[417]

CHAPTER V.

CONCLUSION.

§ 1. General survey.

The causes which lead to the keeping of slaves, and those which prevent it, have been divided by us into internal and external causes. These terms do not perhaps quite answer the purpose but we cannot find other terms which would express our meaning better, without requiring a prolix circumlocution. We think, however, that it is clear what we mean by these terms. Slavery cannot exist, where there are no internal causes requiring it, i. e. where there is no use, economic or non-economic, for slave labour. A tribe will not keep slaves, even though its coercive power would enable it to do so, if there is no employment for them; in such case positive internal causes fail. The same obtains where definite internal causes are found, which make slave labour useless [In the first edition we had spoken of negative internal causes. Dr. Tönnies, in his review, rightly remarks that this expression is not quite correct.]. The positive internal causes may also be called motive-forces. Slaves will not be kept, even where the best opportunities of procuring them exist, if there is no motive-force which requires the keeping of slaves, i. e. if they are not wanted.

But though, wheree motives for keeping slaves fail, no external causes will give rise to slavery, -- even when there are such motives, slavery will not exist, if there are no external causes rendering it possible, i. e. if there is no opportunity of procuring and retaining slaves. Where neither capture [418] or purchase of aliens, nor enslavement of members of the tribe is practicable, or where the slaves can very easily escape, slaves cannot be kept, though there might be much use for them [Our "external causes" correspond with what has sometimes been called condiciones as opposed to causae proper.].

The principal internal cause which prevents the rise of slavery, or where slavery exists, tends to make it disappear, is the dependence of subsistence upon closed resources. The most important result of our investigation seems to us the division, not only of all savage tribes, but of all peoples of the earth, into peoples with open, and with closed resources. Among the former labour is the principal factor of production, and a man who does not possess anything but his own strength and skill, is able to provide for himself independently of any capitalist or landlord. There may be capital which enhances the productiveness of labour, and particularly fertile or favourably situated grounds the ownership of which gives great advantage; but a man can do without these advantages. Among peoples with closed resources it is otherwise. Here subsistence is dependent upon material resources of which there is only a limited supply, and which accordingly have all been appropriated. These resources can consist in capital, the supply of which is always limited; then those who own no capital are dependent on the capitalists. They can also consist in land. Such is the case when all land has been appropriated; then people destitute of land are dependent on the landowners.

Where subsistence depends on closed resources, slaves may occasionally be kept, but slavery as an industrial system is not likely to exist. There are generally poor people who voluntarily offer themselves as labourers; therefore slavery, i. e. a system of compulsory labour, is not wanted. And even where there are no poor men, because all share in the closed resources, the use of slaves cannot be great. Where there are practically unlimited resources, a man can, by increasing the number of his slaves, increase his income to any extent; but a man who owns a limited capital, or a limited quantity of land, can only employ a limited number of labourers. Moreover, as soon as in a country with closed resources slaves are kept, they form a class destitute of capital, or land, as the case may be; [419] therefore, even when they are set free, they will remain in the service of the rich, as they are unable to provide for themselves [Viz. if they have no opportunity to emigrate to countries with open resources.]. The rich have no interest to keep the labourers in a slave-like state. It may even be their interest to set them free, either in order to deprive them of such rights over the land as they may have acquired in the course of time, or to bring about a determination of the wages of labour by the law of supply and demand, instead of by custom. They will thus, without any compulsion except that exercized by the automatic working of the social system, secure a larger share in the produce of labour than they got before by compulsion.

Among peoples with open resources everybody is able to provide for himself; therefore free labourers do not offer themselves, at least not for employment in the common drudgery, the rudest and most despised work. There may be, and indeed there often are, skilled labourers whose work is highly valued and well paid; such people think it more profitable to earn their livelihood by means of their peculiar talents, than in the common way. A striking instance of this is the priest, whom we may call a skilled labourer performing non-economic labour; his remuneration, both in material goods and in influence and consideration, is greater than the income of a common agriculturist. But there are no labourers in the modern sense of proletarians, destitute of everything and obliged to seek employment in whatever work they can find. If therefore a man wants others to perform the necessary drudgery for him, and cannot impose it upon his wife, or wives, or other-female dependents (either because women hold a high position, or because there is more mean work to be done than the women can possibly manage), he must compel other men to serve him; and this compulsion will often assume the form of slavery.

In the first Part we have said that a slave is a man who is the property of another. We can now see the practical meaning of this definition. In slave countries labourers are held as property, and valued as such. If an employer loses a labourer, his income is lessened by it; if his labourer runs away, he eagerly tries to recover him. In countries with closed resources it is [420] quite the reverse [Viz. generally speaking. Peculiar circumstances (e. g. a rapid development of industry) may bring about a temporary scarcity of labour. But the growth of population in most cases will soon bring this state of things to an end.]. The labourers are not held as property, because they are not valued. If a labourer leaves his service, the employer knows that there are many others ready to take his place. Here it is not the employer who prevents his labourers from escaping, but the employed who try to prevent the employer from dismissing his workmen. We are, of course, aware that labour is always an indispensable factor of production; yet in many countries, e. g. in modern Western Europe, an employer does not care to keep a particular labourer in his service [We have repeatedly remarked that the condition of countries with open resources is quite different: land is abundant, but the supply of labour is limited; therefore the ruling classes attach little value to land as such, but their chief aim is to people the land with men who enter into their service. A good instance is given by Junod in his account of the Baronga (near Delagoa Bay): "According to their laws, the soil belongs exclusively to the chief. But practically it belongs to every one. Nobody buys land. It is given gratuitously to whosoever wants to settle in the country. By simply declaring himself a subject of the chief, a native may acquire as much land as he wants for his subsistence." (Junod, pp. 186, 187).]. We must, however, bear in mind that this rule, in its strictest sense, applies only to unskilled labour. Qualified labourers are often highly valued and able to secure great advantage, because their number is limited. It is therefore that the helpless state of people destitute of material resources appears more clearly in agricultural than in manufacturing countries.

This difference between countries with open and with closed resources goes far to explain why slavery (and serfdom, which is also a form of compulsory labour) has gradually disappeared in civilized Europe, whereas in thinly peopled countries it maintained itself much longer, and even now is sometimes introduced under some disguise ("labour trade", convict labour and similar expedients used in the tropics). In Western Europe unskilled labourers can always be had without compulsion, whereas the qualities required in skilled labourers cannot develop under a compulsory regime.

Always and everywhere have men been inclined to burden their fellow-men with heavy and disagreeable work rather than [421] perform it themselves; and the strong have succeeded in imposing this work on the weak. Among some savage tribes it is the weaker sex who perform the drudgery; but in the course of progress the work that has to be done soon becomes too much for the women to manage. Then subjection of males arises, which presents itself in various forms, as subjugation of conquered tribes, or of the common people by the king and nobility, but often also as slavery or serfdom. Finally, when indispensable resources have been appropriated, the meanest labour is imposed upon those who are destitute of land and capital. There is now no longer a personal, but an impersonal compulsion. Lange remarks:

"In former times the marauding minority of mankind, by means of physical violence, compelled the working majority to render feudal services, or reduced them to a state of slavery or serfdom, or at least made them pay a tribute. Nowadays the dependence of the working classes is secured in a less direct but equally efficacious manner, viz. by means of the superior power of capital; the labourer being forced, in order to get his subsistence, to place his labour power entirely at the disposal of the capitalist. So there is a semblance of liberty; but in reality the labourer is exploited and subjected, because, all the land having been appropriated, he cannot procure his subsistence directly from nature, and, goods being produced for the market and not for the producer's own use, he cannot subsist without capital. Wages will rise above what is wanted for the necessaries of life, where the labourer is able to earn his subsistence on free land, which has not yet become private property. But wherever, in an old and totally occupied country, a body of labouring poor is employed in manufactures, the same law, which we see at work in the struggle for life throughout the organized world, will keep wages at the absolute minimum" [Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, pp. 12, 13.].

Little credit is given at present to the opinion expressed in the last sentence, all economists being aware that the wages, not only of the skilled, but even of the unskilled workmen are in many cases above the bare minimum. But this much seems true, that in countries, where all the land is held as private [422] property, labour is at a discount. We may even say, though it sounds strange, that generally labour is much more at a disadvantage in countries where slavery does not exist, than in slave countries. In slave countries labourers are naturally independent; therefore he who wants to make another work for him, must enslave him and resort to all possible means of retaining him in his service. Hence the strange compound of severity and indulgence that has so often been observed among slave-owners. In countries with closed resources the landlord or capitalist has a natural advantage over his labourers; he need neither use severity nor indulgence to maintain his position.

The condition of the working classes in modern Europe in many respects certainly is not better than that of the slaves in countries of lower civilization. We cannot deny the truth of the remark made by the intelligent chief of the Fulbe, whom Hecquard met on his travels in West Africa. "We often" says Hecquard "talked about our mode of government and the relation of the different classes in European society. He did not attach any value to the legal equality of the citizens and asked me how my countrymen got on without slaves. His conclusion was that with us the domestics and the poor classes in general were the slaves of the rich, because the latter could, by refusing to give them work, reduce them to starvation in a country, where nothing is given gratuitously" [Hecquard, p. 313.].

 

We have seen that slavery cannot exist to any considerable extent among peoples with closed resources. But even among peoples with open resources it is not always found. Slaves perform the drudgery for their masters; therefore they are not wanted where little drudgery has to be done, or in other terms, slavery is not likely to exist where subsistence is difficult to acquire. Where men subsist by highly skilled labour, there can be little use for slaves; for the slaves cannot be made to perform such labour; and the little unskilled labour that is wanted is not profitable enough to admit of the keeping of slaves, who would have to be fed by the produce of their [423] masters' work. This is the principal reason why slavery hardly ever occurs among hunters, and one of the reasons why the Eskimos do not keep slaves.

We find thus that, generally speaking, the keeping of slaves is economically profitable to peoples with open resources among which subsistence is easily acquired, and to such peoples only. But there are several secondary causes, internal and external, which bring about that slaves are sometimes kept by peoples with closed resources, or by peoples among which subsistence is difficult to procure, and that on the other hand slavery is sometimes absent where resources are open and subsistence is easy to acquire.

Among the secondary internal causes we have noted in the first place the condition of women. There is no use for slaves, where all disagreeable work can be, and is performed by the weaker sex; Australian and Melanesian women supply the place of slaves. On the other hand, where the women hold a high position, and the men are desirous of relieving them of a part of their task, slavery is likely to arise sooner than otherwise would be the case.

Commerce probably exists among all savages. Even the Australian tribes mutually exchange rare kinds of earth for painting their bodies, and similar objects. But commerce has only a social importance, where the articles exchanged are manufactured goods in the widest sense, including e. g. fish and agricultural products, in a word all articles the production of which requires a considerable amount of labour. Then the freemen who devote themselves to commercial pursuits want others to perform the common labour for every-day subsistence: moreover the preparing of the articles of trade requires more labour than would otherwise be wanted. And last, but not least, commerce leads to the development of wealth and luxury; slave labour is now wanted to provide the owner not only with the necessaries, but with the comforts of life. Commercial tribes in the widest sense, -- including

1. tribes which exchange native produce for foreign manufactures,
2. tribes which themselves produce and export manufactured goods in the common, restricted. sense,
3. tribes which carry on a transit-trade,

-- are therefore far more likely to keep slaves than selfsufficing tribes. [424]

 

We have seen that subjection of women is sometimes a substitute for slavery. Another substitute is subjection of tribes as such. This subjection occurs only, so far as savages are concerned, where peculiar circumstances render it possible: among pastoral tribes, which subject their neighbours to whom they are superior in military qualities, and in Oceania, where the limited area prevents the conquered from receding. Where a tribe subjected as such pays a tribute to the conquerors and performs services for them, there is not so much need for enslavement of individuals belonging to the vanquished tribe.

People who live from hand to mouth have less use for slaves than those who preserve food for the time of scarcity. The preparing of this food may require much labour which is very fit to be performed by slaves. We have seen that such is especially the case on the North Pacific Coast of North America.

Slaves are sometimes kept for non-economic purposes.

Warfare plays a great part in savage life, and we have found that the requirements of warfare sometimes prevent, but in other cases further the rise of slavery. Many savage tribes increase their population by introduction of foreign elements. This may be done for two reasons: men are wanted either for labourers or for warriors [There is another reason: foreign women are sometimes procured for wives. But we may leave this case out of consideration as being foreign to our subject.]. In the former case the introduction of aliens leads to slavery in its most general form of extratribal slavery. When warriors are wanted, slavery is not the most appropriate form; adoption of foreigners, such as was for instance practised by the Iroquois, answers the purpose better, because a man who enjoys the common privileges of a member of the tribe is more reliable in war than a slave. In such case militarism may prevent the rise of slavery, because all available men are wanted in war and have therefore to be placed on a level with the tribesmen. But where superior military qualities of a tribe render the employment of slaves in warfare (most often in the lower ranks of the army) possible, slaves are sometimes kept mainly for military purposes, especially [425] where prejudices of race or colour prevent the tribe from adopting the foreigners. Then militarism furthers the growth of slavery; for slaves would perhaps not be wanted, if they did not serve as warriors.

Slaves may also be kept as a mere luxury. The possession of many slaves, like other property, everywhere tends to give the owner influence and reputation. Yet he most often also derives material profit from his slaves, namely from the total number of them, even where some of them do not perform productive labour. Only in a few cases does the sole use of slaves appear to consist in augmenting their owners' influence and reputation. This occurs among some pastoral tribes, where the rich are able to support a large number of unproductive labourers. But here the military use of slaves has perhaps co-operated in establishing slavery.

In the beginning of this paragraph we have spoken of external causes.

It is quite possible that a tribe does not keep slaves, though they would be very useful. The non-existence of slavery in such cases is due to external circumstances. It may be that the coercive power of the tribe is not sufficiently developed to admit of the keeping of slaves. It may also be that slavery does not exist, because it has not yet been invented: people may have always been accustomed to deal otherwise with their prisoners than by enslaving them, and so the idea of making slaves may never have entered their minds. The coercive power is strongest where men live in fixed habitations (though several tribes of pastoral nomads also keep slaves), and in large groups, and are accustomed to preserve food. The slave-trade has considerable influence. It increases the coercive power by rendering escape of slaves more difficult; and by making a tribe acquainted with the institution of slavery and providing it with an easy means of acquiring slaves it often overcomes the vis inertiae. The slave-trade may go far to account for the very frequent occurence of slavery among savages who have long maintained relations with superior races, though due allowance must be made for the influence of the general intercourse with such races, especially in furthering the commercial development. Another external cause is the neighbourhood of [426] inferior races, the influence of which, as we have seen, clearly appears among pastoral tribes. It is easier for Hamitic and Semitic nations to keep Negroes in a state of subjection than people of their own race.

General recapitulation.

	Furthering the growth of slavery.	Hindering the growth of slavery.
I. Internal causes.
A. General:	1. Open resources and subsistence easy to acquire.	1. Closed resources. 2. Subsistence difficult to acquire.
B. Secondary, economic:	1. A high position of women. 2. Commerce. 3. Preserving of food.	1. Female labour serving as a substitute for slave labour. 2. Subjection of tribes as such.
C. Secondary, non-economic:	1. Militarism (where slaves are employed in warfare). 2. Slaves kept as a luxury.	1. Militarism (especially where foreigners are adopted).
II. External causes:
	1. Fixed habitations. 2. Living in large groups. 3. Preserving of food. 4. The slave-trade. 5. The neighbourhood of inferior races.

Preserving of food and militarism occur twice, because they work in different directions. We have arranged the separate causes within each group [427] in the order in which we have found them. If we had arranged them according to their relative importance, they would have been enumerated in another order. Thus among the external causes the slave-trade comes last, though its influence is greater than that of the other external causes [Dr. Vierkandt, reviewing the first edition of this work, remarks that there, is no internal connection between the results of the investigation and the distinction of economic groups, as the existence or non-existence of slavery appears to depend not only on the economic state of society, but on many causes which have little to do with this state.

Though we fully admit this last, we think our division of the savage tribes into economic groups is justified by the results of our investigation. This division has led us to the following conclusions. Hunters and fishers, and equally the lowest agricultural group, as Dr. Vierkandt himself observes, generally do not keep slaves. The state of pastoral nomadism is also unfavourable to the growth of slavery. On the other hand, agriculturists of the higher stages are very likely to keep slaves.

Having arrived at these preliminary results, we have inquired which causes engender this connection between slavery and the economic state of society. We have also asked for the causes of the exceptions to the rules above mentioned. So we have come to an understanding of the internal connection between slavery and the other factors of social life. We cannot think our final results would have been obtained as well in any other way.].

§ 2. Outlines of a further investigation of the early history of slavery.

We have viewed slavery as an industrial system, and inquired under what economic and. social conditions this system can exist. This investigation we believe has led to valuable conclusions. But slavery (even if we confine ourselves to slavery among savages) may be viewed under many more aspects. We have not made any further study of the subject: but having collected many ethnographical materials, we have become acquainted with a great number of details which may afford subjects of further investigation. We shall give here an enumeration of various points connected with slavery, though we do not claim that it is in any way complete: it would probably appear on closer scrutiny that many additions could be made to it. We shall mention the various points in short sentences, often in the form of inquiries. [428]

I. The different ways in which people become slaves.

There are:

1. Slaves by birth;
2. Free-born people who become slaves.

In connection with the former point it may be inquired what is in each case the status of children born of two slaves, of a male slave and a free woman, of a female slave and a free man, and especially of a female slave and her master. This inquiry will enable us to find, whether and to what extent slaves are merged in the general population. [In the Shorthand Islands (Solomon group) many of the common people are children of slave parents. Ribbe, p. 138.]

The manners in which free-born people become slaves may be distinguished according as slaves are acquired from without or within the limits of the tribe. This reminds us of the distinction we have made between extratribal and intratribal slavery. We may inquire then which of these two forms of slavery appears first. If we should find that extratribal is older than intratribal slavery (which does not seem unlikely), we might examine the economic and social conditions under which intratribal slavery can exist.

Extratribal slaves become such by:

1. Capture in war or kidnapping. Here a wide field of research opens itself. Captives, when they are not enslaved, are killed (eaten, sacrificed), or exchanged after peace has been concluded, or ransomed by their countrymen, or adopted into the tribe of the captors. It may be inquired whether any of these modes of treatment can have gradually led to enslavement of the captives (e. g. captives are first adopted, and gradually differentiated from the born members of the tribe; or they are first eaten, then preserved to be eaten later on and in the meantime set to work, and finally employed as slaves and no longer eaten) [Among the Tlinkits, in Holmberg's time, it was the custom to sacrifice slaves at some great feasts; but the master often gave a good slave the opportunity of hiding during the feast; he could then return afterwards with impunity. Generally speaking, no slaves were sacrificed but the old and sickly and those who, being defective in some way or other, caused their master more trouble than profit. Except at the great feasts slaves were scarcely ever killed; for they were valuable and difficult to replace. (Holmberg, I p. 51). We see that the keeping of slaves had become profitable and so the old custom of sacrificing slaves was going out of practice.]. Several of these modes of treatment [429] coexist with slavery (e. g. some captives are sacrificed and the rest kept as slaves; or slaves are occasionally sacriticed); does this only occur in the early stages of slavery, and indicate that slavery has not yet fully developed? When is slavery an object, and when is it only an incident of warfare? A remarkable phenomenon, worth a close investigation, is the occurrence of extratribal slavery or adoption of aliens together with a preventive check on population (infanticide, abortion) [To give one instance, Guppy states that in Ugi, in the Solomon Islands, "infanticide is the prevailing custom. When a man needs assistance in his declining years, his props are not his own sons but youths obtained by purchase from the St. Christoval natives who, as they attain to manhood, acquire a virtual independence, passing almost beyond the control of their original owner. It is from this cause that but a small proportion of the Ugi natives have been born on the island, three-fourths of them having been brought as youths to supply the place of offspring killed in infancy". Guppy, p. 42.]. When captives are enslaved, it is worth inquiring in what manner they are distributed among the captors; this will have a strong influence on the division of wealth.

2. Purchase. The prices paid for different classes of slaves show what slaves are most desired (men or women, people of different ages or nationalities). The slaves sold have often been captured by the sellers; but it also occurs that people are sold by their countrymen, especially criminals. Here we may notice the influence of the slave-trade on penal law; people are probably often sold abroad, who otherwise would have been killed or expelled from the community.

Intratribal slaves become such (so far as we know) in the following ways:

1. For non-payment of a debt. Here the general treatment of debtors and the extent to which the rights of creditors are acknowledged by the community are worth examining. Debtor-slaves have often, but not always, a right to become free by paying off the debt [See Post, Ethn. Jur., I p. 366.]. In some , cases the creditor [430] does not keep the debtor1 as a slave, but recovers his money by selling him abroad [Post, 1. c.].

2. As a punishment, either directly, or when the wergild is not paid. This subject might be treated in connection with Professor Steinmetz's investigations of early penal law. Criminals often become slaves of the chief or king; a study of this matter Śwould lead to an inquiry into political institutions at large.

3. By marrying a male or female slave. Here we may inquire where and to what extent connubium between free people and slaves exists.

4 By offering themselves as slaves, or selling themselves. In the former case it has always carefully to be inquired whether such persons become slaves or voluntary servants; the latter is quite possible, and the terminology of our informants not always reliable, as we have seen when speaking of Oceania. When they really become slaves, there are probably open resources. It is then worth inquiring what can be the reason why, while resources are open and so everybody is able to provide for himself, there are people who throw themselves upon the mercy of men of power.

5. Finally, orphans and other helpless persons are sometimes enslaved.

II. The different ways in which people cease to be slaves.

1. Redemption. Here the question presents itself, where slaves, or certain categories of slaves, have a right to be redeemed. [Among the Chingpaws of Upper Burma slaves can always be liberated by their parents by means of a payment (Wehrli, p. 37).]

2. Emancipation. Where, and under what social conditions does this custom prevail, and where is it of frequent occurrence? What are the motives that induce the master to set his slave free? Emancipation as a substitute for sacrifice [Among the Tlinkits at the feast held in commemoration of the deceased, the man who gave the feast used to part with some of his slaves, whether by sacrificing or emancipating them was left to the decision of the priest. Erman, p. 382.]. [431]

3. Adoption. Connected with this is the fact, that in some countries slaves sometimes succeed to their masters' goods [Among the Bayaka "if the deceased leaves no heir, his wives and goods pass into the possession of one of his slaves, who thus becomes a free man." Torday and Joyce, Ba-Yaka, p. 44.]. Here we may ask whether or not such adoption and right of inheritance are only found in early stages and have to be regarded as survivals of adoption of aliens.

4. Marriage of a slave with a free person, especially of a female slave with her master.

5. Dedication to a god. Slaves can sometimes become free by devoting themselves to some deity [Among the Ewe-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast "according to custom, any slave who takes refuge in a temple and dedicates himself to the service of the god, cannot be reclaimed by his owner; but as by paying a fee to the priest tho owner can close the doors of all the temples in the neighbourhood to his fugitive slaves, this provision of an asylum for an ill-treated slave is more apparent than real". Ellis, Ewe-speaking peoples, p. 220.]. Further details; power of the priesthood; compare the influence of the church in the Middle Ages.

In whatever way slaves become free, the position of the liberti deserves a separate consideration. Are they on a level with free-born men, or do they form a separate class? Do their descendants gradually become merged in the general population?

III. Treatment of slaves by their masters.

1. Is the general treatment stated to be good or bad? Where the former and where the latter?

2. Slaves are often stated to be looked upon and treated as members of the master's family. What does this mean? Where does it occur?

3. Difference between freemen and slaves in food, clothing, etc. Slaves forbidden to wear the same dress and ornaments as freemen [Among the Chinooks, the flattening of tho head, "appears to be a sort of mark of royalty or badge of aristocracy, for their slaves are not permitted to treat their children thus". (Swan, The Northwest Coast, p. 108). Among the Malays of Menangkabao slaves were not allowed to dress in the same manner as free people or live in houses like those of the free or wear gold or silver ornaments or silks. (Willinck, p. 141).]. [432]

IV. Legal status of slaves [See also Post, Ethn. Jar., I pp. 370 sqq.].

1. Is the master's power over his slave unlimited? Very often it is not. Connection with the development of the power of government.

2. Rights of the slaves with regard to marriage and family. Connubium with freemen: see above. Are slave-marriages legally acknowledged, or do they entirely depend on the master's pleasure? Do the masters apply any principles of selection in mating the slaves? When the parents are slaves belonging to different masters, to which master do the children belong? Has the master full rights over his female slaves in a sexual respect?

3. Right of property. Are the rights of slaves to their earnings (peculium) recognized? When the slave dies, who succeeds to the peculium?

4. Have contracts made by slaves legal force?

5. Punishment of slaves by their masters [See Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 306-315.].

6. Protection of slaves by penal law. When a slave has been killed, is a wergild paid as for a freeman, or is only the price of the slave restored to the master? Similarly with regard to lesser injuries. Are those who commit any offence against the slave punished by the government? If so, is any exception made for the master? Is the master responsible for any damages caused by his slave?

7. Sometimes the master may not sell the slave without his consent.

8. It may also be that the slave, if ill-treated by his master, has a right to be sold. In some cases the slave can change his master by causing some slight damage to the new master or his goods. This formality has probably originated from the delivering up of the slave to the injured person for some real damage [See Post, Ethn. Jur., I. p. 377.].

9. Has the slave any public rights, does he share in government matters? [433]

V. The attitude of public opinion towards slaves.

1. Are slaves despised? Details. Do the slaves receive a regular burial, or are their corpses thrown away?

2. External signs of slavery (mutilations, dress different from that of freemen) [Among the ancient Germans, slaves were obliged to wear their hair short (Amira, p. 139). Similarly in Dorey (New-Guinea); see "Nieuw-Guinea", p. 149.]. Are these signs only intended clearly to show the difference of status, or to make fugitive slaves easy to recognize?

3. Are ill-treatment and sale of slaves discountenanced by public opinion? [The facts do not seem to justify Deniker's conclusion that the moral code of savages disapproves of compassion with slaves, because it is not profitable to the tribe. (Deniker, Races et peuples, p. 299.)]

4. Is there any instance among savages of slavery being considered a status contra naturam?

VI. Different kinds of slaves.

Slaves can be distinguished according to

1. their nationality,
2. the manner in which they have become slaves (difference between extratribal and intratribal slaves, between native-born and newly-acquired slaves) [On the favourable position of native-born slaves in Northeastern Africa, see Deniker, Races et peuples, p. 267. ],
3. the work imposed upon them (outdoor and indoor slaves, familia rustica and familia urbana).

What are the practical consequences of these distinctions? [Deniker remarks that, together with the formation of social classes, a distinction between the different kinds of unfree arises. "The lowest grade are the slaves in the proper sense, who are not even regarded as human beings, whereas, at the top of the scale, we find people, unfree by birth, but able to arrive at a position not very different from that of the free citizens of the upper-classes." Deniker, Races et peuples, p. 296.].

VII. Slave labour.

Slaves sometimes perform

1. the same work as freemen, or
2. the same as free women, or
3. the same as the lower classes.[434]
4. If some kind of work is performed by slaves only, what is its character? (Drudgery as opposed to noble work).
5. Is the work for which slaves are employed despised? [In Dahomey "agriculture is despised, because slaves are employed in it." Burton, II p. 248.]
6. Amount of work. Are the slaves over-worked? Are they supervised? Are they kept at work by any compulsory means (flogging, etc.)?
7. Do the slaves live in their master's house?

VIII. Serfdom.

Does it ever exist among savages? Are there instances of the coexistence of slavery and serfdom? In what manner do people become serfs?

IX. Number of slaves.

1. What is, in each case, the number- of the slaves, and their proportion to the general population?
2. What is, in each case, the numerical proportion of the sexes among the slaves?
3. Do the slaves form a separate class of people?
4. Are the slaves an integral part of the wealth of their owners ?
5. In some cases only certain classes (e. g. the nobility) are entitled to keep slaves. [Among the Battas of Mandheling and Pertibie only the nobles are allowed to keep slaves. The higher nobles may keep as many slaves as they like, the lower only two or three (Wilier, p. 43).]

X. Happiness or unhappiness of slaves.

Is it considered a great evil for one's self or one's friends to fall into slavery? [Among the Ewe it occurs that a slave is emancipated by his master. "But, generally speaking, slaves do not care to be free, for they are treated as members of the family and are so contented that they do not long for a change in their condition." Herold, p. 170. The slaves, formerly kept by the Kouiagas, evidently thought otherwise of their servile state: for on the arrival of the Russians, many slaves took refuge to them (Holmberg I p. 79).] Instances of suicide to escape from [435] slavery. [The Athka Aleuts sometimes preferred suicide to captivity in war or slavery (Petroff, p. 158).] In many cases it is not slavery as such, but sale to distant regions that is felt as a great calamity. We may mention here the curious phenomenon of people captured and enslaved by the enemy or sold abroad, being on their return despised or even repelled by their former countrymen. ["In the district of Allas [in Sumatra] a custom prevails, by which, if a man has been sold to the hill people, however unfairly, he is restricted on his return from associating with his countrymen as their equal, unless he brings with him a sum of money, and pays a fine for his re-enfranchisement to his kalippah or chief. This regulation has taken its rise from an idea of contamination among the people, and from art and avarice among the chiefs." Marsden, p. 255. Similarly, among the Maori, according to Polack (II p. 55), "chiefs who have tasted of slavery are often taunted by their friends, by whom they may have been ransomed, as having been slaves." Brown (New Zealand, p. 62) remarks: "They attach great importance to the circumstance of never having been taken in war."]

XI. Consequences of slavery.

1. Influence of slavery on the social organization of the tribe. A slave-owner, having labour forces at his command and being supported by a body of followers, is more likely to attain wealth and consideration than the other freemen. And as in those countries, where the slave trade is developed, the keeping of slaves may soon become a privilege of the rich [Among the Ewe, the price of a slave is 140-200 shilling, so the relatively rich only are able to purchase slaves (Herold, p. 168).], slavery furthers the divergence of the rich and the poor, of the nobles and the common people.

2. Connected with this is the influence of slavery on the development of the military principle. The ruling classes, having learned to command their slaves, are more capable of commanding the people.

3. Influence of slavery on the laws and customs regulating marriage, and on sexual morality at large. Female slaves serving as concubines. [On the West African coast, from Lagos to Cameroon, the master of the house has over his wives a limited, over his male and female slaves an unlimited power (Kingsley, West African studies, p. 439). Among the Bali tribes of Cameroon, female slaves are concubines without any recognized rights.]

4. Influence of slavery on the condition of free women. When there are many domestic slaves, free women are no longer overtaxed with work. [See Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 339.] [436]

5. Influence of slavery on warfare. As soon as captives are regularly enslaved, the cruel modes of treating captives which may have formerly existed disappear. On the other hand, when the procuring of slaves becomes an object of warfare, war becomes much more frequent than before.[Winwood Reade, speaking of the coast tribes of West Africa, from Senegambia to Angola, remarks: "In those places where the slave-buying still goes on, the people are more disposed to go to war, to convict criminals, and to make use of any pretence to procure slaves. And it is also certain that there are regions where an almost constant war is carried on for the purpose of obtaining slaves" (Winwood Reade, p. 291).]

6. Influence of slavery on the development of the political power of the tribe. Slavery "creates a set of persons born to work that others may not work, and not to think in order that others may think. Therefore slave-owning nations, having time to think, are likely to be more shrewd in policy, and more crafty in strategy". [Bagehot, p. 73; see also Ingram, pp. 5, 6.]

7. Slavery has a great influence on morality at large, in a good as well as in a bad sense. Slavery has played a great part in the education of mankind. Ingram rightly remarks that "slavery discharged important offices . . . . by forcing the captives, who with their descendants came to form the majority of the conquering community, to a life of industry in spite of the antipathy to regular and sustained labour which is deeply rooted in human nature, especially in the earlier stages of the social movement, when insouciance is so common a trait, and irresponsibility is hailed as a welcome relief . [Ingram, p. 5; see also Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 338.]

   Moreover, slavery affords to the higher classes a leisure, that enables them to reach the higher grades of culture, which would be inaccessible to them, if they had to work for their daily wants.[See Lange, Die Arheiterfrage, p. 63.]

   A bad effect of slavery is that manual labour is identified with slave labour and so discredited. [Such is the case for instance in Cameroon (Hutter, p. 36). Among the Bali tribes of Cameroon the nobles wear their nails long, in order to show that they are not slaves (Ibid., p. 385). See also Westermarck, Moral Ideas, II pp. 272, 273.]

   Other bad effects of slavery are mentioned by Ingram. The habit of absolute rule corrupts the masters. Slavery often [437] engenders cruelty, or at least harshness. The slaves are demoralized, because their education is neglected and they do not live in normal family relations. Slavery moreover prevents "the development of the sense of human dignity, which lies at the foundation of morals". [See Ingram, pp. 9-11. All this applies much less to early slavery than to slavery in its more advanced stages. Yet even the patriarchal slave system of primitive societies sometimes has a bad influence on the slaves. Polack, speaking of the New Zealand slaves, remarks; "Debarred from the sight of their relatives, they become reckless of moral feeling . . . Obscenity and lying are among the practices most persisted in by the slaves, and to their demoralized state may be attributed the greater part of the wars and dissensions of this irritable people; they may be justly regarded as the greatest drawback to the prosperity and civilization hitherto of the New Zealanders" (Polack, II pp. 58, 59).]

8. Influence of slavery on the intermingling of races. "The blending of types" says Brinton "was greatly accelerated in early days by the institution or human slavery". [Brinton, Races and peoples, p. 46.]

9. Selective influence of slavery. Ferrero's theory: slavery has greatly furthered the survival of the industrious type of man. [Ferrero, La morale primitiva, etc.] Ripley, speaking of colonial slavery, remarks: "Such an institution exercises a selective choice upon the negro; for the survivors of such severe treatment will generally be a picked lot, which ought to exhibit vitality to a marked degree, all the weaklings having been removed". [ Ripley, p. 564.] High death-rate among slaves, even in primitive culture . [Ratzel, Authropogeographie, II pp. 387, 388.]

XII. Development of slavery.

Though we have not systematically investigated this subject, our studies have brought us into closer connection with this than with any of the points mentioned above. We shall therefore briefly state our impressions on the development of slavery, without, of course, claiming for the following remarks the value of a theory.

Slavery very probably first appears in the form of extra-tribal slavery, and originates from the adoption of captives, especially captive children. This is also Powell's opinion. According to him captive children were originally adopted and treated by the captors entirely as their own children. "This [438] is not yet slavery. If the captive belongs to a tribe of hereditary enemies who have from time immemorial been designated by some opprobrious term, as cannibals, liars, snakes, etc. -- then it may be that the captive is doomed to perpetual younger brotherhood, and can never exercise authority over any person within the tribe, though such person may be born after the new birth of the captive. This is the first form of slavery. Usually, though not invariably, the captives adopted are children". [Powell, On Regimentation, p. CXII.] Whether the first slaves were really captives belonging to a tribe of hereditary enemies, we do not know; but Powell expresses himself very appropriately, when he says that the slaves are "doomed to perpetual younger brotherhood". In the early stages of culture slaves are on the whole leniently treated, and there is little difference between young slaves and free children. But the slave always remains a "younger brother". He never becomes the head of a family; and when the master who educated him dies, he becomes the subject of the master's child, who has been the companion of his childhood. The slave does not count among the full-grown men of the tribe; he is not allowed to bear arms, he has no voice in government matters; though a member, he is an inferior member of the household in which he lives.

This is the first stage of differentiation between freemen and slaves.

The slaves are children captured in war [Adult males are not desired for slaves, because they are very difficult to manage. This is the case even among the semi-civilized Mohammedans of Baghirmi; see Nachtigal, II p. 615. The North African slave-hunters, according to Goldstein (p. 367), have a preference for girls, but also capture boys; full-grown men, however, are generally killed.], their number is small. The slave, who is nearly on a level with the children, is wanted for much the same reason why children are so eagerly desired among most agricultural savage tribes: the larger the family, the more food can be produced; for land is still abundant. Slaves and freemen perform the same kind of work, with the exception perhaps of some domestic occupations, which are more and more left to the slaves.

Gradually the number of slaves increases. The slave-trade greatly furthers the growth of slavery. The keeping of slaves [439] is more and more confined to the chiefs and principal men. Where slaves are captured in war it is the leading men who secure most of the spoils; and where slaves are purchased it is only the rich wbo can give a good price for them. The ruling classes are the great slave-owners, and these men are naturally inclined to leave all the common work to their slaves, reserving for themselves only the noble pursuits of warfare and government. The difference between the slaves and their owners becomes thus greater than it was before. The common people come to distrust and hate the slaves, whom they regard as the tools of the aristocracy. And the differentiating process we have described here is always going on: the more slaves a man owns, the greater his wealth; and the greater a man's wealth the better will he be able to procure slaves. The common people are continually sinking in the social scale, and in the course of time many of them are reduced to slavery for non-payment of money they have borrowed from the rich.

The further development of slavery can proceed in two different ways.

In some countries, where oil, cotton, and similar products are exported, slavery assumes enormous proportions. The large plantations can best be worked with slaves; and as manufactured goods are imported, slave labour serves not only to feed the master, but to provide him with the luxuries of life; the wants of the slave-owners, and accordingly the possible extent of slavery, become practically unlimited. This slave system, as we have seen, exists in some parts of the West Coast of Africa, and bears a close resemblance to that which till far into the 19th century was carried on in the Southern States of North America.

Where cereals are grown and agricultural produce is not exported on a very large scale, the course of things is different. An increase of slaves above a certain number is of little use to the owner. When he has slaves enough to provide him with a large quantity of food and other necessaries for the use of himself and his family and personal servants, he does not want more slaves. The agricultural produce they could furnish would not be worth the pains of supervising them. [440] The slaves (except a few who are kept for domestic services) are soon allowed to live rather independently, bound only to provide fixed quantities of agricultural produce and perform occasional services. And when the use of money becomes general, these slaves often contract with their masters to pay a yearly tribute in money instead of the services and payments in kind. The slaves become serfs. And gradually the whole of the lower orders are merged in this servile class. Ancient slaves, members of subjected communities, helpless persons who seek the protection of a powerful chief, all become the subjects and dependents of the ruling nobles. Such was the social system of the early Middle Ages, that in the course of time was entirely overturned through the progress of manufactures and commerce and the gradual appropriation of the whole of the land. [Slaves have also sometimes been employed in manufactures. Such, according to Cunningham, was the case in ancient Tyre. Slaves also "worked as artisans in the factories of Athens". Cunningham, Western Civilization, pp. 66, 110. But we think such an employment of slaves is rather an exception.]