Scanned text contains errors.
whole management of the estate was frequently en-trusted, while the master resided in the city ; the household slaves were under a steward (ra^uias), the female slaves under a stewardess (ra/ufa). (Xen. Oecon. xii. 2, ix. 11.)
The Athenian slaves did not, like the Helots of Sparta and the Penestae of Thessahr, serve in the armies ; the battles of Marathon and Arginusae, when the Athenians armed their slaves (Pausan. i. 32. § 3 ; Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 33), were exceptions to the general rule.
The rights of possession with regard to slaves differed in no respect from any other property ; they could be given or taken as pledges. (Dem. in ' Pantaenet. p. 967, in Apkob. p. 821, in Onetor. i. p. 871.) The condition, however, of Greek slaves was upon the whole better than that of Roman ones, with the exception perhaps of Sparta, where, according to Plutarch (Lye. 28), it was the best place in the world to be a freeman, and the worst to be a slave («> Aa/ceSat/xoyi kcu rlv €\svd€ov elvai /cal rbv SovXov
At Athens especially the slaves seem to have been allowed a deree or liberty and indul-
gence, which was never granted to them at Rome. (Compare Plut. de Gar nil. 18 ; Xenoph. de Rep. At/i. i. 12.) On the reception of a new slave into a house at Athens, it was the custom to scatter sweetmeats (Karaxvff/nara)^ as was done in the case of a newly married pair. (Aristoph. Plut. 768, with Schol. ; Demosth. in StepJi. p. 1123. 29 ; Pollux, iii, 77 ; Hesych. and Suidas, s. v. Kara-
The life and person of a slave were also protected by the law : a person who struck or maltreated a slave was liable to an action (vgpecas 7pa^>77, Dem. in Mid. p. 529 ; Aesclsin. in Tim. p. 41 ; Xen. de Rep. Aili. i. 10 ; A then. vi. p, 267, f ; Meier, Att. Proc. p. 322, &c.) ; a slave too could not be put to death without legal sentence. (Eurip. ffecub. 287, 288 ; Antiph. de caed. Herod, p. 728.) He could even take shelter from the cruelty of his master in the temple of Theseus, and there claim the privilege of being sold by him (irpaffiv cure?cr0ca, Plut. flies* 36 ; Pollux, vil. 13 ; Meier, AIL Proc. p. 403, &c.). The person of a slave, however, was not considered so sacred as that of a freeman : his offences were punished with corporal chastisement, which was the last mode of punishment inflicted on a freeman (Dem. in Timocr. p. 752) ; he was not believed upon his oath, and his evidence in courts of justice was always taken with torture.
Notwithstanding the generally mild treatment of slaves in Greece, their insurrection was not un-frequent (Plat. Leg. vi. p. 777) : but these insurrections in Attica were usually confined to the mining slaves, who were treated with more severity than the others. On one occasion they murdered their guards, took possession of the fortifications of Sunium. and from this point ravaged the country for a considerable time. (A then. vi. p. 272, f.)
Slaves were sometimes manumitted at Athens, though not so frequently as at R.ome ; but it seems doubtful whether a master was ever obliged to liberate a slave against his will for a certain sum of money, as some writers have concluded from a passage of Plautus. (Casin. ii. 5. 7.) Those who were manumitted (aTreAeuflepot) did not become citizens, .as they did at Rome, but passed into the condition of Metics. They were obliged to honour their
former master as their patron (irpoffrdrys), and to fulfil certain duties towards him, the neglect of which rendered them liable to the Sitcr] aTrocrra-criov^ by which they might again be sold into slavery. [LiBERTUS, p. 705, a ; apostasiou dike."]
Respecting the public slaves at Athens, see demosii.
It appears that there was a tax upon slaves at Athens (Xen. de Vect. iv. 25), which Bb'ckh (Publ. Econ. pp,331, 332, 2cl ed.) supposes was three oboli a year for each slave.
Besides the authorities quoted in the course of this article, the reader may refer to Petitus, Leg. Att. ii. 6. p. 254, &c. ; Reitermeier, Gesck. der Sclaverei in Griechenland, Berl. 1789 ; Limburg-Brouwer, Histoire de la Civilisation des Grecs, vol. iii. p. 267, &c. ; Gottling, de Notione Servitutis apud Aristotelem, Jen. 1821 ; Hermann, Lehrbuck der griecJi. Staatsalt. § 114 ; and especially Becker, Chat-ikies, vol. ii. p. 20, &c.
SERVUS (roman). SE'RVITUS. " Servitus est constitutio juris gentium qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur." (Florent. Dig. 1. tit. 5. s. 4.) Gains also considers the potestas of a master over a slave as "juris gentium " (i. 52). The Romans viewed Liberty as a Natural State, and Slavery as a condition which was contrary to the Natural State. The mutual relation of Slave and Master among the Romans was expressed by the terms Servus and Dominus ; and the power and interest which the dominus had over and in the slave was expressed by Dominium. The term Dominium or ownership, with reference to a slave, pointed to the slave merely as a thing or object of ownership, and a slave as one of the Res Mancipi was classed with other objects of ownership. The word Potestas was also applied to the master's power over his slave, and the same word was used to express the father's power over his children. The boundaries between the Patria and Dominica Potestas were originally very narrow, but the child had certain legal capacities which were altogether wanting to the condition of the slave. The master had no Potestas over the slave, if he had merely a " nudum jus Quiritium in servo : " it was necessary that the slave should be his In bonis at least. (Gains, i. 54.)
According to the strict principles of the Roman Law, it was a consequence of the relation of Master and Slave that the Master could treat the Slave as he pleased : he could sell him, punish him, and put him to death. Positive morality however and the social intercourse that must always subsist between a master and the slaves, who are immediately about him, ameliorated the condition of slavery. Still we read of acts of great cruelty committed by masters in the later Republican and earlier Imperial periods, and the Lex Petronia was enacted in order to protect the slave. The original power of life and death over a slave, which Gaius considers to be a part of the Jus Gentium, was limited by a constitution of Antoninus, which enacted that if a man put his slave to death without sufficient reason (sine causa\ he was liable to the same penalty as if he had killed another man's slave. The Constitution applied to Roman citizens and to all who were under the Imperium Romanum. (Gains, i. 52, &c.) The same Constitution also prohibited the cruel treatment of slaves by their masters, by enacting that