Society and Morals. Part IV. Chattel Slavery and Civilisation
It was the growth of family and personal property which was the direct cause of the first great revolution in human society. In the “Old World” this was the result of the acquisition of herds of cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and the like. This probably arose through animals caught in hunting being preserved alive after the hunger of the tribe had been appeased. If this is so we can easily understand why, in pastoral countries, the domestic animals are usually found in the charge of the adult males. The men were the hunters, and although the proceeds which were required for food would be divided in common, where a residue occurred the captor was allowed to retain his “pet” (as the first tamed animals probably were). The animals bred and multiplied, and in time, as their utility in providing milk, wool, hair, and draught-labour was realised, they became a very valuable form of wealth.
Patriarchal Society
This property in stock led to the abandoning of the old method of inheritance in the female line in which a man’s property (in the preceding stage only consisting of weapons, ornaments, and so on) at death could never go to his own children, who belonged to the wife’s gens, but only to his blood relations on his mother’s side. That a man’s children should inherit their father’s property male kinship was instituted, i.e., the children belonged to the gens of the father and could inherit his wealth without violating the old law decreeing that property should not pass out of the gens. Hitherto the marriage tie had been loose and easily dissolvable, now, however, to make certain of the fatherhood, it was strengthened and made permanent. From this point dates the “subjection of women,” but only as a gradual process, for the traditional reverence for the “mothers of the tribe” could not be wiped out at a blow.
The herds frequently grew very great in numbers, and where this occurred much labour was required to tend them. The household work of preparing food and turning the wool and hair into cloth was mainly performed by women, and while in the case of a poor man his one wife and perhaps daughter would suffice, to a successful and wealthy cattle owner more help was very desirable. This was acquired through polygamy. Wives were either seized by capture or, having now an exchange-value, were purchased, the price going to the father of the girl, who at the same time lost the value of her services.
“Besides the domestic labour performed by women,” says Jenks in his “History of Politics,” (p. 26) the herd owner “requires the outdoor labour of men, to prevent the cattle from straying or being stolen, to drive them to pasture in the morning and bring them back at night.” This labour was in many cases performed by slaves, and slavery first received an impetus at this period which was destined to have far-reaching effects.
Along these lines was evolved the “patriarchal family” which has been found to be so wide-spread in Asia, Africa, and Europe. It was, however, quite unlike the modern family, consisting as it did, not only of the patriarch or arch father and his wives, and children, but often of his sons’ wives and their children as well, together with a number of slaves, both male and female. The whole group was under the leadership and authority of the patriarch, which authority in many cases developed into a complete despotism, determining the life and death of those subject to it.
As agriculture came to be practised and gradually rose to supreme importance in the economy of Society, stock-keeping became a mere supplementary occupation, and the tribes settled down in villages as cultivators of the soil. Although at first the land was tilled in common, the practice developed of dividing the cultivatable land every year among the different households. After a time, with the growing recognition by the households that one years’ possession was insufficient to reap the benefits of the manures and labour incorporated in the lands that had been allotted to them” (Lafargue) the land was re-divided at progressively longer periods until at length each family came to have permanent though limited rights over a certain plot of land. Pasture and meadow lands, however, for a long time continued to be collectively owned and used by the village. Absolute private property in land was a much later development.
Meanwhile handicraft gradually separated itself from agriculture, the artisans (blacksmiths, wheelrights, etc.) who worked for the community being provided for in common by the village.
The morality of patriarchal society was that of the preceeding “savage” stage modified by paternal descent and authority on the one hand and family and private property on the other. In addition to the lessened respect which it engendered for females, the former stimulated to an even greater degree than hitherto a reverent regard for ancestry which led to a still more deliberate and conscious adherence to tradition and custom, and to a more definitely organised system of that ancestor-worship which the previous part outlined, as well as a disciplined subordination to the living patriarchs—the living representatives of the gods. Both in the strict artificial rules by which the labour in the village was regulated and in the hereditary trade castes (like those in India), with their secrecy and exclusivenese, were these principles manifested.
The growth of property resulted in theft becoming a crime in some cases considered even worse than murder. Especially condemnable was the violation of another’s plot of land and interferance with its boundaries. “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark,” said the Jews (Deut. XIX., 14.) and this sentiment echoes throughout nearly all barbarian law codes. The house—looked upon as the temple of the family gods—was particularly sacred and involiable. On the other hand the desire for property led to a change in the character of war, which was now carried on purely for plunder. Robbery (outside the tribe) was an honourable trade, as it is, for example, among the Afghans. Bordering on the sea this took the form of piracy, as among the early Greeks and the Norse Vikings.
As a defence against the frequent raids fortifications and walls were set up around a central citadel (“burg” or “acropolis”) and thither the craftsmen gathered and took shelter—thus towns arose. Loose federations of tribes passed into completely unified nations with a central administration at a point of vantage—and we reach the threshold of civilisation.
The Dawn of Civilisation
All known forms of civilised society had their roots in patriarchal barbarism such as we have roughly described above. But they developed along divergent lines in accordance with their different geographical and historical circumstances ; and here we shall not make any detailed analysis, but merely deal in brief with the features more or less common to those civilised communities in which chattel-slavery was the dominating characteristic, especially with the best known—the Greek and Roman communities—but with sidelights from the older societies.
It is in the history of Greece and Rome that we can trace most clearly the final break-up of the primitive basis of Society—the supremacy of blood kinship. Long after the Greeks and Romans entered the “pages of history” they retained remnants of the ancient clan or gentile system. But as owing to trade, conquests, and other circumstances, a large population had grown up outside of the gentes, the gens, once a bulwark of democracy, had hot™ become an aristocratic organisation the members of which (the so-Called Patricians) administered the affairs of the much more numerous “Plebians,” and used their privileges to safeguard and advance their property interests. Part of their power was derived from the fact that they alone understood the law, which, it will be remembered, is in patriarchal society ancient custom, handed down from generation to generation and kept strictly secret.
In both Greece and Rome, however, the Plebs, under the leadership of that section which had become wealthy through trade and other means, after a prolonged struggle abolished the privileges of the descendants of the clansmen by having the laws published and by substituting for birth or kinship, as the basis of organisation, residence in a certain area and the possession of property, thus making the community definitely political. The class divisions from now on were—rich freemen, poor “freemen,” and slaves.
The Prime of Chattel Slavery
War continued to be the supply source of slaves, but with the growing demand consequent upon the increase in wealth and luxury, slavery instead of being the effect of war, now became the cause. “Both Nineveh and Bablyon undertook wars for the express purpose of obtaining slaves,” says Paterson, * and “the military activity of men like Tiglathpileser and Nebuchadnezzar had only one result—the overcrowding of the slave market.” At Athens slave merchants “were allowed to follow the armies, and were afforded special facilities for purchasing prisoners and for importing and exporting them” (ibid), and the same in essence applies to Rome.
In the sale of slaves in the public market many detailed regulations existed, not, of course, for the benefit of the slaves, but to protect the purchasers. From the famous “Hummurabi code” of Babylonian law we know that a disease peculiar to slaves was so widespread that dealers had to guarantee their slaves free therefrom, and the price could be reclaimed by the purchaser if the slaves he bought had contracted it. In Rome “slaves were submitted naked for inspection, unwary buyers were often deceived by tricks of the trade, and sometimes they sought the advice of veterinary surgeons, who pronounced upon the physical fitness of the individuals selected—the law required a public declaration of the slave’s character, and often a record of his conduct written on a scroll was hung round his neck” (Paterson, p. 271). For their better identification slaves were usually marked in some way. At Babylon “the name of the owner was often stamped upon the hand, and there is reason to believe that the brander of cattle was also the brander of slaves, or, like dogs, slaves were compelled to wear, probably unwary buyers) were often deceived by tricks of the trade, and sometimes they sought the advice of veterinary surgeons, who pronounced upon the physical fitness of the individuals selected—the law required a public declaration of the slave’s character, and often a record of his conduct written on a scroll waa hung round his neck” (Paterson, p. 271). For their better identification slaves were usually marked in some way. At Babylon “the name of the owner was often stamped upon the hand, and there is reason to believe that the brander of cattle was also the brander of slaves, or, like dogs, slaves were compelled to wear, probably around their necks, clay tablets with the name and address of the owner engraved upon them” (ibid, p. 108).
As the slaves grew more numerous so also did the occupations in which they engaged. In the country they were employed by the Romans in thousands, often working together (frequently in chains) on great farms under the management of head slaves. At night they were herded in great semi-underground barracks. In the towns slaves were increasingly used in manufacture. Great numbers were employed in the houses of the rich. Prof. S. Wilkins in his “Roman Antiquities” says that in Rome “it was the custom for the porter to be chained to the door like a dog. In the great houses there was a slave whose duty it was to keep strict silence among his fellow slaves, and the slightest sound, even a cough or a sneeze, was punished with blows” (p. 69). Slaves could be hired from proprietors who kept large numbers of all kinds for this purpose.
The teeming multitudes of slaves assisted in, and really made possible, those monumental structures which even in our day are considered so wonderful: titanic walls, gorgeous temples, the “hanging gardens” of Babylon, the tombs and pyramids of Egypt, and the splendid roads of the Roman Empire, were all fashioned by the tired hands and brains of countless broken bondmen. Seen in this light much of the “glory and grandeur” of the “ancient world” so lauded by the orthodox historians has grim foundations.
At Athens slaves were habitually tortured to obtain evidence in law suits. “In case of either side being suspected of concealing any facts,” says Prof. Mahaffy in his “Greek Antiquities” (p. 73), “it was usual for the suspected party to offer his slaves for torture, and to refuse this when challenged was a weak point in his case.” As Paterson points out, a slave’s “voluntary evidence was rejected. He was not supposed to be capable of speaking the truth.” (p. 20).
As may be imagined, the punishments meted in Rome were typical. They are thus summarised by Prof. Wilkins : “For slight offences out to slaves were very severe. Those in use slaves were beaten with a rod, . . . severer punishment was inflicted by a whip or thong like the American cow-hide ; and the worst of all was the scourge made of knotted cords, with pieces of bone or even hooks inserted to tear the flesh. We cannot wonder that slaves sometimes died under the blows of this horrible instrument. That they might not be able to wince or struggle they were often hung up with weights fastened to their feet. . . . Death was but rarely inflicted because of the value of the slave as a piece of property ; the usual method was by crucifixion, one of the most painful forms that can be imagined” (p. 20). The feet of fugitive slaves were frequently amputated.
Social and Moral Effects
The above outline indicates the views held regarding slaves by the so-called freemen. They were not considered members of Society ; they had no “rights,” and no duties toward them were recognised. Both in theory and in practice they were property—human cattle, so to speak. Varro, indeed, an eminent Roman agrarian writer, thus classifies agricultural implements : 1. The speechless, such as the waggon and the plough ; 2. The semi-speaking, cattle, etc.; 3. Those with speech, i.e., slaves. The theory came to be elaborated that not only was slavery indispensible to all cultural progress, but that slaves were designed to be such by nature. The classic statement of this view is thus given by Aristotle, the greatest of Greek thinkers: “There are in the human race individuals as inferior to others as the body is to the soul, or as the beast is to man ; these are beings suitable for the labours of the body alone, and incapable of doing anything more perfect. These individuals are destined by nature for slavery because there is nothing better for them to do than to obey . . . Nature creates some for liberty, others for slavery.” (Politics, I. 5.)
As slave labour gradually extended so as to embrace all branches of industry, productive labour, other than in art, came to be regarded as a rightful occupation for slaves only, and to be in itself servile and degrading. Especially was this the case in some of the Grecian States, where, as Prof. Mahaffy says (Ibid, 63), “any free man who was compelled by poverty to perform this manual labour was held little better than a slave.” War, politics, and, in Athens particularly, intellectual and artistic pursuits were considered the only “proper” occupations for a freeman, and were glorified accordingly.
We can readily realise the moral importance given to military service, for it was not only the means of acquiring the slaves so increasingly necessary, but was, and this was even more important, the essential safeguard against an uprising of the servile population which rapidly became far more numerous than the free. (Athens at its prime, for instance, had eighteen slaves to every adult citizen.)
As Society evolved in Greece and Rome, therefore, the citizens to an ever-increasing extent were divorced from productive labour, especially in the towns, in harmony with the contempt in which they had come to hold industrial pursuits. This was, however, doubtless a case of making a virtue of necessity, seeing that free labour was less and less able to compete with slave labour, for, owing to their enormous increase, slaves became commoner and cheaper than domestic animals.
The able-bodied freemen were, of course, required for the army, but so much was soldiering in line with their economic interests that, Greek soldiers not being in such constant and full use as were the Roman, they frequently enrolled for their keep and the possibility of plunder, with private military leaders, alien and even enemy governments, as mercenary troops.
But all “freemen” could not be soldiers, and we find that to a certain extent in Greece, and very largely in Rome, arrangements had to be made by the State to both maintain and entertain, in the cities especially, a horde of property-less citizens. Thus in Rome this proletariat received, as it was classically put, “bread and circuses.” The delight which the Roman citizens had in these latter “bloody shows” (free to all citizens) is an interesting study in psychology. In the arena slaves fought to the death for the amusement of the onlookers. Wild beasts from every corner of the Empire were pitted against each other and against slaves. The number of slaves thus slaughtered must have been prodigious, and was only made possible by their exceeding abundance and cheapness. Pliny justified these shows on the ground that they cultivated in the Roman a “manly” warlike spirit, and this was the general belief.
This, then, was the inevitable nemesis of the greatest development of ancient slavery—that which occurred in Rome : its canker rotted the Roman Society to the core. The wealthy, enveloped with every luxury, sank into a paralysing debauchery, and the poor “free” citizens of the “capital city of the world” largely became a mere clamouring, unprincipled mob, the dupes of every demagogue.
Regarding the ideas of the slaves themselves our information is very scanty. Every effort was made to prevent their discussion and organisation. As Paterson says (p. 187), “many slaveowners acted on the cruel advice of writers like Plato and Aristotle, who pointed out that, to avoid conspiracy, slaves speaking the same language should not be allowed to work together.” On the other hand, continued subjection, the conviction of the futility of resistance and the consequent hopelessness of their position, would lead in many cases to a despondent submissiveness and a spiritless resignation to the inevitable. Especially would this apply to slaves who had never known freedom, who had been born into slavery. But despite all this, there is undoubted evidence that many of the slaves bitterly nurtured their grievances, and occasionally their class-feeling rose to culmination in those revolts of which the best known is that associated with Sparticus the Gladiator. But these revolts always failed to break the disciplined armies of their oppressors, and the bleached bones and grinning skulls along the highways were a vivid record of the cruel price the slaves paid for the sake of liberty.
Morality and the Class Division
With the development of classes the original character of Society as an organisation to secure the mutual welfare of its members is destroyed. Instead of the interests of every individual coinciding with those of the group, we have certain sections whose welfare is enhanced through the oppression, robbery, and degradation of other sections. The interests of these classes being opposed, the one to maintain and to extend its supremacy, the other to lighten its burden and to achieve its freedom, that spontaneous pulling together and social cohesion natural to primitive societies can no longer exist. The moral law which was a means of preserving the necessary order and stability in the earlier stage cannot any longer preserve this function (except where members of a class are deluded as to their real interests—a circumstance we shall consider later). Physical coercion must be applied or threatened if an oppressed and exploited class is not to be a disturbing and disrupting element in the social organisation. The slaves must be compelled to work and to render up their surplus labour-power, any attempt at revolt being promptly suppressed. This is most obvious where chattel slavery, as outlined above, is the system in vogue, but it is an essential feature of every class society.
Morality is, of course, not abolished, for social relations still exist ; but it changes in form and function. Just as morality was a bond, in the pre-war stage, between those having general interests in common, so it continues to be after the coming of classes. But this group with a community of interests is no longer the whole community, but a class within it. The ruling class has a morality which fits in with its interest, and, generally speaking, it uses the force which it controls in accordance with the dictates of its ethics, the main principles of which are expressed in its State-made law.
Likewise with the subject class, where its members think over and realise their interests as a class. It accepts, and as far as is possible acts up to, a morality which promotes these interests—interests the full realisation of which means social revolution.
(*) “The Nemesis of Nations,” W. R. Paterson, M.A. A work to be read for its full account of ancient slavery.
R. W. HOUSLEY