The position and treatment of the slaves varied in different periods, and differed also in the different parts of Greece. Here, too, the conditions of the heroic age were patriarchal, and the distinction between free men and slaves was not so great as afterwards. Trustworthy slaves superintended extensive farms and numerous herds; old female slaves had the whole direction of the household; they were often intimately connected with the inmates of the house, and showed touching fidelity and affection for their masters, with whom they lived on a familiar footing. Similar conditions existed in later times too, but only in remote pasture districts, such as Arcadia, where even in the historic age the slaves were almost regarded as members of the family, ate at the same table as their masters, and shared their labours and recreations. Generally speaking, the Dorians were regarded as stern masters, and the Athenians as kinder and more considerate; in fact, a common reproach against the Athenians was that their kindness degenerated into weakness, and that the slaves were nowhere so insolent as at Athens; they expressed themselves freely, it was said, did not give way even to free citizens in the street, they drank, they met together for common banquets, carried on love affairs, etc., just like free men. These reproaches seem not to have been altogether exaggerated, as is proved by the important part played by slaves in the newer Attic comedy; they were usually insolent, cunning fellows, who cared little for an occasional beating, and were always ready to play their masters a trick, or to intrigue with the sons against their stern fathers. Still it was not unusual in Attica for slaves to run away, and therefore the slave-owners tried to prevent this by stern supervision, and even by chaining and branding. It is natural that the temperament of the Athenians, which changed quickly from extreme to extreme, should not often succeed in finding the right mean between severity and kindness, and therefore, in their sudden transitions from excessive consideration to severest cruelty, a real feeling of attachment between slaves and masters was very rare; still there were instances of devoted fidelity on the part of the slaves, and many inscriptions still extant speak of such devotion continuing even to the grave.
The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour—for instance, in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but, at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. These severe punishments were generally reserved for special cases of obstinacy, theft, or such like; as a rule, the slaves were treated much as our servants are. Their masters gave them the ordinary dress of artisans and workmen—the exomis, or short garment with sleeves (compare the terra-cotta figure, No. 206);
Fig. 206.
their food was simple but nutritious, chiefly barley porridge and pulse, sometimes meat; their drink was the cheap wine of the country; they had their own sleeping apartments, usually those of the male slaves were separated from those of the female, except when the master allowed a slave to found a family and to live with one of his fellow-slaves. Legal marriages between slaves were not possible, since they possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves, and when they had saved the necessary amount they could purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to agree, for he was not compelled. Generally speaking, the position of the public slaves was even more favourable. There were certain occupations which free men were unwilling to undertake, and for this purpose the State used slaves; thus, for instance, at Athens the executioner, torturers, gaolers, and police were all slaves; they had their own dwellings assigned them by the State, could possess property, and received a small salary from the State out of which they had to feed and clothe themselves; they could also earn money by other kinds of work, and sometimes attained a position of fortune. Some of them, as for instance the Athenian police, held a position which gave them certain rights over the citizens, and, therefore, the position of these public slaves must have been a very independent one, while the numerous temple slaves also felt the hardness of their position much less than those whose owners were private persons.
The protection given to slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were differences in different states. It was only in cases of the utmost emergency that the State interfered between master and slave. In the oldest period the owner had power of life and death over his slave, but later legislation put an end to this, and at Athens, in particular, the master might not even kill a slave if he found him committing a crime, the penalty of which was death; cases of necessary defence, or such where the crime could only be prevented by killing the perpetrator, were, of course, excluded. If any owner had killed his slave without being able to justify himself, he was punished for so doing, not as severely as though he had murdered a free man, but only as if it were a case of manslaughter. Further protection against excessive ill-treatment from their masters was given by the right of sanctuary, which permitted the slave to take refuge at the altar of some god, where he found, at any rate, protection for the time being; they might even, supposing they were too cruelly used by their masters, ask to be sold to another master, and it even appears as if the owner could be legally compelled to grant this request. In other respects the State took little notice of slaves, except to forbid certain things, such as gymnastic exercises, love-making with free citizens, participation in certain festivals and sacrifices. Very curious and characteristic of the view they held of slaves, were the arrangements when a slave had to give evidence in a court of law. So bad was their opinion of the moral character of barbarians, and especially of those who were not free, that they thought the slaves could only be induced to speak the truth by direct physical compulsion, and consequently they were always questioned under torture. If in a suit one party required the testimony of his opponent’s slave, the latter could refuse it, but he did so at the risk of losing the suit. Sometimes a master voluntarily offered his slave as witness. If the torture, of which there were various grades, some of them very severe, inflicted any lasting injury on his body or health, the owner might demand compensation, supposing that he was not the loser in the case.
The mode in which slaves were used varied a good deal, according as an owner required his slaves for his own personal service or household, or used them for work in the field or at some trade, or sent them out to work for others. Among those in the personal service of their master were all who were occupied with the duties of the household and service and attendance on their master and his family. Their number was, of course, regulated by the size of the household; a poor family had often to content itself with a single slave, but very few were so poor as not to have any; in large houses a whole army of slaves was kept, who all had their special duties, though often very slight ones. There were the door-keeper, the slaves who attended their master or his family in the street, the paidagogos, the lady’s maid, the cook, the coachman, the stable boys, water carriers, wool workers, etc. This whole army of servants was usually under the direct supervision of a superintendent or steward, himself a slave, but a particularly trustworthy one, who was often trusted so much by his master as to have charge of his keys and his signet ring. The office of these stewards was of particular importance on the country estates, where they had all the slaves required for farming purposes immediately under them, and had to assign them occupations and superintend their work, unless the master undertook this or himself took up his dwelling on the estate. Slaves who could fill such posts of confidence would, of course, fetch a very high price, and their position can in no way be compared with that of ordinary slaves. The same may be said of those who possessed some intellectual culture, and could serve their masters as secretaries or readers, or even help them in scientific labours, by making extracts, etc.; but this was far rarer among the barbarian slaves of the Greeks than among the Greek slaves of the Romans. The slaves could also render their masters important assistance by technical skill; thus, in a rich household, there would be, besides the cook, a special baker for bread and cakes, also weavers, fullers, embroiderers, whose duty it was to provide the clothing. And as the slaves in the country had to work in field and meadow, to attend the vineyards, and olive gardens, to guard and attend the cattle, so the artisan set his slaves to work in his workshop, and either instructed them himself in his art or bought such as were already trained for the purpose. Even physicians often had slave assistants, and some of these were so much trusted by their masters that they took their place by the sick bed.
It was very common, too, for people who were not themselves artisans to own a number of slaves who practised some particular trade, as in a factory. Among the ancients slaves took the place of machinery, for they were tolerably cheap to buy and maintain, and thus a factory of this kind, worked by slaves, was a good investment for capital, especially if the owner understood enough business to undertake the direction himself, or if he had a good overseer. These factory owners also escaped the prejudices against artisans; to own slaves who made money by the work of their hands was not regarded as “mechanical” so long as they kept their own hands from the work. Thus the father of Demosthenes possessed a knife factory, that of Isocrates a flute factory, Lysias and his brother owned a shield factory of one hundred and twenty workers. The slaves who worked in these were not all necessarily the property of the owner. Very often a slave proprietor who did not understand a business himself, let his house to someone who carried it on at his own risk; or, supposing a master to possess among his slaves one who understood some particular trade, he let him out for a certain time at a fee (which was paid not to the slave, but to the master) to someone who could make use of him, perhaps in a large factory. In this way slaves were often let out for work in the mines, which required a great many hands; in fact, they might be let out for a long or short period, even for days and half-days, for work in the fields, domestic occupations, personal service, etc. Many of the flute girls and hetaerae were slaves, and were hired out by their owners by the hour, day, or month, an arrangement with which we are familiar from ancient comedy.
Moreover, it sometimes happened that slaves who had learned some profession made an agreement with their masters to pay them a certain proportion of their earnings, and keep the rest for themselves; sometimes these lived in their own houses and paid for their own food, and might easily earn enough to purchase their freedom.