Post by iris89 on Jun 16, 2009 15:59:54 GMT -5
Slavery, Right or Wrong Depends on Definition and Conditions:
INTRODUCTION:
Some mention slavery and ask if it is right or wrong without defining their definition of slavery or the conditions. Of course this is an open ended question that can NOT be correctly answered until what is meant in a specific case.
Some forms of slavery, of course, are categorically entirely wrong and sinful. Basically, the wrong form consist of a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as absolute property of others. But, not all forced labor fits this category; for example, individuals that sell themselves into forced labor and/or prisoners who are doing forced labor due to their wrong conduct could hardly be put in the class of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as absolute property of others, and with no rights.
Slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms, and periods in almost all cultures at one time or another. In fact, in some societies, slavery existed as a legal institution or socio-economic system, but today it is formally outlawed in nearly all countries with the exception being a very few Islamic countries mostly in Africa.
One dictionary, the One-Look Dictionary given an over simplified definition of slavery as follows:
▸ noun: the practice of owning slaves
▸ noun: work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
▸ noun: the state of being under the control of another person
[source ¨C One-Look Dictionary]
A Bible dictionary/encyclopedia defines slavery as follows:
<<<¡± SLAVE
The original-language words rendered ¡°slave¡± or ¡°servant¡± are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ‛e¡ävedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (‛e¡ävedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ‛E¡ävedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God¡¯s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.¡ªJer 27:6.
The Greek term dou¡älos corresponds to the Hebrew word ‛e¡ävedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn¡ädou¡¤los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).
The Hebrew word na¡ä‛ar, like the Greek term pais, basically means a boy or a youth and can also designate a servant or an attendant. (1Sa 1:24; 4:21; 30:17; 2Ki 5:20; Mt 2:16; 8:6; 17:18; 21:15; Ac 20:12) The Greek term oi¡¤ke¡ätes denotes a house servant or slave (Lu 16:13), and a female slave or servant is designated by the Greek word pai¡¤di¡äske. (Lu 12:45) The participial form of the Hebrew root sha¡¤rath¡ä may be rendered by such terms as ¡°minister¡± (Ex 33:11) or ¡°waiter.¡± (2Sa 13:18) The Greek word hy¡¤pe¡¤re¡ätes may be translated ¡°attendant,¡± ¡°court attendant,¡± or ¡°house attendant.¡± (Mt 26:58; Mr 14:54, 65; Joh 18:36) The Greek term the¡¤ra¡äpon occurs solely at Hebrews 3:5 and means subordinate or attendant.¡± [source ¨C Insight on the Scriptures]>>>.
Now it is important to note that the ancient Hebrew word translated ¡®slave¡¯ has a significantly different meaning than the modern word ¡®slave.¡¯ This is important to understand or one¡¯s comprehension of reading the term ¡®slave¡¯ in a modern English translation may mislead some into thinking of the situation as the same as the modern term ¡®slave,¡¯ and NOT realizing that the context is what governs. As the dictionary says, ¡°The original-language words rendered ¡°slave¡± or ¡°servant¡± are not limited in their application to persons owned by others.¡±
But even this simplified definition clearly shows that slavery has definitions not related to owning those doing the labor when it says, ¡°work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay¡± which shows the necessity to look deeper into what is called slavery and that it has many and varied definitions.
We shall now look at the many and varied definitions of slavery basically in a descending order of application in modern times and near modern times.
DESCENDING ORDER OF SLAVERY TYPES IN MODERN TIMES AND NEAR MODERN TYPES:
The following is information of forms of slavery in a descending order of application in modern times and near modern times in a rough order of their magnitude:
[-1-] Slavery to sin which is always wrong, and a sin. It is defined as:
<<<¡± Enslavement to Sin. At the time the first man Adam disobeyed God¡¯s law, he surrendered perfect control of himself and yielded to the selfish desire to continue sharing association with his sinful wife and pleasing her. Adam¡¯s surrendering himself to his sinful desire made this desire and its end product, sin, his master. (Compare Ro 6:16; Jas 1:14, 15; see SIN, I.) He thus sold himself under sin. As all of his offspring were yet in his loins, Adam also sold them under sin. That is why the apostle Paul wrote: ¡°I am fleshly, sold under sin.¡± (Ro 7:14) For this reason there was no way for any of Adam¡¯s descendants to make themselves righteous, not even by trying to keep the Mosaic Law. As the apostle Paul put it: ¡°The commandment which was to life, this I found to be to death.¡± (Ro 7:10) The inability of humans to keep the Law perfectly showed that they were slaves to sin and deserving of death, not life.¡ªSee DEATH.
Only by availing themselves of the deliverance made possible through Jesus Christ could individuals be emancipated or gain freedom from this enslavement. (Compare Joh 8:31-34; Ro 7:21-25; Ga 4:1-7; Heb 2:14-16; see RANSOM.) Having been bought with the precious blood of Jesus, Christians are slaves, or servants, of Jehovah God and of his Son, obligated to keep their commands.¡ª1Co 7:22, 23; 1Pe 1:18, 19; Re 19:1, 2, 5;¡± [source ¨C Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. II]>>>.
Yes, one may ask what are some of the failings or deviations that lead to enslavement to sin. Now here, are some of them.
The Bible clearly marks certain activities as deviant. Some cases are as follows that give admonition on morals and conduct:
[1] Showing that fornication, adultery, and other gross sins is a serious deviation from the moral standards of the Bible:
Galatians 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, 21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (ASV).
And,
1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (ASV).
[2] Worshippers of Almighty God (YHWH) must be united regardless of nationality:
Romans 2:11, "for there is no respect of persons with God." (ASV).[[No racism]]
And,
Ephesians 4:1-6, "I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." (ASV).
[3] Need to pray incessantly, failure to do so would be deviant.:
1 Thessalonians 5:17, "pray without ceasing;" (ASV).
And,
2 Thessalonians 3:1, "Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also it is with you;" (ASV).
And,
Philippians 4:6-7, "In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus." (ASV).
[4] Prayers to be heard by Almighty God (YHWH) must be offered in faith:
Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (ASV).
[5] Good family life depends on husbands loving their wives as they love themselves and for wives to have deep respect for their husbands. And children should obey their parents, for this is pleasing to Almighty God (YHWH). Parents need to guide and train their children in a loving way and in godly principles:
Ephesians 3:22, "Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." (ASV).
And,
Ephesians 6:4, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." (ASV).
And,
Colossians 3:18-21, "Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. 20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord. 21 Fathers, provoke not your children, that they be not discouraged." (ASV).
[6] Deviant sex clearly win Almighty God (YHWH) disapproval:
Romans 1:19-28, "because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;" (ASV).
Now the reality is the fact that many individuals are governed by hedonistic tendencies in which they get pleasure from deviant sex acts and materialism, and for this reason reject the inspired word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, as a standard - this of course is NOT based on fact and reality.
One such individual tried to justify sodomy by saying,
"You have attempted to show its unnatural which is plainly wrong as it occurs in nature."
Now of course this is totally invalid as animals are governed by instinct and NOT by cognitive thinking, as are humans. To try and use the animalistic behavior of animals to justify human conduct is nothing short of insane.
This same individual said,
"As i have asked for NON biblical reasons, any biblical answer is simply not acceptable."
What utter nonsense, it is like asking a mathematician not to use math books or other recognized standards - pure and utter nonsense, or asking an athlete to run a race with a ball and chains - just utter stupid nonsense.
[-2-] Slavery to the ¡®rat race¡¯ of modern unfulfilling work where individuals slave to get ahead in an oppressive modern society doing work they really do not like. Now is this wrong? Maybe yes, Maybe not, this is a gray area. If it is done to the exclusion of the needs of the family unit and/or service to Almighty God (YHWH) it is not good and may even be sinful.
[-3-] Forced labor sometimes referred to as slavery being done for committing a wrong doing as punishment for this wrong doing. This is NOT necessarily wrong ¨C it all depends of the situation or context.
[-4-] Slavery of the most notorious type, where individuals and/or family have no rights and are basically owned outright by others. In this form of slavery people are considered to be, or treated as absolute property of others. These people were in the 14 th. To 19 th. Century basically captured by others as one would capture a wild animal and sold to others. In general practice, local warlords in Africa would capture individuals and sell them to middle men who would sell the to slavers who would sell them by auction to farmers, plantation owners, and manufacturers as one would sell an animal and the individual so being sold would just be property and have no more rights than a horse and/or dog. Now let¡¯s look at some details with regard to this trade, and centering on the middle men, members of Islam, that made it possible.
Now let's look at the facts as presented in an encyclopedia.
<<<"The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery[1]; however, in modern time this has become a contentious issue Muhammad and those of his companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves, and some of them acquired more by conquest[stealing them.]. However, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave through the reforms of a humanitarian tendency both at the time of Muhammad and the later early caliphs. In Islamic law, the topic of Islam and slavery is covered at great length. The legal legislations brought two major changes to the practice of slavery inherited from antiquity, from pagan Rome, and from Byzantium, which were to have far-reaching effects. Bernard Lewis considers these reforms to be the cause of the vast improvements in the practice of slavery in Muslim lands. The reforms also seriously limited the supply of new slaves.
The Qur'an considers emancipation of a slave to be a meritorious deed, or as a condition of repentance for certain sins[but does not require their emancipation]. The Qur'an and Hadith contain numerous passages supporting this view. Muslim jurists considered slavery to be an exceptional circumstance, with the basic assumption of freedom until proven otherwise. Furthermore, as opposed to pre-Islamic slavery, enslavement was limited to two scenarios: capture in war[stealing.], or birth to slave parents (birth to parents where one was free and the other not so would render the offspring free)[sounds like typical slavery].
Slavery in Islam does not have racial or color component, although this ideal has not always been put into practice. Nevertheless, historically, black slaves could rise to important positions in Muslim nations. In early Islamic Arabia, Slaves were often African blacks from across the Red Sea, but by expansion of the Islamic empire in later times, slaves could be Berbers from North Africa, Slavs from Europe, Turks from Central Asia, or Circassians from the Caucasus. The majority of slaves throughout the history of Arabia were, however, of African origin. The Arab slave trade was most active in eastern Africa, although by the end of the 19th century such activity had reached a significantly low ebb. The slavery in the Arab World in the 19th century has been documented by Dr. Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, an Arabist and a scholar of Indonesian affairs, who had visited Mecca during his journey in the Hijaz. He states in his book Mohammedanism that "Slaves in the Arab world are generally not that different from servants and workers in Europe" and that their masters "handled them with a genial humanity that made their lot no worse - perhaps better, as more secure - than that of a factory worker in nineteenth-century Europe."
It was in the early 20th century (post World War I) that slavery gradually became outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France (although the extent to which it died out and/or flared up again is disputed)." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.
Also, researchers at Ohio State University (OSU) said the following:
<<<" WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 - a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa's Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn't try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis's new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).
"Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe," Davis said. "Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear."
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger - about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis....
"Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland," he said.
Pirates (called corsairs)[members of Islam] from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa - cities such as Tunis and Algiers - would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating - France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.[Islam should return these to England, but has failed to do so or pay England.].
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one's agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn't fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as "evil colonialists" and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time - both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners - did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves....
"The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down - figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level," he said. "It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available."...
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast. Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America....
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars. "We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under," he said. "Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa."[source - Research, Ohio State University by Jeff Grabmeier]>>>.
So as can be seen, Both apostate (counterfeit) so called Christians and Muslims starting with Muhammad (pbuh) himself were equally guilty with respect the slave trade, yet members point a finger at apostate (counterfeit) Christians without realizing three fingers, maybe four, are pointing back at themselves. This is dishonest hypocrisy on the part of Islam.
This type of slavery is completely wrong, sinful, and is now a crime in most places.
[-5-] White Slavery where a women and/or a man is forced into prostitution and is usually treated as property by the pimp. This type of slavery is completely wrong, sinful, and is now a crime in most places.
Two dictionaries/encyclopedias define white slavery as follows:
NOUN:
Forced prostitution.
[source - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]
White slavery
¡¤ White slavery: the sale of one race to another for purposes of prostitution
[source - Glossary of Unusual Sexual Practices]
[-6-] Voluntary slavery this is where individuals sell themselves into slavery for a period of time to pay off a debt or for some other reason. This was a common practice in ancient Biblical times and to some degree even in modern times.
This type of slavery is NOT necessarily wrong and/or sinful as long as the individual is treated as a fellow human being. Now let¡¯s look at how it was actually administered in ancient Israel to prevent individuals from being mistreated and/or abused.
<<<¡±Laws governing slave-master relationships. Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired laborer. (Ex 21:2; Le 25:10; De 15:12) A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident¡¯s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12) When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (De 15:13-15) If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.¡ªEx 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.
[[In fact]] At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham¡¯s aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master¡¯s possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2, 3) Abraham¡¯s descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1, 5, 6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave¡¯s becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.¡ªLe 25:49¡± [source ¨C Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. II]>>>.
[-7-] Of course, there are other forms of slavery not now being covered that are mainly of historical interest to historians, but in no way of current importance.
SPECIFIC DETAILS ON SLAVERY FROM VARIOUS CREDIBLE SOURCES:
Here are some items on slavery from credible sources to further assist your understanding.
<<<"Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms and periods in almost all cultures and continents.[1] In some societies, slavery existed as a legal institution or socio-economic system, but today it is formally outlawed in nearly all countries. Nevertheless, the practice continues in various forms around the world.[2][3]
Freedom from slavery is an internationally recognized human right. Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
SLAVERY. It appears to be true that, in the words of Dunoyer, the economic regime of every society which has recently become sedentary is founded on the slavery of the industrial professions. In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of a conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on their sex. In the pastoral stage slaves will be captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been, as we have said, a universal and inevitable accompaniment.
But wherever theocratic organizations established themselves slavery in the ordinary sense did not become a vital element in the social system. The members of the lowest class were not in a state of individual subjection: the entire caste to which they belonged was collectively subject. It is in the communities in which the military order obtained an ascendancy over the sacerdotal, and which were directly organized for war, that slavery (as the word is commonly understood) had its natural and appropriate place. It is not merely that in its first establishment slavery was an immense advance by substituting for the immolation of captives, often accompanied by cannibalism, their occupation in labour for the benefit of the victor. This advantage, recalled by an old though erroneous 1 Servus is not cognate with servare, as has often been supposed; it is really related to the Homeric E'lpepos and the verb Etpw, with which the Latin sero is to be connected. It may be here mentioned that slave was originally a national name; it meant a man of Slavonic race captured and made a bondman to the Germans. " From the Euxine to the Adriatic, in the state of captives or subjects, ... they [the Slavonians] overspread the land, and the national appellation of the Slaves has been degraded by chance or malice from the signification of glory to that of servitude " (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. lv.). The historian alludes to the derivation of the national name from slava, glory. See Skeat's Etym. Dict., s.v.; see also Slavs.
etymology, is generally acknowledged. But it is not so well understood that slavery discharged important offices in the later social evolution - first, by enabling military action to prevail with the degree of intensity and continuity requisite for the system of incorporation by conquest which was its final destination; and, secondly, by forcing the captives, who with their descendants came to form the majority of the population in the conquering community, to an industrial life, in spite of the antipathy to regular and sustained labour which is deeply rooted in human nature. As regards the latter consideration, it is enough to say that nowhere has productive industry developed itself in the form of voluntary effort; in every country of which we have any knowledge it was imposed by the strong upon the weak, and was wrought into the habits of the people only by the stern discipline of constraint. From the former point of view the freeman, then essentially a warrior, and the slave were mutual auxiliaries, simultaneously exercising different and complementary functions - each necessary to the community. In modern slavery, on the other hand, where the occupations of both parties were industrial, the existence of a servile class only guaranteed for some of them the possibility of self-indulgent ease, whilst it imposed on others the necessity of indigent idleness.
It was in the Roman state that military action - in Greece often purposeless and, except in the resistance to Persia, on the whole fruitless - worked out the social mission which formed its true justification. Hence at Rome slavery also most properly found its place, so long as that mission was in progress of accomplishment. As soon as the march of conquest had reached its natural limit, slavery began to be modified; and when the empire was divided into the several states which had grown up under it, and the system of defence characteristic of the middle ages was substituted for the aggressive system of antiquity, slavery gradually disappeared, and was replaced by serfdom.
We have so far dealt with the political results of ancient slavery, and have found it to have been in certain respects not only useful but indispensable. When we consider its moral effects, whilst endeavouring to avoid exaggeration, we must yet pronounce its influence to have been profoundly detrimental. In its action on the slave it marred in a great measure the happy effects of habitual industry by preventing the development of the sense of human dignity which lies at the foundation of morals. On the morality of the masters - whether personal, domestic, or social - the effects of the institution were disastrous. The habit of absolute rule, always dangerous, was peculiarly corrupting when it penetrated every department of daily life, and when no external interference checked individual caprice in its action on the feelings and fortunes of inferiors. It tended to destroy the power of self-command, and exposed the master to the baneful influences of flattery. As regards domestic morality, the system offered constant facilities for libertinism, and tended to subvert domestic peace by compromising the dignity and ruining the happiness of the wife. The sons of the family were familiarized with vice, and the general tone of the younger generation was lowered by their intimate association with a despised and degraded class. These deplorable results were, of course, not universally produced; there were admirable exceptions both among masters and among slaves - instances of benevolent protection on the one side and of unselfish devotion on the other; but the evil effects without doubt greatly preponderated.
Greece
We find slavery fully established in the Homeric period. The prisoners taken in war are retained as slaves, or sold (Il. xxiv.
c 752) or held at ransom (Il. vi. 427) by the captor. Some Heroic times the men of a conquered town or district are slain and the women carried off (Od. ix. 40). Not unfrequently free persons were kidnapped by pirates and sold in other regions, like Eumaeus in the Odyssey. The slave might thus be by birth of equal rank with his master, who knew that the same fate might befall himself or some of the members of his family. The institution does not present itself in a very harsh form in Homer, especially if we consider (as Grote suggests) that " all classes were much on a level in taste, sentiment and instruction." The male slaves were employed in the tillage of the land and the tending of cattle, and the females in domestic work and household manufactures. The principal slaves often enjoyed the confidence of their masters and had important duties entrusted to them; and, after lengthened and meritorious service, were put in possession of a house and property of their own (Od. xiv. 64). Grote's idea that the women slaves were in a more pitiable condition than the males does not seem justified, except perhaps in the case cf the aletrides, who turned the household mills which ground the flour consumed in the family, and who were sometimes overworked by unfeeling masters (Od. xx. 110-119). Homer marks in a celebrated couplet his sense of the moral deterioration commonly wrought by the condition of slavery (Od. xvii. 322).
It is, however, in historic Greece, where we have ample documentary information, that it is most important to study the system. The sources of slavery in Greece were: (I) Birth, the condition being hereditary. This was not an abundant source, women slaves being less numerous than men, and wise masters making the union of the sexes rather a reward of good service than a matter of speculation (Xen. Oecon. 9.5). It was in general cheaper to buy a slave than to rear one to the age of labour. (2) Sale of children by their free parents, which was tolerated, except in Attica, or their exposure, which was permitted, except at Thebes. The consequence of the latter was sometimes to subject them to a servitude worse than death, as is seen in the plays of Plautus and Terence, which, as is well known, depict Greek, not Roman, manners. Freemen, through indigence, sometimes sold themselves, and at Athens, up to the time of Solon, an insolvent debtor became the slave of his creditor. (3) Capture in war. Not only Asiatics and Thracians thus became slaves, but in the many wars between Grecian states, continental or colonial, Greeks were reduced to slavery by men of their own race. Callicratidas pronounced against the enslavement of Greeks by Greeks, but violated his own principle, to which, however, Epaminondas and Pelopidas appear to have been faithful. (4) Piracy and kidnapping. The descents of pirates on the coasts were a perpetual source of danger; the pirate was a gainer either by the sale or by the redemption of his captives. If ransomed, the victim became by Athenian law the slave of his redeemer till he paid in money or labour the price which had been given for him. Kidnappers (andrapodistae) carried off children even in cities, and reared them as slaves. Whether from hostile forays or from piracy, any Greek was exposed to the risk of enslavement. (5) Commerce. Besides the sale of slaves which took place as a result of the capture of cities or other military operations, there was a systematic slave trade. Syria, Pontus, Lydia, Galatia, and above all Thrace were sources of supply. Egypt and Ethiopia also furnished a certain number, and Italy a few. Of foreigners, the Asiatics bore the greatest value, as most amenable to command, and most versed in the arts of luxurious refinement. But Greeks were highest of all in esteem, and they were much sought for foreign sale. Greece proper and Ionia supplied the petty Eastern princes with courtesans and female musicians and dancers. Athens was an important slave market, and the state profited by a tax on the sales; but the principal marts were those of Cyprus, Samos, Ephesus and especially Chios.
The slaves were employed either in domestic service - as household managers, attendants or personal escorts - or in work of other kinds, agricultural or urban. In early Attica, and even down to the time of Pericles, the landowners lived in the country. The Peloponnesian War introduced a change; s and after that time the proprietors resided at Athens, and the cultivation was in the hands of slaves. In manufactures and commerce, also, servile gradually displaced free labour. Speculators either directly employed slaves as artisans or commercial and banking agents, or hired them out, sometimes for work in mines or factories, sometimes for service in private houses, as cooks, flute-players, &c., or for viler uses. There were also public slaves; of these some belonged to temples, to which they were presented as offerings, amongst them being the courtesans who acted as hieroduli at Corinth and at Eryx in Sicily; others were appropriated to the service of the magistrates or to public works; there were at Athens 1200 Scythian archers for the police of the city; slaves served, too, in the fleets, and were employed in the armies, - commonly as workmen, and exceptionally as soldiers.
The condition of slaves at Athens was not in general a wretched one. Demosthenes (In Mid. p. 530) says that, if the barbarians from whom the slaves were bought were informed of the mild treatment they received, they would entertain a great esteem for the Athenians. Plautus in more than one place thinks it necessary to explain to the spectators of his plays that slaves at Athens enjoyed such privileges, and even licence, as must be surprising to a Roman audience. The slave was introduced with certain customary rites into his position in the family; he was in practice, though not by law, permitted to accumulate a private fund of his own; his marriage was also recognized by custom; though in general excluded from sacred ceremonies and public sacrifices, slaves were admissible to religious associations of a private kind; there were some popular festivals in which they were allowed to participate; they had even special ones for themselves both at Athens and in other Greek centres. Their remains were deposited in the family tomb of their master, who sometimes erected monuments in testimony of his affection and regret. They often lived on terms of intimacy either with the head of the house or its younger members; but it is to be feared that too often this intimacy was founded, not on mutual respect, as in the heroic example of Ulysses and Eumaeus, but on insolent self-assertion on the one side and a spirit of unworthy compliance on the other, the latter having its raison d'¨ºtre in degrading services rendered by the slave. Aristophanes and Plautus show us how often resort was had to the discipline of the lash even in the case of domestic slaves. Those employed in workshops, whose overseers were themselves most commonly of servile status, had probably a harder lot than domestics; and the agricultural labourers were not unfrequently chained, and treated much in the same way as beasts of burden. The displeasure of the master sometimes dismissed his domestics to the more oppressive labours of the mill or the mine. A refuge from cruel treatment was afforded by the temples and altars of the gods and by the sacred groves. Nor did Athenian law leave the slave without protection. He had, as Demosthenes boasts, an action for outrage like a freeman, and his death at the hand of a stranger was avenged like that of a citizen (Eurip. Hec. 288), whilst, if caused by his master's violence, it had to be atoned for by exile and a religious expiation. Even when the slave had killed his master, the relatives of the house could not themselves inflict punishment; they were obliged to hand him over to the magistrate to be dealt with by legal process. The slave who had just grounds of complaint against his master could demand to be sold; when he alleged his right to liberty, the law granted him a defender and the sanctuaries offered him an asylum till judgment should be given. Securities were taken against the revolt of slaves by not associating those of the same nationality and language; they were sometimes fettered to prevent flight, and, after a first attempt at escape, branded to facilitate their recovery. There were treaties between states for the extradition of fugitives, and contracts of mutual assurance between individuals against their loss by flight. Their inclination to take advantage of opportunities for this purpose is shown by the number that escaped from Athens to join the Spartans when occupying Decelea. There were formidable revolts at the mines of Laurium, and more than once in Chios. The evidence of slaves - women as well as men - was often, with the consent of their masters, taken by torture; and that method is generally commended by the orators as a sure means of arriving at the truth.
The slave could purchase his liberty with his peculium by agreement with his master. He could be liberated by will, or, during his Emanci- master's life, by proclamation in the theatre, the law courts, or other public places, or by having his name inscribed in the public registers, or, in the later age of Greece, by sale or donation to certain temples - an act which did not make the slave a hierodulus but a freeman. Conditions were sometimes attached to emancipation, as of remaining for life or a definite time with the former master, or another person named by him, or of performing some special service; payments or rights of succession to property might also be reserved. By manumission the Athenian slave became in relation to the state a metic, in relation to his master a client. He was thus in an intermediate condition between slavery and complete freedom. If the freedman violated his duties to his patron he was subject to an action at law, and if the decision were against him he was again reduced to slavery. He became a full member of the state only, as in the case of foreigners, by a vote in an assembly of six thousand citizens; and even this vote might be set aside by a graphe paranomon. Slaves who had rendered eminent services to the public, as those who fought at Arginusae and at Chaeronea, were at once admitted to the status of citizens in the class of (so-called) Plataeans. But it would appear that even in their case some civic rights were reserved and accorded only to their children by a female citizen. The number of freedmen at Athens seems never to have been great. (See further Greece, Ancient History, ¡ì 5.) It is well known that Aristotle held slavery to be necessary and natural, and, under just conditions, beneficial to both parties in the relation - views which were correct enough from the ie ws on political side, regard being had to the contemporary v. social state. His practical motto, if he is the author of the Economics attributed to him, is - " no outrage, and no familiarity." There ought, he says, to be held out to the slave the hope of liberty as the reward of his service. Plato condemned the practice, which the theory of Aristotle also by implication sets aside as inadmissible, of Greeks having Greeks for slaves. In the Laws he accepts the institution as a necessary though embarrassing one, and recommends for the safety of the masters that natives of different countries should be mixed and that they should all be well treated. But, whilst condemning harshness towards them, he encourages the feeling of contempt for them as a class. The later moral schools of Greece scarcely at all concern themselves with the institution. The Epicurean had no scruple about the servitude of those whose labours contributed to his own indulgence and tranquillity. The Stoic regarded the condition of freedom or slavery as an external accident, indifferent in the eye of wisdom; to him it was irrational to see in liberty a ground of pride or in slavery a subject of complaint; from intolerable indignity suicide was an ever-open means of escape. The poets - especially the authors of the New Comedy - strongly inculcate humanity, and insist on the fundamental equality of the slave. The celebrated " homo sum " is a translation from Alexis, and the spirit of it breathes in many passages of the Greek drama. A fragment of Philemon declares, as if in reply to Aristotle, that not nature, but fortune, makes the slave. Euripides, as might be expected from his humanitarian cast of sentiment, and the " premature modernism " which has been remarked in him, rises above the ordinary feelings of his time in regard to the slaves. As Paley says, he loves " to record their fidelity to their masters, their sympathy in the trials of life, their gratitude for kindness and considerate treatment, and their pride in bearing the character of honourable men.. .. He allows them to reason, to advise, to suggest; and he even makes them philosophize on the follies and the indiscretions of their superiors " (compare Med. 54; Orest. 869; Hel. 728; Ion. 854; Frag. Melan. 506; Phrix. 823). But we are not to suppose that even he, latitudinarian and innovator as he was, could have conceived the possibility of abolishing an institution so deeply rooted in the social conditions, as well as in the ideas, of his time.
(For the Helots in Laconia, see Helots.) Rome. - We have already observed that the Roman system of life was that in which slavery had its most natural and relatively legitimate place; and accordingly it was at Rome that, as Blair has remarked, the institution was more than anywhere else " extended in its operation and methodized in its details." We must distinguish from the later slavery at Rome what Mommsen calls " the old, in some measure innocent slavery, under which the farmer tilled the land along with his slave, or, if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the slave - either as a steward, or as a sort of lessee obliged to render up a portion of the produce - over a detached farm. Though slaves were obtained by the early victories of Rome over her Italian neighbours, no large number was employed on the small holdings of those periods. But the extension of properties in the hands of the patricians, and the continued absences of citizens required by the expanding system of conquest, necessarily brought with them a demand for slave labour, which was increasingly supplied by captives taken in war. Of the number furnished from this source a few particulars from the time of the mature republic and the first century of the empire will give some idea. In Epirus, after the victories of Aemilius Paullus, 150,000 captives were sold. The prisoners at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae were 90,000 Teutons and 60,000 Cimbri. Caesar sold on a single occasion in Gaul 63,000 captives. But slavery, as Hume has shown, is unfavourable to population. Hence a regular commerce in slaves was established, which was based on the " systematically-prosecuted hunting of man," and indicated an entire perversion of the primitive institution, which was essentially connected with conquest. The pirates sold great numbers of slaves at Delos, where was the chief market for this kind of wares; and these sales went on as really, though more obscurely, after the successful expedition of Pompey. There was a regular importation to Rome of slaves, brought to some extent from Africa, Spain and Gaul, but chiefly from Asiatic countries - Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria. A portorium - apparently one-eighth for eunuchs, onefortieth for others - was paid on their import or expori, and a duty of 2 or 4% on their sale.
There were other sources from which slavery was alimented, though of course in a much less degree. Certain offences reduced the guilty persons to slavery (servi poenae), and they were employed in public work in the quarries or the mines. Originally, a father could sell his children. A creditor could hold his insolvent debtor as a slave, or sell him out of the city (trans Tiberim). The enslavement of creditors, overwhelmed with usury in consequence of losses by hostile raids or their own absence on military service, led to the secession to the Mons Sacer (493 B.C.). The Poetelian law (326 B.C.) restricted the creditor's lien (by virtue of a nexum) to the goods of his debtor, and enacted that for the future no debtor should be put in chains; but we hear of debtors addicti to their creditors by the tribunals long after - even in the time of the Punic Wars.
There were servi publici as well as privati. The service of the magistrates was at first in the hands of freemen; but the lower offices, as of couriers, servants of the law courts, of prisons and of temples, were afterwards filled by slaves. The execution of public works also came to be largely corn- meats. mitted to them - as the construction of roads, the cleansing of the sewers and the maintenance of the aqueducts. Both kinds of functions were discharged by slaves, not only at Rome, but in the rural and provincial municipalities. The slaves of a private Roman were divided between the familia rustica and the familia urbana. At the head of the familia rustica was the villicus, himself a slave, with the wife who was given him at once to aid him and to bind him to his duties. Under him were the several groups employed in the different branches of the exploitation and the care of the cattle and flocks, as well as those who kept or prepared the food, clothing and tools of the whole staff and those who attended on the master in the various species of rural sports. A slave prison (ergastulum) was part of such an establishment, and there were slaves whose office it was to punish the offences of their fellows. To the familia urbana belonged those who discharged the duties of domestic attendance, the service of the toilet, bath, table and kitchen, besides the entertainment of the master and his guests by dancing, singing and other arts. There were, besides, the slaves who accompanied the master and mistress out of doors, and were chosen for their beauty and grace as guards of honour, for their strength as chairmen or porters, or for their readiness and address in remembering names, delivering messages of courtesy and the like. There were also attached to a great household physicians, artists, secretaries, librarians, copyists, preparers of parchment, as well as pedagogues and preceptors of different kinds - readers, grammarians, men of letters and even philosophers - all of servile condition, besides accountants, managers and agents for the transaction of business. Actors, comic and tragic, pantomimi, and the performers of the circus were commonly slaves, as were also the gladiators. These last were chosen from the most warlike races - as the Samnites, Gauls and Thracians. Familiae of gladiators were kept by private speculators, who hired them out; they were sometimes owned by men of high rank.
Several special examples and other indirect indications show that the wealthier Romans possessed large familiae. This may be inferred from the columbaria of the house of Livia and of other great houses. The slaves of Pedanius Secundus, who, in spite of a threatened outbreak of the indignant populace, were all put to death because they had been under their master's roof when he was murdered, were four hundred in number. Pliny tells us that Caecilius, a freedman of the time of Augustus, left by his will as many as 4116. The question as to the total number of slaves at Rome or in Italy is a very difficult one, and it is not, perhaps, possible to arrive with any degree of certainty at an approximate estimate. Gibbon supposes that there were in the Roman world in the reign of Claudius at least as many slaves as free inhabitants. But Blair seems right in believing that this number, though probably correct for an earlier period, is much under the truth for the age to which it is assigned. He fixes the proportion of slaves to free men as that of three to one for the time between the conquest of Greece (146 B.C.) and the reign of Alexander Severus (A.D. 222-235). The entire number of slaves in Italy would thus have been, in the reign of Claudius, 20,832,000.
By the original Roman law the master was clothed with absolute dominion over the slave, extending to the power of life and death, which is not surprising when we consider the nature of the patria. potestas. The slave could not possess property of any kind; Laws whatever he acquired was legally his master's. He was, however, in practice permitted to enjoy and accumulate chance earnings or savings, or a share of what he produced, under the name of peculium. A master could not enter into a contract with his slave, nor could he accuse him of theft before the law; for, if the slave took anything, this was not a subtraction, but only a displacement, of property. The union of a male and female slave had not the legal character of a marriage; it was a cohabitation (contubernium) merely, which was tolerated, and might be terminated at will, by the master; a slave was, therefore, not capable of the crime of adultery. Yet general sentiment seems to have given a stronger sanction to this sort of connexion; the names of husband and wife are freely used in relation to slaves on the stage, and even in the laws, and in the language of the tombs. For entering the military service or taking on him any state office a slave -, was punished with death. He could not in general be examined ` s a witness, except by torture. A master, when accused, could offer his slaves for the " question," or demand for the same purpose the slaves of another; and, if in the latter case they were injured or killed in the process, their owner was indemnified. A slave could not accuse his master, except of adultery or incest (under the latter name being included the violation of sacred things or places); the case of high treason was afterwards added to these. An accused slave could not invoke the aid of the tribunes. The penalties of the law for crime were specially severe on slaves.
Columella, like Xenophon, favours a certain friendliness and familiarity in one's intercourse with his farm slaves. Cato ate and drank the same coarse victuals as his slaves, and even had the children suckled by his wife, that they might imbibe a fondness for the family. But he had a strict eye to profit in all his dealings with them. He allowed the contubernium of male and female slaves at the price of a money payment from their peculium. Columella regarded the gains from the births as a sufficient motive for encouraging these unions, and thought that mothers should be rewarded for their fecundity; Varro, too, seems to have taken this view. The immense extension of the rural estates (latifundia) made it impossible for masters to know their slaves, even if they were disposed to take trouble for the purpose. Effective superintendence even by overseers became less easy; the use of chains was introduced, and these were worn not only in the field during working hours but at night in the ergastulum where the slaves slept. Urban slaves had probably often a life as little enviable, especially those who worked at trades for speculators. Even in private houses at Rome, so late as the time of Ovid, the porter was chained. In the familia urbana the favourites of the master had good treatment, and might exercise some influence over him which would lead to their receiving flattery and gifts from those who sought his vote or solicited his support. Doubtless there was often genuine mutual affection; slaves sometimes, as in noted instances during the civil wars, showed the noblest spirit of devotion to their masters. Those who were not inmates of the household, but were employed outside of it as keepers of a shop or boat, chiefs of workshops, or clerks in a mercantile business, had the advantage of greater freedom of action. The slaves of the leno and the lanista were probably in most cases not only degraded but unhappy. The lighter punish ments inflicted by masters were commonly personal chastisement or banishment from the town house to rural labour; the severer were employment in the mill (pistrinum) or relegation to the mines or quarries. To the mines also speculators sent slaves; they worked half-naked, men and women, in chains, under the lash and guarded by soldiers. Vedius Pollio, in the time of Augustus, was said to have thrown his slaves, condemned sometimes for trivial mistakes or even accidents, to the lampreys in his fishpond. Cato advised the agriculturist to sell his old oxen and his old slaves, as well as his sick ones; and sick slaves were exposed in the island of Aesculapius in the Tiber; by a decree of Claudius slaves so exposed, if they recovered, could not be reclaimed by their masters.
See Part Two on Slavery
INTRODUCTION:
Some mention slavery and ask if it is right or wrong without defining their definition of slavery or the conditions. Of course this is an open ended question that can NOT be correctly answered until what is meant in a specific case.
Some forms of slavery, of course, are categorically entirely wrong and sinful. Basically, the wrong form consist of a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as absolute property of others. But, not all forced labor fits this category; for example, individuals that sell themselves into forced labor and/or prisoners who are doing forced labor due to their wrong conduct could hardly be put in the class of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as absolute property of others, and with no rights.
Slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms, and periods in almost all cultures at one time or another. In fact, in some societies, slavery existed as a legal institution or socio-economic system, but today it is formally outlawed in nearly all countries with the exception being a very few Islamic countries mostly in Africa.
One dictionary, the One-Look Dictionary given an over simplified definition of slavery as follows:
▸ noun: the practice of owning slaves
▸ noun: work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
▸ noun: the state of being under the control of another person
[source ¨C One-Look Dictionary]
A Bible dictionary/encyclopedia defines slavery as follows:
<<<¡± SLAVE
The original-language words rendered ¡°slave¡± or ¡°servant¡± are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ‛e¡ävedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (‛e¡ävedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ‛E¡ävedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God¡¯s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.¡ªJer 27:6.
The Greek term dou¡älos corresponds to the Hebrew word ‛e¡ävedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn¡ädou¡¤los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).
The Hebrew word na¡ä‛ar, like the Greek term pais, basically means a boy or a youth and can also designate a servant or an attendant. (1Sa 1:24; 4:21; 30:17; 2Ki 5:20; Mt 2:16; 8:6; 17:18; 21:15; Ac 20:12) The Greek term oi¡¤ke¡ätes denotes a house servant or slave (Lu 16:13), and a female slave or servant is designated by the Greek word pai¡¤di¡äske. (Lu 12:45) The participial form of the Hebrew root sha¡¤rath¡ä may be rendered by such terms as ¡°minister¡± (Ex 33:11) or ¡°waiter.¡± (2Sa 13:18) The Greek word hy¡¤pe¡¤re¡ätes may be translated ¡°attendant,¡± ¡°court attendant,¡± or ¡°house attendant.¡± (Mt 26:58; Mr 14:54, 65; Joh 18:36) The Greek term the¡¤ra¡äpon occurs solely at Hebrews 3:5 and means subordinate or attendant.¡± [source ¨C Insight on the Scriptures]>>>.
Now it is important to note that the ancient Hebrew word translated ¡®slave¡¯ has a significantly different meaning than the modern word ¡®slave.¡¯ This is important to understand or one¡¯s comprehension of reading the term ¡®slave¡¯ in a modern English translation may mislead some into thinking of the situation as the same as the modern term ¡®slave,¡¯ and NOT realizing that the context is what governs. As the dictionary says, ¡°The original-language words rendered ¡°slave¡± or ¡°servant¡± are not limited in their application to persons owned by others.¡±
But even this simplified definition clearly shows that slavery has definitions not related to owning those doing the labor when it says, ¡°work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay¡± which shows the necessity to look deeper into what is called slavery and that it has many and varied definitions.
We shall now look at the many and varied definitions of slavery basically in a descending order of application in modern times and near modern times.
DESCENDING ORDER OF SLAVERY TYPES IN MODERN TIMES AND NEAR MODERN TYPES:
The following is information of forms of slavery in a descending order of application in modern times and near modern times in a rough order of their magnitude:
[-1-] Slavery to sin which is always wrong, and a sin. It is defined as:
<<<¡± Enslavement to Sin. At the time the first man Adam disobeyed God¡¯s law, he surrendered perfect control of himself and yielded to the selfish desire to continue sharing association with his sinful wife and pleasing her. Adam¡¯s surrendering himself to his sinful desire made this desire and its end product, sin, his master. (Compare Ro 6:16; Jas 1:14, 15; see SIN, I.) He thus sold himself under sin. As all of his offspring were yet in his loins, Adam also sold them under sin. That is why the apostle Paul wrote: ¡°I am fleshly, sold under sin.¡± (Ro 7:14) For this reason there was no way for any of Adam¡¯s descendants to make themselves righteous, not even by trying to keep the Mosaic Law. As the apostle Paul put it: ¡°The commandment which was to life, this I found to be to death.¡± (Ro 7:10) The inability of humans to keep the Law perfectly showed that they were slaves to sin and deserving of death, not life.¡ªSee DEATH.
Only by availing themselves of the deliverance made possible through Jesus Christ could individuals be emancipated or gain freedom from this enslavement. (Compare Joh 8:31-34; Ro 7:21-25; Ga 4:1-7; Heb 2:14-16; see RANSOM.) Having been bought with the precious blood of Jesus, Christians are slaves, or servants, of Jehovah God and of his Son, obligated to keep their commands.¡ª1Co 7:22, 23; 1Pe 1:18, 19; Re 19:1, 2, 5;¡± [source ¨C Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. II]>>>.
Yes, one may ask what are some of the failings or deviations that lead to enslavement to sin. Now here, are some of them.
The Bible clearly marks certain activities as deviant. Some cases are as follows that give admonition on morals and conduct:
[1] Showing that fornication, adultery, and other gross sins is a serious deviation from the moral standards of the Bible:
Galatians 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, 21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (ASV).
And,
1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (ASV).
[2] Worshippers of Almighty God (YHWH) must be united regardless of nationality:
Romans 2:11, "for there is no respect of persons with God." (ASV).[[No racism]]
And,
Ephesians 4:1-6, "I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." (ASV).
[3] Need to pray incessantly, failure to do so would be deviant.:
1 Thessalonians 5:17, "pray without ceasing;" (ASV).
And,
2 Thessalonians 3:1, "Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also it is with you;" (ASV).
And,
Philippians 4:6-7, "In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus." (ASV).
[4] Prayers to be heard by Almighty God (YHWH) must be offered in faith:
Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (ASV).
[5] Good family life depends on husbands loving their wives as they love themselves and for wives to have deep respect for their husbands. And children should obey their parents, for this is pleasing to Almighty God (YHWH). Parents need to guide and train their children in a loving way and in godly principles:
Ephesians 3:22, "Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." (ASV).
And,
Ephesians 6:4, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." (ASV).
And,
Colossians 3:18-21, "Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. 20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord. 21 Fathers, provoke not your children, that they be not discouraged." (ASV).
[6] Deviant sex clearly win Almighty God (YHWH) disapproval:
Romans 1:19-28, "because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;" (ASV).
Now the reality is the fact that many individuals are governed by hedonistic tendencies in which they get pleasure from deviant sex acts and materialism, and for this reason reject the inspired word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, as a standard - this of course is NOT based on fact and reality.
One such individual tried to justify sodomy by saying,
"You have attempted to show its unnatural which is plainly wrong as it occurs in nature."
Now of course this is totally invalid as animals are governed by instinct and NOT by cognitive thinking, as are humans. To try and use the animalistic behavior of animals to justify human conduct is nothing short of insane.
This same individual said,
"As i have asked for NON biblical reasons, any biblical answer is simply not acceptable."
What utter nonsense, it is like asking a mathematician not to use math books or other recognized standards - pure and utter nonsense, or asking an athlete to run a race with a ball and chains - just utter stupid nonsense.
[-2-] Slavery to the ¡®rat race¡¯ of modern unfulfilling work where individuals slave to get ahead in an oppressive modern society doing work they really do not like. Now is this wrong? Maybe yes, Maybe not, this is a gray area. If it is done to the exclusion of the needs of the family unit and/or service to Almighty God (YHWH) it is not good and may even be sinful.
[-3-] Forced labor sometimes referred to as slavery being done for committing a wrong doing as punishment for this wrong doing. This is NOT necessarily wrong ¨C it all depends of the situation or context.
[-4-] Slavery of the most notorious type, where individuals and/or family have no rights and are basically owned outright by others. In this form of slavery people are considered to be, or treated as absolute property of others. These people were in the 14 th. To 19 th. Century basically captured by others as one would capture a wild animal and sold to others. In general practice, local warlords in Africa would capture individuals and sell them to middle men who would sell the to slavers who would sell them by auction to farmers, plantation owners, and manufacturers as one would sell an animal and the individual so being sold would just be property and have no more rights than a horse and/or dog. Now let¡¯s look at some details with regard to this trade, and centering on the middle men, members of Islam, that made it possible.
Now let's look at the facts as presented in an encyclopedia.
<<<"The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery[1]; however, in modern time this has become a contentious issue Muhammad and those of his companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves, and some of them acquired more by conquest[stealing them.]. However, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave through the reforms of a humanitarian tendency both at the time of Muhammad and the later early caliphs. In Islamic law, the topic of Islam and slavery is covered at great length. The legal legislations brought two major changes to the practice of slavery inherited from antiquity, from pagan Rome, and from Byzantium, which were to have far-reaching effects. Bernard Lewis considers these reforms to be the cause of the vast improvements in the practice of slavery in Muslim lands. The reforms also seriously limited the supply of new slaves.
The Qur'an considers emancipation of a slave to be a meritorious deed, or as a condition of repentance for certain sins[but does not require their emancipation]. The Qur'an and Hadith contain numerous passages supporting this view. Muslim jurists considered slavery to be an exceptional circumstance, with the basic assumption of freedom until proven otherwise. Furthermore, as opposed to pre-Islamic slavery, enslavement was limited to two scenarios: capture in war[stealing.], or birth to slave parents (birth to parents where one was free and the other not so would render the offspring free)[sounds like typical slavery].
Slavery in Islam does not have racial or color component, although this ideal has not always been put into practice. Nevertheless, historically, black slaves could rise to important positions in Muslim nations. In early Islamic Arabia, Slaves were often African blacks from across the Red Sea, but by expansion of the Islamic empire in later times, slaves could be Berbers from North Africa, Slavs from Europe, Turks from Central Asia, or Circassians from the Caucasus. The majority of slaves throughout the history of Arabia were, however, of African origin. The Arab slave trade was most active in eastern Africa, although by the end of the 19th century such activity had reached a significantly low ebb. The slavery in the Arab World in the 19th century has been documented by Dr. Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, an Arabist and a scholar of Indonesian affairs, who had visited Mecca during his journey in the Hijaz. He states in his book Mohammedanism that "Slaves in the Arab world are generally not that different from servants and workers in Europe" and that their masters "handled them with a genial humanity that made their lot no worse - perhaps better, as more secure - than that of a factory worker in nineteenth-century Europe."
It was in the early 20th century (post World War I) that slavery gradually became outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France (although the extent to which it died out and/or flared up again is disputed)." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.
Also, researchers at Ohio State University (OSU) said the following:
<<<" WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 - a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa's Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn't try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis's new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).
"Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe," Davis said. "Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear."
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger - about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis....
"Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland," he said.
Pirates (called corsairs)[members of Islam] from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa - cities such as Tunis and Algiers - would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating - France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.[Islam should return these to England, but has failed to do so or pay England.].
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one's agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn't fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as "evil colonialists" and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time - both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners - did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves....
"The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down - figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level," he said. "It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available."...
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast. Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America....
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars. "We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under," he said. "Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa."[source - Research, Ohio State University by Jeff Grabmeier]>>>.
So as can be seen, Both apostate (counterfeit) so called Christians and Muslims starting with Muhammad (pbuh) himself were equally guilty with respect the slave trade, yet members point a finger at apostate (counterfeit) Christians without realizing three fingers, maybe four, are pointing back at themselves. This is dishonest hypocrisy on the part of Islam.
This type of slavery is completely wrong, sinful, and is now a crime in most places.
[-5-] White Slavery where a women and/or a man is forced into prostitution and is usually treated as property by the pimp. This type of slavery is completely wrong, sinful, and is now a crime in most places.
Two dictionaries/encyclopedias define white slavery as follows:
NOUN:
Forced prostitution.
[source - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]
White slavery
¡¤ White slavery: the sale of one race to another for purposes of prostitution
[source - Glossary of Unusual Sexual Practices]
[-6-] Voluntary slavery this is where individuals sell themselves into slavery for a period of time to pay off a debt or for some other reason. This was a common practice in ancient Biblical times and to some degree even in modern times.
This type of slavery is NOT necessarily wrong and/or sinful as long as the individual is treated as a fellow human being. Now let¡¯s look at how it was actually administered in ancient Israel to prevent individuals from being mistreated and/or abused.
<<<¡±Laws governing slave-master relationships. Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired laborer. (Ex 21:2; Le 25:10; De 15:12) A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident¡¯s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12) When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (De 15:13-15) If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.¡ªEx 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.
[[In fact]] At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham¡¯s aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master¡¯s possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2, 3) Abraham¡¯s descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1, 5, 6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave¡¯s becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.¡ªLe 25:49¡± [source ¨C Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. II]>>>.
[-7-] Of course, there are other forms of slavery not now being covered that are mainly of historical interest to historians, but in no way of current importance.
SPECIFIC DETAILS ON SLAVERY FROM VARIOUS CREDIBLE SOURCES:
Here are some items on slavery from credible sources to further assist your understanding.
<<<"Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms and periods in almost all cultures and continents.[1] In some societies, slavery existed as a legal institution or socio-economic system, but today it is formally outlawed in nearly all countries. Nevertheless, the practice continues in various forms around the world.[2][3]
Freedom from slavery is an internationally recognized human right. Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
SLAVERY. It appears to be true that, in the words of Dunoyer, the economic regime of every society which has recently become sedentary is founded on the slavery of the industrial professions. In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of a conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on their sex. In the pastoral stage slaves will be captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been, as we have said, a universal and inevitable accompaniment.
But wherever theocratic organizations established themselves slavery in the ordinary sense did not become a vital element in the social system. The members of the lowest class were not in a state of individual subjection: the entire caste to which they belonged was collectively subject. It is in the communities in which the military order obtained an ascendancy over the sacerdotal, and which were directly organized for war, that slavery (as the word is commonly understood) had its natural and appropriate place. It is not merely that in its first establishment slavery was an immense advance by substituting for the immolation of captives, often accompanied by cannibalism, their occupation in labour for the benefit of the victor. This advantage, recalled by an old though erroneous 1 Servus is not cognate with servare, as has often been supposed; it is really related to the Homeric E'lpepos and the verb Etpw, with which the Latin sero is to be connected. It may be here mentioned that slave was originally a national name; it meant a man of Slavonic race captured and made a bondman to the Germans. " From the Euxine to the Adriatic, in the state of captives or subjects, ... they [the Slavonians] overspread the land, and the national appellation of the Slaves has been degraded by chance or malice from the signification of glory to that of servitude " (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. lv.). The historian alludes to the derivation of the national name from slava, glory. See Skeat's Etym. Dict., s.v.; see also Slavs.
etymology, is generally acknowledged. But it is not so well understood that slavery discharged important offices in the later social evolution - first, by enabling military action to prevail with the degree of intensity and continuity requisite for the system of incorporation by conquest which was its final destination; and, secondly, by forcing the captives, who with their descendants came to form the majority of the population in the conquering community, to an industrial life, in spite of the antipathy to regular and sustained labour which is deeply rooted in human nature. As regards the latter consideration, it is enough to say that nowhere has productive industry developed itself in the form of voluntary effort; in every country of which we have any knowledge it was imposed by the strong upon the weak, and was wrought into the habits of the people only by the stern discipline of constraint. From the former point of view the freeman, then essentially a warrior, and the slave were mutual auxiliaries, simultaneously exercising different and complementary functions - each necessary to the community. In modern slavery, on the other hand, where the occupations of both parties were industrial, the existence of a servile class only guaranteed for some of them the possibility of self-indulgent ease, whilst it imposed on others the necessity of indigent idleness.
It was in the Roman state that military action - in Greece often purposeless and, except in the resistance to Persia, on the whole fruitless - worked out the social mission which formed its true justification. Hence at Rome slavery also most properly found its place, so long as that mission was in progress of accomplishment. As soon as the march of conquest had reached its natural limit, slavery began to be modified; and when the empire was divided into the several states which had grown up under it, and the system of defence characteristic of the middle ages was substituted for the aggressive system of antiquity, slavery gradually disappeared, and was replaced by serfdom.
We have so far dealt with the political results of ancient slavery, and have found it to have been in certain respects not only useful but indispensable. When we consider its moral effects, whilst endeavouring to avoid exaggeration, we must yet pronounce its influence to have been profoundly detrimental. In its action on the slave it marred in a great measure the happy effects of habitual industry by preventing the development of the sense of human dignity which lies at the foundation of morals. On the morality of the masters - whether personal, domestic, or social - the effects of the institution were disastrous. The habit of absolute rule, always dangerous, was peculiarly corrupting when it penetrated every department of daily life, and when no external interference checked individual caprice in its action on the feelings and fortunes of inferiors. It tended to destroy the power of self-command, and exposed the master to the baneful influences of flattery. As regards domestic morality, the system offered constant facilities for libertinism, and tended to subvert domestic peace by compromising the dignity and ruining the happiness of the wife. The sons of the family were familiarized with vice, and the general tone of the younger generation was lowered by their intimate association with a despised and degraded class. These deplorable results were, of course, not universally produced; there were admirable exceptions both among masters and among slaves - instances of benevolent protection on the one side and of unselfish devotion on the other; but the evil effects without doubt greatly preponderated.
Greece
We find slavery fully established in the Homeric period. The prisoners taken in war are retained as slaves, or sold (Il. xxiv.
c 752) or held at ransom (Il. vi. 427) by the captor. Some Heroic times the men of a conquered town or district are slain and the women carried off (Od. ix. 40). Not unfrequently free persons were kidnapped by pirates and sold in other regions, like Eumaeus in the Odyssey. The slave might thus be by birth of equal rank with his master, who knew that the same fate might befall himself or some of the members of his family. The institution does not present itself in a very harsh form in Homer, especially if we consider (as Grote suggests) that " all classes were much on a level in taste, sentiment and instruction." The male slaves were employed in the tillage of the land and the tending of cattle, and the females in domestic work and household manufactures. The principal slaves often enjoyed the confidence of their masters and had important duties entrusted to them; and, after lengthened and meritorious service, were put in possession of a house and property of their own (Od. xiv. 64). Grote's idea that the women slaves were in a more pitiable condition than the males does not seem justified, except perhaps in the case cf the aletrides, who turned the household mills which ground the flour consumed in the family, and who were sometimes overworked by unfeeling masters (Od. xx. 110-119). Homer marks in a celebrated couplet his sense of the moral deterioration commonly wrought by the condition of slavery (Od. xvii. 322).
It is, however, in historic Greece, where we have ample documentary information, that it is most important to study the system. The sources of slavery in Greece were: (I) Birth, the condition being hereditary. This was not an abundant source, women slaves being less numerous than men, and wise masters making the union of the sexes rather a reward of good service than a matter of speculation (Xen. Oecon. 9.5). It was in general cheaper to buy a slave than to rear one to the age of labour. (2) Sale of children by their free parents, which was tolerated, except in Attica, or their exposure, which was permitted, except at Thebes. The consequence of the latter was sometimes to subject them to a servitude worse than death, as is seen in the plays of Plautus and Terence, which, as is well known, depict Greek, not Roman, manners. Freemen, through indigence, sometimes sold themselves, and at Athens, up to the time of Solon, an insolvent debtor became the slave of his creditor. (3) Capture in war. Not only Asiatics and Thracians thus became slaves, but in the many wars between Grecian states, continental or colonial, Greeks were reduced to slavery by men of their own race. Callicratidas pronounced against the enslavement of Greeks by Greeks, but violated his own principle, to which, however, Epaminondas and Pelopidas appear to have been faithful. (4) Piracy and kidnapping. The descents of pirates on the coasts were a perpetual source of danger; the pirate was a gainer either by the sale or by the redemption of his captives. If ransomed, the victim became by Athenian law the slave of his redeemer till he paid in money or labour the price which had been given for him. Kidnappers (andrapodistae) carried off children even in cities, and reared them as slaves. Whether from hostile forays or from piracy, any Greek was exposed to the risk of enslavement. (5) Commerce. Besides the sale of slaves which took place as a result of the capture of cities or other military operations, there was a systematic slave trade. Syria, Pontus, Lydia, Galatia, and above all Thrace were sources of supply. Egypt and Ethiopia also furnished a certain number, and Italy a few. Of foreigners, the Asiatics bore the greatest value, as most amenable to command, and most versed in the arts of luxurious refinement. But Greeks were highest of all in esteem, and they were much sought for foreign sale. Greece proper and Ionia supplied the petty Eastern princes with courtesans and female musicians and dancers. Athens was an important slave market, and the state profited by a tax on the sales; but the principal marts were those of Cyprus, Samos, Ephesus and especially Chios.
The slaves were employed either in domestic service - as household managers, attendants or personal escorts - or in work of other kinds, agricultural or urban. In early Attica, and even down to the time of Pericles, the landowners lived in the country. The Peloponnesian War introduced a change; s and after that time the proprietors resided at Athens, and the cultivation was in the hands of slaves. In manufactures and commerce, also, servile gradually displaced free labour. Speculators either directly employed slaves as artisans or commercial and banking agents, or hired them out, sometimes for work in mines or factories, sometimes for service in private houses, as cooks, flute-players, &c., or for viler uses. There were also public slaves; of these some belonged to temples, to which they were presented as offerings, amongst them being the courtesans who acted as hieroduli at Corinth and at Eryx in Sicily; others were appropriated to the service of the magistrates or to public works; there were at Athens 1200 Scythian archers for the police of the city; slaves served, too, in the fleets, and were employed in the armies, - commonly as workmen, and exceptionally as soldiers.
The condition of slaves at Athens was not in general a wretched one. Demosthenes (In Mid. p. 530) says that, if the barbarians from whom the slaves were bought were informed of the mild treatment they received, they would entertain a great esteem for the Athenians. Plautus in more than one place thinks it necessary to explain to the spectators of his plays that slaves at Athens enjoyed such privileges, and even licence, as must be surprising to a Roman audience. The slave was introduced with certain customary rites into his position in the family; he was in practice, though not by law, permitted to accumulate a private fund of his own; his marriage was also recognized by custom; though in general excluded from sacred ceremonies and public sacrifices, slaves were admissible to religious associations of a private kind; there were some popular festivals in which they were allowed to participate; they had even special ones for themselves both at Athens and in other Greek centres. Their remains were deposited in the family tomb of their master, who sometimes erected monuments in testimony of his affection and regret. They often lived on terms of intimacy either with the head of the house or its younger members; but it is to be feared that too often this intimacy was founded, not on mutual respect, as in the heroic example of Ulysses and Eumaeus, but on insolent self-assertion on the one side and a spirit of unworthy compliance on the other, the latter having its raison d'¨ºtre in degrading services rendered by the slave. Aristophanes and Plautus show us how often resort was had to the discipline of the lash even in the case of domestic slaves. Those employed in workshops, whose overseers were themselves most commonly of servile status, had probably a harder lot than domestics; and the agricultural labourers were not unfrequently chained, and treated much in the same way as beasts of burden. The displeasure of the master sometimes dismissed his domestics to the more oppressive labours of the mill or the mine. A refuge from cruel treatment was afforded by the temples and altars of the gods and by the sacred groves. Nor did Athenian law leave the slave without protection. He had, as Demosthenes boasts, an action for outrage like a freeman, and his death at the hand of a stranger was avenged like that of a citizen (Eurip. Hec. 288), whilst, if caused by his master's violence, it had to be atoned for by exile and a religious expiation. Even when the slave had killed his master, the relatives of the house could not themselves inflict punishment; they were obliged to hand him over to the magistrate to be dealt with by legal process. The slave who had just grounds of complaint against his master could demand to be sold; when he alleged his right to liberty, the law granted him a defender and the sanctuaries offered him an asylum till judgment should be given. Securities were taken against the revolt of slaves by not associating those of the same nationality and language; they were sometimes fettered to prevent flight, and, after a first attempt at escape, branded to facilitate their recovery. There were treaties between states for the extradition of fugitives, and contracts of mutual assurance between individuals against their loss by flight. Their inclination to take advantage of opportunities for this purpose is shown by the number that escaped from Athens to join the Spartans when occupying Decelea. There were formidable revolts at the mines of Laurium, and more than once in Chios. The evidence of slaves - women as well as men - was often, with the consent of their masters, taken by torture; and that method is generally commended by the orators as a sure means of arriving at the truth.
The slave could purchase his liberty with his peculium by agreement with his master. He could be liberated by will, or, during his Emanci- master's life, by proclamation in the theatre, the law courts, or other public places, or by having his name inscribed in the public registers, or, in the later age of Greece, by sale or donation to certain temples - an act which did not make the slave a hierodulus but a freeman. Conditions were sometimes attached to emancipation, as of remaining for life or a definite time with the former master, or another person named by him, or of performing some special service; payments or rights of succession to property might also be reserved. By manumission the Athenian slave became in relation to the state a metic, in relation to his master a client. He was thus in an intermediate condition between slavery and complete freedom. If the freedman violated his duties to his patron he was subject to an action at law, and if the decision were against him he was again reduced to slavery. He became a full member of the state only, as in the case of foreigners, by a vote in an assembly of six thousand citizens; and even this vote might be set aside by a graphe paranomon. Slaves who had rendered eminent services to the public, as those who fought at Arginusae and at Chaeronea, were at once admitted to the status of citizens in the class of (so-called) Plataeans. But it would appear that even in their case some civic rights were reserved and accorded only to their children by a female citizen. The number of freedmen at Athens seems never to have been great. (See further Greece, Ancient History, ¡ì 5.) It is well known that Aristotle held slavery to be necessary and natural, and, under just conditions, beneficial to both parties in the relation - views which were correct enough from the ie ws on political side, regard being had to the contemporary v. social state. His practical motto, if he is the author of the Economics attributed to him, is - " no outrage, and no familiarity." There ought, he says, to be held out to the slave the hope of liberty as the reward of his service. Plato condemned the practice, which the theory of Aristotle also by implication sets aside as inadmissible, of Greeks having Greeks for slaves. In the Laws he accepts the institution as a necessary though embarrassing one, and recommends for the safety of the masters that natives of different countries should be mixed and that they should all be well treated. But, whilst condemning harshness towards them, he encourages the feeling of contempt for them as a class. The later moral schools of Greece scarcely at all concern themselves with the institution. The Epicurean had no scruple about the servitude of those whose labours contributed to his own indulgence and tranquillity. The Stoic regarded the condition of freedom or slavery as an external accident, indifferent in the eye of wisdom; to him it was irrational to see in liberty a ground of pride or in slavery a subject of complaint; from intolerable indignity suicide was an ever-open means of escape. The poets - especially the authors of the New Comedy - strongly inculcate humanity, and insist on the fundamental equality of the slave. The celebrated " homo sum " is a translation from Alexis, and the spirit of it breathes in many passages of the Greek drama. A fragment of Philemon declares, as if in reply to Aristotle, that not nature, but fortune, makes the slave. Euripides, as might be expected from his humanitarian cast of sentiment, and the " premature modernism " which has been remarked in him, rises above the ordinary feelings of his time in regard to the slaves. As Paley says, he loves " to record their fidelity to their masters, their sympathy in the trials of life, their gratitude for kindness and considerate treatment, and their pride in bearing the character of honourable men.. .. He allows them to reason, to advise, to suggest; and he even makes them philosophize on the follies and the indiscretions of their superiors " (compare Med. 54; Orest. 869; Hel. 728; Ion. 854; Frag. Melan. 506; Phrix. 823). But we are not to suppose that even he, latitudinarian and innovator as he was, could have conceived the possibility of abolishing an institution so deeply rooted in the social conditions, as well as in the ideas, of his time.
(For the Helots in Laconia, see Helots.) Rome. - We have already observed that the Roman system of life was that in which slavery had its most natural and relatively legitimate place; and accordingly it was at Rome that, as Blair has remarked, the institution was more than anywhere else " extended in its operation and methodized in its details." We must distinguish from the later slavery at Rome what Mommsen calls " the old, in some measure innocent slavery, under which the farmer tilled the land along with his slave, or, if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the slave - either as a steward, or as a sort of lessee obliged to render up a portion of the produce - over a detached farm. Though slaves were obtained by the early victories of Rome over her Italian neighbours, no large number was employed on the small holdings of those periods. But the extension of properties in the hands of the patricians, and the continued absences of citizens required by the expanding system of conquest, necessarily brought with them a demand for slave labour, which was increasingly supplied by captives taken in war. Of the number furnished from this source a few particulars from the time of the mature republic and the first century of the empire will give some idea. In Epirus, after the victories of Aemilius Paullus, 150,000 captives were sold. The prisoners at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae were 90,000 Teutons and 60,000 Cimbri. Caesar sold on a single occasion in Gaul 63,000 captives. But slavery, as Hume has shown, is unfavourable to population. Hence a regular commerce in slaves was established, which was based on the " systematically-prosecuted hunting of man," and indicated an entire perversion of the primitive institution, which was essentially connected with conquest. The pirates sold great numbers of slaves at Delos, where was the chief market for this kind of wares; and these sales went on as really, though more obscurely, after the successful expedition of Pompey. There was a regular importation to Rome of slaves, brought to some extent from Africa, Spain and Gaul, but chiefly from Asiatic countries - Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria. A portorium - apparently one-eighth for eunuchs, onefortieth for others - was paid on their import or expori, and a duty of 2 or 4% on their sale.
There were other sources from which slavery was alimented, though of course in a much less degree. Certain offences reduced the guilty persons to slavery (servi poenae), and they were employed in public work in the quarries or the mines. Originally, a father could sell his children. A creditor could hold his insolvent debtor as a slave, or sell him out of the city (trans Tiberim). The enslavement of creditors, overwhelmed with usury in consequence of losses by hostile raids or their own absence on military service, led to the secession to the Mons Sacer (493 B.C.). The Poetelian law (326 B.C.) restricted the creditor's lien (by virtue of a nexum) to the goods of his debtor, and enacted that for the future no debtor should be put in chains; but we hear of debtors addicti to their creditors by the tribunals long after - even in the time of the Punic Wars.
There were servi publici as well as privati. The service of the magistrates was at first in the hands of freemen; but the lower offices, as of couriers, servants of the law courts, of prisons and of temples, were afterwards filled by slaves. The execution of public works also came to be largely corn- meats. mitted to them - as the construction of roads, the cleansing of the sewers and the maintenance of the aqueducts. Both kinds of functions were discharged by slaves, not only at Rome, but in the rural and provincial municipalities. The slaves of a private Roman were divided between the familia rustica and the familia urbana. At the head of the familia rustica was the villicus, himself a slave, with the wife who was given him at once to aid him and to bind him to his duties. Under him were the several groups employed in the different branches of the exploitation and the care of the cattle and flocks, as well as those who kept or prepared the food, clothing and tools of the whole staff and those who attended on the master in the various species of rural sports. A slave prison (ergastulum) was part of such an establishment, and there were slaves whose office it was to punish the offences of their fellows. To the familia urbana belonged those who discharged the duties of domestic attendance, the service of the toilet, bath, table and kitchen, besides the entertainment of the master and his guests by dancing, singing and other arts. There were, besides, the slaves who accompanied the master and mistress out of doors, and were chosen for their beauty and grace as guards of honour, for their strength as chairmen or porters, or for their readiness and address in remembering names, delivering messages of courtesy and the like. There were also attached to a great household physicians, artists, secretaries, librarians, copyists, preparers of parchment, as well as pedagogues and preceptors of different kinds - readers, grammarians, men of letters and even philosophers - all of servile condition, besides accountants, managers and agents for the transaction of business. Actors, comic and tragic, pantomimi, and the performers of the circus were commonly slaves, as were also the gladiators. These last were chosen from the most warlike races - as the Samnites, Gauls and Thracians. Familiae of gladiators were kept by private speculators, who hired them out; they were sometimes owned by men of high rank.
Several special examples and other indirect indications show that the wealthier Romans possessed large familiae. This may be inferred from the columbaria of the house of Livia and of other great houses. The slaves of Pedanius Secundus, who, in spite of a threatened outbreak of the indignant populace, were all put to death because they had been under their master's roof when he was murdered, were four hundred in number. Pliny tells us that Caecilius, a freedman of the time of Augustus, left by his will as many as 4116. The question as to the total number of slaves at Rome or in Italy is a very difficult one, and it is not, perhaps, possible to arrive with any degree of certainty at an approximate estimate. Gibbon supposes that there were in the Roman world in the reign of Claudius at least as many slaves as free inhabitants. But Blair seems right in believing that this number, though probably correct for an earlier period, is much under the truth for the age to which it is assigned. He fixes the proportion of slaves to free men as that of three to one for the time between the conquest of Greece (146 B.C.) and the reign of Alexander Severus (A.D. 222-235). The entire number of slaves in Italy would thus have been, in the reign of Claudius, 20,832,000.
By the original Roman law the master was clothed with absolute dominion over the slave, extending to the power of life and death, which is not surprising when we consider the nature of the patria. potestas. The slave could not possess property of any kind; Laws whatever he acquired was legally his master's. He was, however, in practice permitted to enjoy and accumulate chance earnings or savings, or a share of what he produced, under the name of peculium. A master could not enter into a contract with his slave, nor could he accuse him of theft before the law; for, if the slave took anything, this was not a subtraction, but only a displacement, of property. The union of a male and female slave had not the legal character of a marriage; it was a cohabitation (contubernium) merely, which was tolerated, and might be terminated at will, by the master; a slave was, therefore, not capable of the crime of adultery. Yet general sentiment seems to have given a stronger sanction to this sort of connexion; the names of husband and wife are freely used in relation to slaves on the stage, and even in the laws, and in the language of the tombs. For entering the military service or taking on him any state office a slave -, was punished with death. He could not in general be examined ` s a witness, except by torture. A master, when accused, could offer his slaves for the " question," or demand for the same purpose the slaves of another; and, if in the latter case they were injured or killed in the process, their owner was indemnified. A slave could not accuse his master, except of adultery or incest (under the latter name being included the violation of sacred things or places); the case of high treason was afterwards added to these. An accused slave could not invoke the aid of the tribunes. The penalties of the law for crime were specially severe on slaves.
Columella, like Xenophon, favours a certain friendliness and familiarity in one's intercourse with his farm slaves. Cato ate and drank the same coarse victuals as his slaves, and even had the children suckled by his wife, that they might imbibe a fondness for the family. But he had a strict eye to profit in all his dealings with them. He allowed the contubernium of male and female slaves at the price of a money payment from their peculium. Columella regarded the gains from the births as a sufficient motive for encouraging these unions, and thought that mothers should be rewarded for their fecundity; Varro, too, seems to have taken this view. The immense extension of the rural estates (latifundia) made it impossible for masters to know their slaves, even if they were disposed to take trouble for the purpose. Effective superintendence even by overseers became less easy; the use of chains was introduced, and these were worn not only in the field during working hours but at night in the ergastulum where the slaves slept. Urban slaves had probably often a life as little enviable, especially those who worked at trades for speculators. Even in private houses at Rome, so late as the time of Ovid, the porter was chained. In the familia urbana the favourites of the master had good treatment, and might exercise some influence over him which would lead to their receiving flattery and gifts from those who sought his vote or solicited his support. Doubtless there was often genuine mutual affection; slaves sometimes, as in noted instances during the civil wars, showed the noblest spirit of devotion to their masters. Those who were not inmates of the household, but were employed outside of it as keepers of a shop or boat, chiefs of workshops, or clerks in a mercantile business, had the advantage of greater freedom of action. The slaves of the leno and the lanista were probably in most cases not only degraded but unhappy. The lighter punish ments inflicted by masters were commonly personal chastisement or banishment from the town house to rural labour; the severer were employment in the mill (pistrinum) or relegation to the mines or quarries. To the mines also speculators sent slaves; they worked half-naked, men and women, in chains, under the lash and guarded by soldiers. Vedius Pollio, in the time of Augustus, was said to have thrown his slaves, condemned sometimes for trivial mistakes or even accidents, to the lampreys in his fishpond. Cato advised the agriculturist to sell his old oxen and his old slaves, as well as his sick ones; and sick slaves were exposed in the island of Aesculapius in the Tiber; by a decree of Claudius slaves so exposed, if they recovered, could not be reclaimed by their masters.
See Part Two on Slavery