Part 1 — CHAPTER I. DEFINITION AND DISTINCTION FROM KINDRED PHENOMENA.

§ 1. Ordinary meaning of the term “slavery”.

In most branches of knowledge the phenomena the man of science has to deal with have their technical names; and, when using a scientific term, he need not have regard to the meaning this term conveys in ordinary language; he knows he will not be misunderstood by his fellow-scientists. For instance, the Germans call a whale Wallfisch, and the English speak of shell-fish; but a zoölogist, using the word fish, need not fear that any competent person will think he means whales or shell-fish.

In ethnology the state of things is quite different. There are a few scientific names bearing a definite meaning, such as the terms “animism” and “survival”, happily introduced by Professor Tylor. But most phenomena belonging to our science have not yet been accurately investigated; so it is no wonder, that different writers (sometimes even the same writer on different pages) give different names to the same phenomenon, whereas on the other hand sometimes the same term (e.g. “matriarchy”) is applied to widely different phenomena. As for the subject we are about to treat of, we shall presently see that several writers have given a definition of slavery; but no one has taken the trouble to inquire whether his definition can be of any practical use in social science. Therefore we shall try to give a good definition and justify it.

But we may not content ourselves with this; we must also pay attention to the meaning of the term “slavery” as commonly employed. There are two reasons for this. First, we must always rely upon the statements of ethnographers. If an ethnographer states that some savage tribe carries on slavery, without defining in what this “slavery” consists, we have to ask: What may our informant have meant? And as he is likely to have used the word in the sense generally attached to it, we have to inquire: What is the ordinary meaning of the term “slavery”?

The second reason is this. Several theoretical writers speak of slavery, without defining what they mean by it; and we cannot avail ourselves of their remarks without knowing what meaning they attach to this term. And as they too may be supposed to have used it in the sense in which it is generally used, we have again to inquire: What is the meaning of the term “slavery” in ordinary language?

What is this idea?

The condition of the slave as opposed to that of the freeman presents itself to us under the three following aspects.

First, every slave has his master to whom he is subjected. And this subjection is of a peculiar kind. Unlike the authority one freeman sometimes has over another, the master’s power over his slave is unlimited, at least in principle; any restriction put upon the master’s free exercise of his power is a mitigation of slavery, not belonging to its nature, just as in Roman law the proprietor may do with his property whatever he is not by special laws forbidden to do. The relation between master and slave is therefore properly expressed by the slave being called the master’s “possession” or “property”, expressions we frequently meet with.

Secondly, slaves are in a lower condition as compared with freemen. The slave has no political rights; he does not choose his government, he does not attend the public councils. Socially he is despised.

In the third place, we always connect with slavery the idea of compulsory labour. The slave is compelled to work; the free labourer may leave off working if he likes, be it at the cost of starving. All compulsory labour, however, is not slave labour; the latter requires that peculiar kind of compulsion, that is expressed by the word “possession” or “property”, as has been said before.

Recapitulating, we may define a slave in the ordinary sense of the word as a man who is the property of another, politically and socially at a lower level than the mass of the people, and performing compulsory labour.

We shall inquire next, whether this notion is a practical one for the purpose of our investigation, or whether it requires any improvement. But it may be convenient first to examine, what our theoretical authors have to say on the subject.

§ 2. Use of the term “slavery” in theoretical literature.

§ 3. Definition for scientific use.

The present investigation is a sociological one; therefore our definition of slavery has to be sociologically relevant. We have to ask: What is the social value of slavery? Slavery is an organ in the social body performing a certain function, and we have to inquire: How is this organ developed, and how, in the various stages of its development, does it perform its function? But then we must know first what this organ and its function are. Thus only can we exclude from our inquiry organs somewhat resembling slavery, but functionally quite different from it, and organs wholly different from slavery, but performing the same function or nearly the same. And this is necessary; for the inclusion of such organs would create a confusion fatal to a right understanding.

What then is slavery and what is its function?

This simplification of our formula has this advantage that, in inquiring whether in any country there are slaves, we need not ask whether there is labour imposed on subjected men. When this does not sufficiently appear, we need not say: We do not know whether slavery really exists here. When we are told that in such a country some men are the property of others (except of course the cases of mere physical possession we have hinted at, which are few and easy to recognise), we may be sure that they perform some kind of compulsory labour, and are justified in calling them slaves.

Further advantages of our definition are, that it is the definition given by many theorists, and that it lies within the limits of current speech.

In the following paragraphs we shall mark the distinction of slavery from some phenomena which somewhat resemble it. Of phenomena of this kind we shall consider only those that most frequently occur; other questionable cases will be examined in surveying the occurrence of slavery in the several parts of the globe.

§ 4. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.

I. Wives in an abject condition.

Now let us cite some particulars about this abject state of the Australian wives, as given by ethnographers. For the purpose of enabling the reader to take a comprehensive view of the matter, we shall arrange these particulars not according to the different tribes each applies to, but according to the several phenomena bearing on the object of our inquiry. This gives the following result:

A. The wife is acquired by the husband without her consent being asked. So among the Dieri: “under no circumstances has a woman any say in the choice of a partner”. Powell’s Creek natives: “After being purchased or captured, the woman is generally taken away to a distance and kept more or less isolated with her husband for some months, until she contentedly settles down to the new order of things”. Queenslanders on Herbert River: wives are acquired by bethrothal as children, by exchange for a sister or daughter or by capture. N. W. Central Queenslanders: the marriage can be proposed by the male relatives of the woman, or a man can exchange his true blood-sister, i.e. by the same mother, for another’s blood-sister; in both cases the consent of the whole camp-council is required. Aborigines of N. S. Wales: girls are often betrothed in infancy, or else given away by their father or brother without their wishes being consulted; “the women are considered an article of property, and are sold or given away by the parents or relatives without the least regard to their own wishes”. Natives of the Western District of Victoria: betrothal of children is very frequent. A girl when adult can be asked of her father, without any attention being paid to her wishes. When two young men have each a sister or cousin, they may exchange the young women and marry them; the women are obliged to obey. Southern Australians: the husband most often acquires his wife by means of a contract with her father. Southern Australians of Port Lincoln: girls are betrothed long before puberty; when adult they must follow their intended husbands whether they wish it or not. Tribes of Central Australia (described by Spencer and Gillen): the most usual method of obtaining a wife is that which is connected with the custom of Tualcha mura, i.e. an agreement between two men that the relationship shall be established between their two children, one a boy and the other a girl. S. W. Australians: “In no case is the girl asked for her consent”. Natives of King George Sound (W. Australia): a girl is often promised to a man years before her birth, but generally she is acquired by capture. Northern Australians of Port Darwin and the W. Coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria: “Wives are obtained by gifts of parents; in the majority of cases female children when born are promised to men of all ages.… Some men obtain women by stealing them, generally from other tribes, or get them in exchange for a sister”. Tasmanians: the girls are betrothed as children; before marriage they are the property of their father or brother. When the match is broken off, the girl is again betrothed, without her wishes being consulted. Brough Smyth, speaking of the Australians in general, remarks: “Men obtain wives by a convenient system of exchange, by conquest sometimes, and sometimes a woman is stolen. By what mode soever a man procures a bride, it is very seldom an occasion of rejoicing for the female”. And Thomas says: “The process of acquiring a bride differs in different tribes; she may be exchanged for a sister, the simplest and perhaps the commonest form; she may be betrothed at, or even, provisionally, before, birth, but this is usually part of a process of barter; she may be abducted, either from an already existing, or a prospective husband, or from her relatives; or she may be inherited from a brother or tribal kinsman”.

B. The wife is entirely in the power of her husband, and treated accordingly.

a. Sometimes such general expressions are found, as the wife being her husband’s “property” or “slave”. So on Moreton Bay: wives are slaves. On Herbert River: wives are slaves. In N. S. Wales: “the woman is the absolute property of her husband”. In S. W. Australia: “the state of slavery in which they [the women] are all held, is really deplorable.” In Central Australia: the wife is desired by the husband only for a slave. In Tasmania: the women are slaves and do all the menial work. We may add Curr’s statement about the Australians in general: The wife “is not the relative, but the property of her husband”. “The husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)”. Brough Smyth too remarks that the husband is called the owner of the wife.

b. He treats her with contempt. In S. Australia women are despised. In the Moore River District of W. Australia the husband gives his wife only the offal of the chase. Central Australian men “eat alone, and throw what they can’t eat to the women”. In N. S. Wales “as her husband walks along, she follows him at a respectful distance.… If they sit down to a meal, she still keeps behind and gets her share flung to her without ceremony”.

c. He may sometimes ill-use and even kill her. On Moreton Bay the wife is often beaten by her husband, especially when he is drunk with rum. The Queenslander of Herbert River “treats his wife with but little consideration, is often very cruel; he may take her life if he desires”. In N. S. Wales the husband “may do with her whatever he likes, even to the extent of putting her to death, without any challenge from social or tribal law.” “The waddy(club) is applied to their heads in a most unmerciful style, and few old women are to be seen who do not bear unquestionable marks of the hard usage they have received.” The Cammarray beats his wife violently for a trifling fault even a few hours before her confinement. Dawson speaks of the “apparent hard usage to which the women [of W. Victoria] are subjected”. In S. W. Australia the method “he [the husband] adopts for correcting her is so barbarous, that it often occurs that for a single look he pierces her leg with the ghici, breaks her head with the dauac, and treats her to other similar caresses”. The natives of King George Sound treat their wives very badly. In the Moore River District most of the women die a violent death before they have reached an advanced age. If, after an unsuccessful chase, the husband finds that his wife has not enough yams, she is glad to get off with only a flogging. In cases of famine the women are eaten. In Central Australia women are very badly and roughly treated. Nobody aids an ill-used woman. “If … rightly or wrongly, a man thinks his wife guilty of a breach of the laws which govern marital relations, then undoubtedly the treatment of the woman is marked by brutal and often revolting severity.” Tasmanian wives were often cruelly beaten by their jealous husbands. According to Curr, the Australian husband may “treat her well, or brutally ill-use her, at his pleasure.” The wives “are, occasionally, cruelly beaten, or speared, for even a trifling offence”. Brough Smyth states that “if she shows favour towards another and be discovered, she may suffer heavy punishment, be put to death even”. And, according to Thomas, “an erring wife might be clubbed or speared through the leg on the spot by her husband, and no one would take much notice of the incident. Indeed, the injured husband might actually kill her.”

d. The husband exchanges and lends his wife. At Powell’s Creek wives are sometimes exchanged. In Queensland and S. Australia “it frequently occurs, that a woman is exchanged, and passes to a number of husbands in a few years”. The Moreton Bay aborigines lend their wives to each other and offer them to Europeans. In N. S. Wales “when visitors come to the camp they are accommodated with wives while they remain; and a brave chief, who has done much for their tribe by his prowess, gets the wives of other men sent to him by them as a mark of respect and friendship. Two men may even agree to exchange wives for a time”. “They will frequently give one of their wives to a friend who may be in want of one.” At Port Lincoln the men frequently exchange wives. The S. Australian husband offers his wife to friends and strangers. Exchange of wives also occurs in S. Australia. In Central Australia the husband lends his wife to his friends. When he goes abroad a husband is given her for the time. A guest is also provided with a wife. Men and parents prostitute their wives and daughters. “At times a man will lend his wife to a stranger as an act of courtesy”. Another writer informs us that “they often bring them [their wives] up to white men and beg of them to take them”. The natives of Port Darwin “exchange wives occasionally”. Tasmanian women were offered to whites for payment. A describer of the Australians in general states that the husband may “keep her to himself, prostitute her, exchange her for another, or give her away to any male of the same class as himself”. According to another writer a young man who has no wife sometimes gets one from an old man, who is tired of her. And Thomas states: “The Australians were accustomed to lend their wives to strangers on festive occasions or during ordinary visits. They might even agree to exchange wives for a month”.

e. After his death she becomes the property of his brother. Among the Dieri “the elder brother claims her as she is the wife of his brother”. On Herbert River the widow belongs to the deceased man’s brother. In N. S. Wales “when a man dies, his widow is the property of his next brother”. Among the Kurnai the same custom prevails. In N. Australia “a widow belongs to her late husband’s brother”. We may add Curr’s general statement that “when a man dies, his widows devolve on his eldest surviving brother”.

C. The husband makes his wife work for him. As regards the Dieri we are told that “the more wives a man has, the more indolent he becomes; as they do not till the soil, each wife has to go daily in search of food, gather seeds, roots, and other vegetable products according to the seasons; the men with a plurality of wives stay at home making weapons, ornaments and fishing nets from rushes grown on the banks of the lakes”. At Powell’s Creek “polygamy is common, more so amongst the old men, who find a plurality of wives useful in hunting for them, and as carriers when shifting camp, etc.”. On Herbert River the women procure the food, and for this often make long journeys; they do all the hard work. The husband makes the frame of the hut; she covers it. When travelling she carries all that is to be carried. The husband often keeps the animal food to himself; his hunting has rather the character of a sport; the procuring of food is entirely incumbent on the wife. According to Fraser the fate of the native wife in N. S. Wales is very pitiable. “Married at an early age, she has not only to bear and rear the children, but she does all the heavy work of the family; in camp, it is her duty to put up the rude windshelter of sticks and foliage which serves them as a home, to make a fire and keep it burning, and to cook the food; on the march, she carries in a bag, resting on her back and slung from her neck, all their portable property, and seated on this bag is her youngest child, … in this bag, in addition to the few utensils she requires for domestic labours, she has a yam-stick with which to dig up the numerous native roots which are used as food, a supply of these and other articles of food required for a meal, a quantity of native string and hooks for catching fish.… For the ready kindling of a fire, whenever it is required, she has to carry with her a smouldering piece of firewood; if she allows this to go out, and thus puts her lord and master to the labour of getting fire by friction, or if she in any other way gives him displeasure, he will beat her severely, even till her body is covered with bruises and her hair is matted with blood”. At Victoria River Downs Station an old man generally has many wives, “probably to work and get food for him, for in their wild state the man is too proud to do anything except carry a woomera and spear.” In Western Victoria “after marriage the women are compelled to do all the hard work of erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children. The only work the men do, in time of peace, is to hunt for opossums and large animals of various kinds, and to make rugs and weapons.” In S. W. Australia “when, wandering through the woods, the savage observes that the sky threatens rain, he enjoins his wife to erect a hut at the place which he thinks most fit, and where he intends to pass the night”. At King George Sound the women look very miserable; they do all the work. In the Moore River District the wife who has not yams enough for her husband is severely beaten (as quoted above). The Central Australian wife is the drudge of her husband. About the natives of Port Darwin we get this information: “The only reason I know of for the practice of polygamy is that, as the wives have to provide food for their lords and carry all their family possessions when travelling, the husband can lead a perfect life of indolence”. Tasmanian women had to procure all sorts of food, except the kangaroo. Ling Roth quotes a description of a Tasmanian repast: “Hitherto we had had but a faint idea of the pains the women take to prepare the food requisite for the subsistence of their families. They quitted the water only to bring their husbands the fruits of their labour, and frequently returned almost directly to their diving, till they had procured a sufficient meal for their families”. Curr, surveying the mode of life of the Australians in general, remarks: “Wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the hardest work”. Brough Smyth enumerates as duties of the wife “building a new camp, getting firewood etc. and on journeys acting as a carrier for all the worldly goods of her husband. They are packed on her back, all excepting his war implements, which he himself deigns to carry”.

This picture, surely, is very black. But, unlike Letourneau, we must not view the dark side only. We may remark, first that, as it appears from the foregoing survey, there are with regard to each of the Australian tribes but a part of the enumerated phenomena on record; the black picture is produced by blending the dark sides of each into a whole. And, secondly, the same writers relate some particulars, which prove that the life of the Australian wife is not all darkness. These too we shall arrange in the order observed above.

A. In some cases we are told, that the girl’s wishes are to some extent taken into consideration as to the choice of her husband. On Herbert River the woman sometimes gets the man she loves; she is then very happy; sometimes she runs away with the beloved man. In N. W. Queensland, when a young man and a girl are in love with each other, and the camp-council is not opposed to it, they elope, live as husband and wife for some two months, and then return to the camp. In N. S. Wales a girl, to escape from the betrothed man (oftentimes an old one), may elope with her young lover; she is then brought back and beaten by her family, “but it may be that she elopes again and again, and, if at last they see that she is determined on it, they let her have her own way”. In Tasmania the woman was stolen from her tribe, but not against her will. Most often the girl succeeded in getting from her father the man she wanted; otherwise she had to run away with him. Curr remarks: “In no instance, unless Mr. Howitt’s account of the Kurnai be correct, which I doubt, has the female any voice in the selection of her husband.” This may be true, if we take “voice” in the sense of a legally recognized right; virtually, however, she sometimes has a “voice”, as appears from the instances given here. Howitt’s account which Curr alludes to we have not been fortunate enough to meet with. According to Brough Smyth “a young man who has engaged the affections of a girl of a neighbouring tribe, agrees with her to run away at the first opportunity that offers”. They are then persecuted by the members of her tribe, as custom and law require, but not energetically. After a few days the young man and his wife return to his tribe. Except at first some scolding and muttering his new state provokes little comment. “His young wife is treated well, and is soon familiar with all the women of the tribe, to which she has become attached”.

B. a, b. Sometimes the ethnographers tell of much affection existing between husband and wife. At Moreton Bay there is often a great affection. On Herbert River “as a rule man and wife apparently get on very well”. According to Eylmann, happy unions are not unknown among the natives of South Australia. Fraser remarks about the aborigines of N. S. Wales: “the kuri or black man is usually kind and affectionate to his jiu, wife”; “in spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married couples often live happily and affectionately together to a considerable age”. On the river Darling, N. S. Wales, according to Bonney, “although young women are often compelled to marry a man of whom they know little and often nothing, they generally find happiness and contentment in their married lives. Quarrels between husband and wife are rare, and they show much affection for each other in their own way”. In Central Australia “the women are not treated usually with anything like excessive harshness”. “Taking everything into account … the life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of her requirements, in order to make life more or less comfortable, is far from being the miserable one that it is so often pictured”. Dawson, after describing the work imposed on women in W. Victoria (as quoted above), adds: “But notwithstanding this drudgery and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there is no want of affection amongst the members of a family”. Even Salvado, who so pities the S. W. Australian wife, remarks: “Sometimes I heard a betrothed man say: I love her and she loves me”. Of the Tasmanians we are told that they “treat their women kindly”. Brough Smyth makes this general statement: “It is hard to believe that even in a lower state the male would not have had the same feeling of affection for his mate and an equal jealousy of love as we see among the aborigines now”. In the same sense Bonwick remarks on the Australian natives in general: “Home life there was not quite the dark scene some pictured.… Affection is witnessed between husband and wife, parent and child, tribesman and mate”.

We may add, that the Tasmanian women, though overburdened with work, are described as a merry and laughter-loving kind of people. And Curr remarks about Australian women in general: “In every way the female’s looks to us a hard lot; and yet, notwithstanding, I do not hesitate to say that they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented.”

c. The husband does not always enjoy such an entire freedom of action towards his wife.

We even find cases of the wife putting a check upon her husband, especially in a sexual respect. On Herbert River the wife is furious if her husband is unfaithful to her. In N. S. Wales “a wife may similarly complain to them [the elders of the tribe] of the conduct of her husband, and they may order both the man and his paramour to be punished”. In W. Victoria “if a husband is unfaithful, his wife cannot divorce him. She may make a complaint to the chief, who can punish the man by sending him away from his tribe for two or three moons; and the guilty woman is very severely punished by her relatives”. “A chief who has been married under the law of betrothal, is not permitted to marry another woman for a long time; and should he do so without obtaining the consent of his wife, there would be constant quarreling”. At Port Lincoln an old, former wife sometimes forces her husband to desist from taking a young, new one.

Finally we meet with instances of the wife having a real ascendency over her husband. On Herbert River the husband is sometimes led by his wife, and even beaten by her. A curious piece of information we get about W. Victoria. When a wife treats her husband with such persistent disrespect or unkindness as to make him wish to get rid of her, he goes away to some neighbouring tribe and tries to bring about her death by means of sorcery. The wife, being informed of this, repairs thither and entreats him to return, and so a reconciliation is effected.

In Tasmania the husband could divorce his wife; but she could also force him to do so.

d. Exchange of wives does not seem always to take place against their will. In W. Victoria wives may be exchanged only after the death of their parents and with the consent of the chiefs, but not if one of them has children. After the exchange both couples live peacefully together in one hut, each in a separate compartment. If a man knows that his wife is in love with another, and he is not opposed to it, she can be amicably transferred to the other man with the consent of the chief. At Port Lincoln the men frequently exchange wives; brothers and near relatives have their wives nearly in common. The wife calls the brothers of her husband by the name of husbands. This seems rather a kind of group-marriage than a bartering of wives as of commodities.

These two instances point to the possibility that in other cases too exchange of wives may be not so arbitrary an action as at first sight it seems.

As to the lending of wives, in some cases it appears that these offer themselves to strangers. In N. S. Wales the husband “is quite ready to bargain with a white man, and with her consent too; for a black woman considers it an honour to be thus courted by a man of a superior race”. The Cammarray women prostitute themselves to Europeans for almost nothing, and among themselves without any shame. In Central Australia marriage does not impose any obligation of chastity; the wives always prostitute themselves. In S. Australia women give themselves to strangers with or without the consent of their husbands. On Moore River the wives often have connections with young men; the husbands do not seem to take much notice of it. Moreover, Spencer and Gillen warn us, that “in many cases in which apparently women are lent (in the sense in which we use the word, which is the sense in which it is generally used in this connection) indiscriminately, a knowledge of details would show that this was not so.… In the nine tribes examined by us we have found that intercourse of this nature is strictly regulated by custom”.

e. The levirate law sometimes appears in the character of a duty rather than a right of the deceased man’s brother. Fraser (describing N. S. Wales) calls it a “refuge” for the widow. Dawson, speaking of the aborigines of W. Victoria, states: “When a married man dies, his brother is bound to marry the widow if she has a family, as it is his duty to protect her and rear his brother’s children”. Salvado speaks of the philanthropy of the S. W. Australian, who takes upon himself the care of the wife of an absent friend or parent, or of a brother’s widow.

The question to be settled now is this: Are these Australian wives, and accordingly all the wives that live in an abject state, to be called slaves? Remembering the conclusion we arrived at in the third paragraph, we may put the question thus: are they objects of possession? Under B, a, we have quoted several statements of ethnographers calling them the slaves, or the property, of their husbands. We must not, however, forget Ingram’s warning against taking a rhetorical use of the word “slave” too literally. The facts recorded under B, c, B, d, and C are of more interest to us. The husband may do with his wife as he likes: ill-use and kill her, overtax her with work, exchange and lend her. It is but seldom that her relations protect her; in but very few cases is the man’s power interfered with by the chief or elders of the tribe. Therefore we cannot but admit that she is the property of her husband.

We have dwelt at considerable length on this distinction between slaves and subjected wives. There are some more distinctions to be made between slavery and kindred phenomena; but these will not occupy so much space and time.

§ 5. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.

II. Children subjected to the head of the family.

The adherents of the matriarchal theory have assigned to the Roman-like agnatic family its place as a later product of history; but to the question as to how children were treated in an ante-patriarchal state of culture they have not given much attention.

It is to Professor S. R. Steinmetz that we are indebted for the first exact inquiry into the early history of the treatment of children. His conclusions, based upon a large amount of ethnographical materials, are these:

Considering now the state of the children in the cases referred to here, are we justified in calling it slavery?

The head of the family has power over the children; and so far as it appears from the particulars given by the ethnographers, this is a legally unlimited power, that may be called right of property, and is likely to lead to compulsory labour, as among the Tlinkits and Aeneze Bedouins it certainly does. The condition of these children may therefore be expressed by the word “possession”, our criterion of slavery.

In the second Chapter we shall meet with more instances of captives being adopted either into the tribe or into one of the families within the tribe. As long as such persons are children, it is often not easy to see whether they are slaves or adopted children, for it is not always stated, as in Tanner’s case, that they are formally adopted. We must ask then, what becomes of them when full-grown. If they have still a master to serve, it is clear that they are slaves; for if they are adopted members of the community, they will be free when adult, excepting the (most often slight) moral obligations of full-grown children towards their parents. Other facts proving that the captives are slaves, are their not taking share in government affairs, when the tribe is democratically organized, and their being excluded from marriage with native-born women. With the aid of these criteria we shall try, in every particular case, to decide whether the captives are slaves or adopted members of the community. What has been said here of captives, equally applies to purchased persons.

The last two paragraphs show that there is still something wanting in our definition. Not every state of possession is slavery; those arising from family relations are to be excluded. Thus only can we come to a true understanding of the signification of slavery. For wives and children may accidentally be forced labourers and the like; the slave only is ex definitione a subjected person, a forced labourer, an object of possession. Wives and children there would be, and there are in many cases, without subjection; slaves there are not where there is not subjection and compulsory labour. A society that begins to keeps slaves, develops a new organ with a special, well marked function; and it is the evolution of this organ we are to trace in the following Chapters.

Our definition therefore wants an addition. We may now put it so: Slavery is the fact, that one man is the property or possession of another beyond the limits of the family proper.

§ 6. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.

III. Members of a society in their relation to the head of the community.

What Bastian means by heaping up these various quotations, without any order or attempt at an explanation, is not clear. We, however, must not follow his example, but inquire whether the word “slave” is rightly used here, whether the subjects of a despot may be called slaves. A few moments of consideration will show that they may not. For however great the power of the chief, the king, the despot, in a word the head of the community, over his subjects, they are not his property. “Property” supposes a power of the master, pervading the whole life, personal, domestic and social, of the slave; so great a power over his subjects a chief never has. The following reasoning will make this clear. Slavery would not be capable of much development, if it depended upon the master’s personal superiority only; for slavery to become a social system, the master’s power over the slave must be recognized by the society. The slave lives in a society that regards him as a slave; slavery cannot exist where there is not a society of freemen. Therefore the despot, however great his power, is not as such a master of slaves. The slave-owner has the community on his side; the chief has subjects who themselves compose the community. Looked at from the practical side, the chief’s power contains much more of voluntary submission than the slave-owner’s. A chief never has the whole person of the citizens subjected in his own behalf; he may exact some performances for his personal benefit, but the restrictions put upon the subjects, encroaching on their freedom in private life, will generally be measures taken in the (real or supposed) interest of the community, and approved of by the community. These restrictions are mutual, and arise from the social connection itself; this is not, as in slavery, using one person as a means to the purposes of another definite person. This yet more distinctly appears, where not a single man imposes these rules, but the council of citizens. In a communistic society there would be an entire absence of personal freedom; yet there would be no slaves, as there would be no freemen whom they could serve.

It need hardly be said, that a chief may keep slaves like any other freeman. The public power as such, the state, also sometimes keeps slaves (e.g. the servi publici in Rome). But these slaves are quite distinct from the main body of citizens.

Sometimes it is stated, that the chief, or the public power, has slaves, whereas no mention is made of any other slaves. In such cases the slaves generally become such as a punishment for some offence. Where such a state of things exists, we may not speak of a slave-keeping people. For here the power of the government is so great, that it can avail itself of the labour of the citizens; whether this is done by imposing an equal amount of labour on all of them, or by selecting a few persons for this purpose and keeping them in a slave-like state, does not make much difference. Besides, slavery here cannot have the same influence on social life it generally has; for every freeman has to work for himself. This kind of slavery may be compared with the tread-mill and other kinds of penal servitude existing in more civilized societies. And we may not speak of a slave-keeping people, where the only slaves are criminals, who become the slaves of him who represents the public power, any more than we can say that slavery exists in those civilized countries, where penal servitude is still practised.

One more remark has to be added here. Hitherto we have used the terms “possession” and “property” synonymously as indicating the nature of slavery. In this paragraph it has been shown, that an essential feature of slavery is its being recognized by the community. Therefore we prefer the term “property”, that, better than the other term, conveys the notion, not only of a virtual subjection, but of a subjection considered legal in those communities where it exists.

§ 7. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.

IV. Subjected tribes; tributary provinces; lower classes; free labourers.

We shall meet with instances of tribes, the members of which are bound to perform some kind of labour for other tribes or for the members of the latter.

That conquered districts, bound to pay a tribute in kind or money, do not consist of slaves, is clear.

Lower classes can be of different kinds. Where they are only considered inferior to the upper classes, or excluded from governmental functions, it is easy to see that they are not slaves. Greater difficulties are presented by some other cases. Sometimes a lower class consists of free labourers. Now theoretically free labourers are easy to distinguish from slaves: the slave is compelled to work, the free labourer voluntarily submits to it. But the accounts of the ethnographers do not always make it clear, which of these two kinds of labourers we have to deal with in any particular case. When a labourer lives in the house of his master and is wholly dependent on him, it may be rather difficult at first sight to decide whether he is free or a slave. Sometimes the details given are sufficient to settle the question; if not, we shall have to leave it undecided.

A lower class can also consist of serfs. What they are, and what is the difference between them and slaves, will be shown in the next paragraph.

§ 8. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.

V. Serfs.

What we have said of free labourers applies also to serfs: to draw the theoretical line of demarcation between them and slaves is not so very difficult; but practically it is not always easy to decide, whether a subjected class we get some information about consists of slaves or of serfs; sometimes even, because of the unstable terminology and the scanty information, it is quite impossible. But there are several unequivocal cases of serfdom, too, on record in history. Mentioning a few of these will suffice to give the reader a clear idea of its nature as distinct from slavery.

In Germany Leibeigene was, in the earliest times, synonymous with slave. The law placed the Leibeigenen on a level with the domestic animals. The master had the ius vitae ac necis, an unlimited right to sell them, the right to exact from them all possible services, to marry and divorce them. The owner of the Leibeigene was also owner of his goods and chattels. The lord was responsible for any damages caused by his servant, as for those caused by his horse, and might claim indemnity if any one injured his man. But gradually this slavery was mitigated into a state of subserviency. First the claim to unlimited services was waived, and on the Leibeigene were imposed definite Roboten (labour dues) and tributes. He had to work on fixed days, to perform fixed services, to pay fixed sums. His earnings legally still belonged to the lord, and the latter succeeded to his goods; but from the 13^th century the lord’s right of inheritance dwindled into a present (mortuarium). From the 14^th century the serfs acquired a usufruct of the soil they tilled, and so their obligations assumed more or less the character of a quit-rent. Sometimes they were even allowed to choose another lord. In the Frankish empire the lords were already forbidden to sell them abroad; from the 13^th century they lost the right to kill them, and afterwards also the right to whip them. The church took away from the lord the right to divorce his serfs, if the marriage had been contracted with his consent. The ius primae noctis remained longer. Moreover, the relations of the serfs towards others were gradually recognized by law, at first only as to unjust acts, later on as to contracts. And so, when at last serfdom was abolished, the only changes effected by this were: allowing of the right of emigrating, abolition of the marriage-consent and of the court-services and personal tributes.

The foregoing statements once more prove the sufficiency of our definition of slavery. As soon as the forced labourer is no longer entirely at the disposal of the lord, the latter being entitled to fixed services and tributes only, such a state of things is called serfdom, or colonatus, or subserviency, but not slavery. This agrees with our definition of slavery. The slave, as we have remarked above, is the property of his master, whose power is in principle unlimited, not restricted to fixed performances. Therefore, even if the writers referred to here called such institutions as serfdom and colonatus slavery, we are not to do so; but we may regard it as a corroboration of the conclusion we had arrived at before, that such writers, most of whom have not made any special research into the nature of slavery, when they meet with such an institution as serfdom, feel that they are not to call it slavery.

Now let us look what the theorists have to say on the subject.

The first words here perfectly express the truth: when the master loses “his property in the person of the slave”, he is no longer a slave-owner. What follows, that the master “became entitled only to his services”, is less correct; for he who is entitled to all the services of another is his owner; just the limiting of the master’s right to “a determinate portion of them” is the change from slavery to something else. If I may require all the services a man can perform, I am his owner; if I am restricted to a determinate portion of them, I am not.

This consideration, however true, will not prevent us from drawing a theoretical line of demarcation. Not a single social institution is practically strictly separated from kindred institutions; yet we cannot understand such institutions, unless we make a distinction, and not an “indefinite” one.

These quotations may suffice to show that our view of the matter is held by theorists as well as historians.

§ 9. Pawns or debtor-slaves.

In the course of our investigation it will be shown, that among some peoples a debtor, unable to pay a debt he has contracted, becomes the slave of his creditor. Sometimes such persons are ordinary slaves; but pawns or debtor-slaves in the restricted sense (who are of frequent occurrence in the Malay Archipelago, Dutch pandelingen) are a class whose slave-state is conditional; they become free as soon as the debt is paid by or for them; the creditor cannot refuse to accept the money. Because of this great difference between pawns and ordinary slaves (who generally have not a right to be ransomed), most ethnographers do not call the former slaves, but give separate descriptions of slavery and pawning.