures; he can only show his wealth to the public by keeping a large number of men or domestic animals continually running about him. Leroy-Beaulieu justly remarks: "The luxury of primitive times is very simple; it consists mainly in the grouping about the rich man (who most often is at the same time a man of high birth) of a large body of servants maintained by him, and in practising hospitality on a large scale. Among patriarchal peoples there is almost perfect equality of material life between men of different stations. Food, clothing, furniture even, differs but little". [Leroy-Beaulieu, p.80. See also Malthus (Bettany's edition, pp. 423, 424): "In the feudal times, the landlords could in no other way spend their incomes than by maintaining a great number of idle followers."]

But, though a rich man may display his wealth by keeping a great number of slaves, we do not mean to say that among any agricultural tribe all slaves are kept as a mere luxury. This seems improbable. Among pastoral tribes, as we have seen before, it sometimes occurs. The owner of numerous herds may support a large body of slaves, who have scarcely anything to do. But among agricultural tribes it is quite otherwise. Subsistence here is largely dependent on labour; much labour is required to provide for the slaves, and the master will not choose to work for them himself. The slaves, therefore, must perform at least as much productive labour as is required to provide for their own wants; and there is no reason why the master should not make them work somewhat more, to receive a surplus; the more so, as he is thus enabled to display his wealth in the other manner mentioned by Leroy-Beaulieu, viz. by practising hospitality on a large scale.

It is, of course, perfectly possible, and indeed it often occurs, [405] that some slaves are kept as a mere luxury, either doing nothing at all, or performing personal services. But then there must be other slaves who, by performing productive labour, provide for their master, their fellow-slaves, and themselves. There cannot be a class of unproductive labourers, without there being a class of productive labourers too. We can only imagine one case, in which all slaves might be kept as a mere luxury. It might be, that there were a class of productive labourers consisting of freemen, who provided for the slave-owners and their unproductive slaves. There might, for instance, be an aristocracy, levying taxes on the common people and keeping slaves as a luxury. Such is indeed the case among the pastoral Beni Amer. It might also occur among agricultural tribes; but we have not found any instance of it.

Only in two cases have we found it stated that slaves are not productive.

Coquilhat tells us that on the Upper Congo the keeping of slaves does not increase the master's income; for agriculture is insignificant, and these tribes are not commercial. But he also states that the soil is tilled by old women and male slaves, so slaves do not seem to be kept as a mere luxury. [Coquilhat, pp. 365, 265.]

Among the Fanti, according to Finsch, slaves are articles of luxury; they are as lazy as their masters. They are acquired as prisoners of war or by purchase. Every noble Fanti owns numerous slaves; for it is a mark of distinction to keep many of them. Some slaves carry parasols or fans; others by trumpeting announce the arrival of the patrician. Most of them do nothing at all. But the same writer states that the condition of the pawns (who, as has been shown in the first chapter of Part I, are a kind of slaves) is much worse than that of the slaves in the restricted sense. [Finsch, Die Goldküste, pp. 359, 360.] We may therefore suppose that these pawns are the productive labourers.

We have never found it explicitly stated that among any agricultural tribe slaves are not employed in agriculture.

Our conclusion is that luxury has not probably been among any agricultural tribe the only motive for keeping slaves. [406] Yet many slaves are kept as a mere luxury, and consequently among some tribes slaves are far more numerous than they would be if all of them were engaged in productive pursuits.