There were various ways of liberating slaves, and the proceedings were different in different states; it was a matter of some importance too, whether a slave was private property or owned by the State or by some sanctuary. There was no definite legal formula for the manumission of private slaves as at Rome; the State did not interfere in the matter, but only demanded a certain tax from the liberated slave. As a rule, the act of manumission was performed before witnesses or publicly in some large assembly, at the Theatre, in courts of law, etc., in order to give the freed man a guarantee of its validity. It often happened that an owner gave all or some of his slaves their freedom in his will, either immediately upon his death or on the condition that the slave should serve his heirs for a certain period, or pay a certain sum to them out of his own earnings in return for his freedom. If a slave purchased his freedom during the lifetime of his master there was a curious arrangement for establishing the legality of the proceeding, since a slave was not able to conclude a legally valid contract. We owe our knowledge of this proceeding chiefly to documents at Delphi. A mock sale had to be carried on; the master sold the slave for a sum mentioned in the contract (which was paid by the slave himself, unless it was remitted by the master) to some god, e.g. at Delphi to Apollo, under the condition that he should be free as soon as he entered the possession of the god. The slave did not then become a temple slave, but was set free by the god, probably in return for some small payment to the sanctuary. As these contracts were concluded in the presence of witnesses, usually priests of the divinity in question, and deposited in the sanctuary, the freed slave had the security of not being afterwards claimed by his former master or his heirs, and again losing his freedom. Sometimes these contracts contained clauses which pledged the slave to certain obligations towards his master as long as he lived, or towards his heirs, or to care for the burial and grave of his former master, etc. In most cases the freed slave did not immediately lose all connection with his old master; he was not a citizen, and therefore his former owner became his legal patron. It was not unusual for the contract to specify that in case the slave should die without children, his property should belong to his former master or his heirs, and sometimes this even extended to the children of the slave, supposing they in turn died without legal heirs. It may have often happened, as was also the case among some of the Russian serfs in our own time, that the freed slave was richer than his master, and we may thus explain such obligations as those already mentioned, or the condition that the liberated slave should maintain his master until his death. The right of citizenship was seldom conferred on slaves when they were set free; supposing this was the case, of course, all such obligations were omitted. This was usually done when a slave had deserved especially well of his country; thus, for instance, all those who fought at the battle of Arginusae received their freedom and the right of citizenship. The conditions at Sparta were different; sometimes the Helots received their freedom from the State, especially those children of Helots who were educated and brought up together with the sons of citizens, but the right of citizenship was never combined with this freedom. Still, it was not unusual for children who were born of Spartan fathers and Helot mothers to be both free men and citizens; the celebrated Spartan generals Lysander, Gylippus and Callicratidas, were sons of Spartans and Helots.
It would be impossible to make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and those who were the property of the State and the temples, there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably exceeded that of the free population. The injurious influence of this part of the population, who were chiefly barbarians, was felt in many different ways; and though it is not as evident in Greece as in Rome, where the disastrous results of slavery are most marked, yet we cannot hesitate to affirm that the speedy fall of Greece from her political and social height, and the sad picture she offered under Roman dominion, was due, among other causes, in very great part to the institution of slavery.
THE END.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES CONSULTED FOR THIS BOOK.
I.—Works Bearing on the Subject Generally.
J. A. St. John. “The Hellenes.” London, 1844.
J. P. Mahaffy. “Social Life in Greece from Homer to Menander.” London, 1875.
W. A. Becker. “Charikles neu bearbeitet von H. Goell.” Berlin, 1877.
C. F. Hermann. “Griechische Privataltertümer,” 3rd ed., edited by H. Blümner. Freiburg and Tübingen, 1882.