When discussing ancient and modern slavery, legally the slave is always likened to a piece of property. The ancient Athenian societal model, laid in Plato’s Laws, likens the status of slaves to much more than a piece of property. Noted in the pages of Laws Plato reveals much about the legalistic and social views on slavery. Not once is a slave referred to as a slave but as a servant, and the master not a master, but a lord (Morrow 189). A slave lives within the confines of the lord’s home and is defined as being a valuable member of the oikos, the ancient greek family unit. The very fact that the slave is considered a subject, however, implies his possession of something like personality, and this becomes more marked in the following characteristics of the slave’s status. Plato notes that the best way to curb dissent among slaves is to treat them with mutualistic respect, as one would treat any other citizen (Morrow 190). While a great many masters did not adhere to this suggestions, it is worth mentioning that the addition of this sentiment by Plato meant that a great many members of the Athenian community felt this way. Plato extensively highlights that the slave is the easiest and most vulnerable to unjust action in the community, and should not be akin to such actions because of the slave’s status. A slave was judged as a subject under the law, and was subject to the same laws as freemen. Thusly, a slave can be tried under these laws and subject to the same punishments as many freemen. The only distinction that should be made is that slaves were subject to punishments from the state as well as the master.
Like citizens, slaves found protection within the scope of religious and even official Attic Law. Like any person, free or slave, it was considered religiously unacceptable to murder as it was considering polluting the soul. Should the master kill his slave, religiously he is considered as polluted as if he killed a citizen such as himself. This religious pollution does not apply to the killing of enemies or animals, so why should it apply to the killing of slaves? Noted ancient scholar Morrow writes, “Purification is most significant that these rules apply to slaves as to freemen. Not only does the murder of a slave, like the murder of a freeman, involve pollution, but a slave who commits homicide is polluted and must be purified like any freeman” (Morrow 192). The slave is very clearly likened to the same religious rights as that of a freeman. A slave could as well seek refuge in any religious temple without fear of persecution or oppression. Under the pretext of Attic Law, a slave had to be tortured to give credible testimony in a trial, but in the case of murder a slave could give testimony without torture and act in his or her own defense (Morrow 191). Slaves could participate as equals in a significant part of Attic democracy. In some case studies, it was found that slaves could act in a capacity within the Attic police force, detaining free men with the authority of the state. In comparison to the modern perception of slavery, it can be summed up by saying “In the attempt to conceive a Negro police force in our southern states before slavery was abolished one may find a measuring rod for the immense disparities which may exist between one form of slavery and another” (Westerman 338). This highlights the immense diversity within the relationship between master and slave, when it comes to various forms of slavery. Through legal and religious boundaries, the slave gained more power within the context of the power balance in the master slave relationship.
The juxtaposition of the facts of modern and ancient slavery could not be more polarizing. The truth of this fact comes from the norm that many slaves had second lives away from their masters. Many slaves in the ancient had varying amounts of freedom, ranging from the ability to live away from their masters to owning and operating their own business and maintain a certain level of profit. In many cases, it was this entrepreneurship that many masters received their living from. A master would allow the slave to operate freely, and in return the slave would give a portion of his wages back to the master. Through this mutualistic relationship, the master thrived and the slave was allowed to live with certain liberties his life. In this way, many slaves have been documented living lavish lifestyles. Xenophon states that, “it is necessary for the financial considerations to be slaves to the slaves in order to take a portion of their earnings, and it is necessary then to let them go free” (Morrow 194). Xenophon states that many masters become financial slaves to their own workers and must make certain concessions to them. Aristotle criticized this system of slavery where he stated that, “slavery has run amok in Athens when the captured can live superior to the citizens” (Webb 12). It is true that many slaves could have lived lives in quite lavish conditions but still be considered slaves under Attic law. This brought about another interesting juxtaposition between modern and ancient slavery. Under the pretext of modern slavery, a slave would never be allowed to work outside of the physical confines of the home or the physical location of the master, whereas in the Athenian world, a slave could leave outside of the physical realm of the master in many cases. A dependence arose between each member of the relationship, where the master would rely on the wages brought by his slave in order to financially survive, and the slave would depend on the master’s continued approval to maintain his semi-free lifestyle.
In many aspects of the Athenian world, a freeman and slave could share much about their life. There is a common misconception about Athenian slavery that the majority of slaves were exploited at the benefit of a parasitic elitist class of wealthy citizens (Bonk 15). While this may have been in isolated cases, the majority of work that a slave did, a freemen could have made a living doing the same work. In any profession that a slave prospered in, a freemen could do and did the same, as the Athenians did not prescribe certain jobs to a class system (Webb 13). A slave could occupy the same public spaces as freemen, such as the agora and places of worship. In his criticism, Aristotle again speaks to the limited physical difference between a freeman and slave, telling in the city of Athens it was almost impossible to tell the difference in a public area. For this reason, Xenophon speaks that Athens “has given equality between the slave and citizen” (Morrow 192). As evidenced in a speech by Lysias of Athens, confusion between slaves and citizens was not at all uncommon in Athens. He speaks to the confusion by stating, “they sent into it in the daytime a young boy who was an Athenian, and put him up to plucking off the flowers from my rose-bed, in order that, if I caught him and in a fit of anger put him in bonds or struck him, assuming him to be a slave, they might bring against me an indictment for assault.” (Vlassopoulos 331). There is
even evidence that slaves from different city states were brought to Athens to pose as citizens in order to testify on someone’s behalf (Vlassopoulos 334). Many times this blurring of identities was used to attack lower class citizens and claim them to be slaves based on profession on outward appearance, for political or personal purposes.Although the slave was not legally free, when not under the direct control of the master the slave could enjoy many of the aspects of free life that a citizen could enjoy. A slave could worship with free men, discuss politics and life with free men at the agora, and do with free men as they pleased as long as this mutualistic relationship with his master remained intact. In the absence of the master, a slave could very well be likened to a freeman.
This semi-elevation of status brokered interesting negotiations in the balance of power between master and slave. Having established the intense connection and stake between master and slave, each party held considerable power on each side of the table. For the slave, he controlled much of the lifestyle of the master through his work. If the slave does not produce the wage or the good necessary for the master to remain financially stable, then the master will perish. Thus, Xenophon states that it is in the best interest of the master to keep a positive relationship with his servant as to curtail disobedience and sabotage. Xenophon says to “reward him {the slave}, when the gods bestow upon us something of worth” (Morrow 197). Although the master did not always follow this rule, Xenophon believes it is in the master’s economic interest to reward loyalty through positive reinforcement. Although punishment was a common method of curtailing disobedience, and one certainly endorse by Xenophon, it was not always the most effective method as manumission was common among younger slaves. Slaves would depend on their masters for these rewards, and the possibility of manumission by being efficient and hardworking in their entrepreneurial endeavours.
The slave had considerable power in the relational power negotiations. During work, if the slave was unsatisfied in some way, the slave had many forms of passive resistance he could elect to pursue. For example, it was not uncommon for slaves to work lazily, and even resort to mild forms of sabotage such as destroying or deforming the master’s possessions or tools (Tordoff 13). The slave could resist, before the master would punish them. In this case, the slave was not a passive receiver of the power of the master, but is in this case an active participant in the power negotiations. The master does not have complete autonomy to dictate the terms of the relationship and therefore cedes a sliver of control to the slave. For the slave, compliance was gained when the slave could not bear punishments anymore or receive satisfaction for their grievances. According to Xenophon, most masters resorted to both punishment as well as reward to attain loyalty from their slaves. For the slaves, they can place themselves in a position to better depend on their masters for a greater standard of living and possible manumission.
Through this power brokerage in the master-slave relationship, legitimate relationships could form between master and slave. As Plato sums up best in Laws, “in the past many slaves have proved themselves better in every form of excellence than brothers or sons, and have saved their masters and their goods and their whole houses” (Plato n.pag). Slaves, feeling affectionate dependence opted to act as saviors of masters and households, out of loyalty and necessity. It is inconceivable that a human of considered inferior status would go to extraordinary lengths to protect the property and life of his/her master. The connection between master and slave was based on a sense of mutual dependence, and the slave often felt compelled to protect the goods of the master, in order to save the sanctity of the relationship. These types of actions highlight the slaves’ dependence on the master as well the masters’ dependence on the slave. Brokerage of a more equal relationship was a pathway for more positive interaction and more efficient and loyal output from the slave to the master.
In 5th century Athens, freedom was not a single unit. Liberty was a concept that a citizen or slave possessed or strove for. As the legal and cultural environment for many 5th century slaves proved, freedom is a divisible equation, with many variables working for and against a person in bondage. For example, a slave working in a mine or a household did not possess the same degrees of freedom as others. On the other hand, a slave working in an entrepreneurial trade shop could possess a significantly higher degree of freedom that than of the former.
Biblography
WEBB, C. “THE ECONOMIC BASIS OF FIFTH CENTURY ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 13, 1959, pp. 11–14. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41801134.
Westermann, William Linn. “SLAVERY AND THE ELEMENTS OF FREEDOM IN ANCIENT GREECE.” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, vol. 1, no. 2, 1943, pp. 331–347. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24725337.
Bonk, Emily. “Differentiating Slaves from Wives in Ancient Athens by Social Death.” Ohio
State University , Ohio State University , 1 Dec. 2013.
Morrow, Glenn R. “Plato and Greek Slavery.” Mind, vol. 48, no. 190, 1939, pp. 186–201. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2250858.
Plato. “Plato, Laws.” Plato, Laws, Book 776 , Tufts University , www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166%3Abook.