Spencer remarks: “[The captives] fall into unqualified servitude.… They belong absolutely to their captors.… They become property, of which any use whatever may be made”[4]. Although this may not properly be called a definition of slavery, it appears that he uses “becoming property” and “falling into unqualified servitude” (or slavery) as synonymous expressions.
According to Ingram “the essential character of slavery may be regarded as lying in the fact that the master was owner of the person of the slave”[5].
Lippert remarks: “The fact, that one man becomes an object of possession by another, characterizes the nature of slavery”[6].
Sohm calls a slave “a man who is not regarded as a person, but as a thing. The slave is left to the discretion of the master, who has over him the right of property”[7].
Letourneau says: “The rights of the masters over their slaves were always excessive; they were those of a proprietor over his possession”[8].
According to Schmoller “the slave is the property of his master”[9].
In the same way, Meyer, speaking of slavery, says that ancient law recognised an unlimited right of property over men[10].
Jhering also remarks that “the master’s potestas may be called property”[11].
In the first paragraph three principal features of slavery have been enumerated. We see that our theorists attach most importance to the first feature: “property” or “possession”[12]. [[7]]Whether we can agree with them will be shown in the next paragraph.