plato and greek slavery

8/12/2019 Plato and Greek Slavery

1/17

Mind ssociation

Plato and Greek SlaveryAuthor(s): Glenn R. MorrowSource: Mind, New Series, Vol. 48, No. 190 (Apr., 1939), pp. 186-201Published by: Oxford University Presson behalf of the Mind Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250858.Accessed: 26/04/2014 13:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University PressandMind Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toMind.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.130.120.61 on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:40:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2250858?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2250858?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/17

IV.-PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY.BY GLENN R. MORROW.

I.THAT Plato shouldhave admitted lavery ntothemodel statedescribed n the Laws has puzzled and distressedmanyofhisadmirers. Somehave interpretedt as a concession o customsofhisagetowhichhe wasat heart pposed. Others ave pointedoutvarioushumane spectsofhis aw of siavery ndinferredhateven ifhe did not secretly ondemn he institution, e at leastendeavoured o ightents burdens or he lave. Stillothers avepassedoverthesubjectas somethingromwhichour gaze shouldbe avertedas quicklyas possible. But beforewe condemn, rexcuse, r eventry oexplain, lato's acceptance f he nstitution,it would be well to have as full nd exact an idea as possibleofthe positionof the slave underPlatonic law. The Laws un-questionably reats slavery s a recognisednd sharplydefinedlegalstatus. TheAthenian trangereems lwaysto keep beforehismind hethree lasses-citizens,metics r resident oreigners,and slaves-to whichhis laws are to apply,and is meticulousnprescribingifferentialenalties ndproceduresor ll importantlegislation.' The clausesreferringo slaves, hough minor artof the legislation, re sufficientlyumerous o give us a fairlysystematic icture fthe slave's status, s Plato thoughtt shouldbe in thismodel colony. And what is more theyenableus tocomparePlato's slave law withthe positive aw ofactual Greekcities, articularly iththelaw ofAthens, nd thuspermit s tosee whatchanges,fany,he wouldmake n theexisting orms ftheinstitution.

But before roceedingo an examination f the status calledSovAEta nPlatonic aw, t wouldbe wellto note thatPlato usesthisword n a variety f other ensesmoreor less closelyrelatedto the legal-moral-socialact that is ordinarily alled slavery.These othermeanings re always floating bout threateningo1 Cf. the recurrentformulae: eav pev sAEv15epos . . 'av SCSo0Aosq; ndev Tros . EavSe eevos . . eavSe So0Aos.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

GLENN R. MORROW: PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 187confuse lato's commentators,f n facttheydid not sometimesdeceivePlato himself. In order o be on ourguard et us notethree uch subsidiary r metaphorical sagesofthe term.The word OvAE'a is often sed to mean the absenceof politicalrights r ofpolitical ndependence. The final tage of politicaldegeneracyescribedntheRepublic, hen hecitizens re helplessbeneath the powerof an arbitrary nd self-seekingyrant, scharacteriseds a state of extreme nd violentslavery VIII,569a-c). And in the Laws absolute monarchy s described sdespotism&EarowrEa) nd thesubjectsofsucha governmentrecalled slaves (ovAot).1 But of course he persons ivingundera Greektyrantor an orientalmonarchwere not 3o&Aot n thesense that they were chattelsof their political superior. Thetyrantmight ometimes ell some of his subjects nto slavery,if hispowerwas great nough, ut thedistinction etween lavesand freemen ersistedwithin he body of his subjects,no matterhowtyrannical isgovernment.Again, Plato sometimes peaksof the enslaving f one state by another, s when the Persiansenslaved the GreekcitiesofAsia Minor Menex.239d,244e ffE.;cf. Polit. 308a). What is meant s the loss of the political n-dependence of these cities (the E'AEVOEpIacat av3-ovo,.dawhichappearsso oftennthe nscriptions),ot thereduction f all theirinhabitants o chattel slavery. The lattermight on occasionfollow ponthe loss of political ndependence,ut it was legallyand politically omething istinct nd worse.Again, 3ovAaE'a is used to denote certain inferior or serviletraits fcharacter,uch s preoccupation ith riflesSymp. 10d),or absorptionn practical ffairso theneglect f theoreticaln-quiries Erast.136a; Theaet.173a), or inability o control esireand passion (Crito,52c), r ncapacity f apprehending rationalprinciple Laws, V, 720b)-in short, nythingncompatible iththedepthofknowledge nd strength fwillthat belong oPlato'sideal of thefreeman (o CAEv0Epos-n the moral,not n the legalor political ense). Such traitsare regarded s especially har-acteristicfthe slave, nthestrict enseofthe word, ut they reoften attributed n the dialoguesto personswho are freemenbefore he aw.Lastly, the wordaovAEia sometimes enotesthe status andfunction f any subordinatememberof a whole. Thus Platofrequentlyeferso the ower artorparts f he oulas inbondageto (aovAEv'ovlra)he higher Phaed. 79e; Rep. IV, 444b; Laws,V, 726). In the Philebus-rd ovAEv^%venotesany subordinate

1VI, 756e ff. JovAeia and E'AevOEpIa re often regarded as oppositepolitical vils III, 694a, 698a; cf.Ep. VIII, 354e).



4/17

188 GLENN R. MORROW:principle r characteristic27a; 58a; cf. Ep. VIII, 355b). Butthe termmaybe applied to any personwho obeys or serves, sto a childobeying is-parentsr tutors (Lysis,208e),ora citizenobeying he state's officersr the state's laws (Apol. 37c; Rep.VIII, 563d). The last-mentioned se of the term occurs withpeculiar requencyn the Laws.' Plato is neverweary f preach-ing " slaveryto the laws" (8ovAeiaTroZso,uoFst)s the savingprincipleof all political order. " In ancient times," says theAthenian Stranger, the people was not as now the master,but rather he willing ervant f the laws" (JKCJv3ovAeveroZslvouots', II, 700a). In all these uses of the word3ovAcLahas apositive thicalvalue,for he" slavery ofthenaturallynferiorto the naturally uperior s a subjection o legitimate uthority,and is right nd satisfying.We are even told that slaveryn thissense s more o be extolled hanthe art ofruling; forno one caneverbe a praiseworthy asterwhohasnotbeena slave VI, 762e).

II.For purposesof exposition et me summarise n advance thecharacteristicsf theslave status as they eem to result rom nexamination fPlato's law.(a) The slave is a possession, b) but also a person, ubjecttothe arbitrarywill of anotherperson,hismaster, nd (c) subjectalso, independentlyfhis master, o law,bothpositive aw (thelegislation fthe state) and to religious nd moral aw (there-quirements f" holiness ). (d) He is protected gainstcertainforms f abuse by religious aw, and (e) in his public capacityat least,bythe aw ofthestate. But (f) hepossessesnorights faction, except n his public capacity, nd a fortiori o politicalrights. I shall explain and re-enforcehese points,so far asspace permits, y referenceo specific etailsofPlato's law.(a) It isnatural, nd at first lancequite satisfactory,oregardthe slave as a speciesofproperty;and thiswayofthinkingwascommon n the fourth entury.2 n the Politicusthe slave isdefined s a speciesof domestic nimal (289b) and again as aservant hat is bought nd owned 289d). And in the Laws theslave first omesunderdiscussion s a particularlyroublesomekindofpropertyK - a, VI, 7763, 77). In Platonic aw, as inAttic aw,slavesare sometimes alled&aSpdro8a-human-footed1 JJJ,98bc,699c, 701b; IV, 715d; VI, 762e; IX, 856b; X, 890anotealsoEp. VIII, 354c-e.2 Aristotle, ol. I, 1253b 0.



5/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 189stock, in contrastwith rerpacroaa, four-footedtock-whichbrings nto prominencehepropertyspect ofthe slave. Sincethe slave is property,hemaster s entitled o compensationoranyinjurydoneto him IX, 865cd, 68a, 882b); and themaster,in his turn, s liable (within ertain imitations) or any injuryto otherscaused by his slaves, just as he is liable for damagedone byhis other nimatepossessionsXI, 936cd; VIII, 846a).The slave is alienable propertyXI, 916a-c); no restrictionsplaceduponthemaster's ight o sell, xceptnthe caseofcitizens,who are not allowed to sell the equipment elonging o the lot,amongwhich omeslaves (the agriculturalnes)wouldcertainly.be included V, 741c; XI, 923d). The master s normally n-titled to compensationfhis slave is emancipated or ervices othe state (XI, 914a, 932d). The increaseofa female lave,likethe ncrease fa cowor a sheep,belongs ohermaster XI, 930d.)In all theserespects lato's law ofslavery,is nlya partofthemoregeneral aw ofproperty.(b) But therelation f hemaster ohis slave s notfully overedby theconcept fownership,ortheslavecompletelyssimilatedto property. The slave is usually called, not dvapc&ro3ov, butOMKE1nS' (member f the household)or SoiAos- (servant); andlikewise hemaster s not only he owner o KEKT-r-q11VOS1)utalsothe lord o'8aEcorv0'T). Themasterofthehouseholds a speciesof ruler,his authority speciesofruleover subjects. As a sub-ject it is theslave's dutyto obeyhis master'swill. The mastermay employhimforwhatever erviceshe pleases,exceptthatacitizen cannotuse his slaves in trade or manufacture orsale(VIII, 876d,879c). The mastermay punishhis slaves fordis-obedience, houghhe is to punish ustlyand notgo beyondthelimitsof " whatis holy" (VI, 777e; XI, 914e). If a slave hasrun away he may be summarilyrrestedby his master,or byanyoneelse in themaster'sfamily r circleof friends,withoutcourt uthorisationXI, 914e). Themastermay, s has beensaidbefore,ell his slaveto another wner, r evenemancipate im;but the freedman still owes certain services (OEpawrE'a) o hisformermasterwhichhe may be compelled o perform,nd herequires heconsent f his formermaster n certainmatters, orexample,marriage XI, 915a). The ruleofthemasterover hisslave is notan unlimited espotism,s we shallsee,but there refewrestrictionsmposedbythelaw ofthestateuponhispower.The veryfact that the slave is considered subject,however,implieshispossession fsomethingikepersonality,nd thisbe-comesmoremarkedn thefollowingharacteristicsftheslave'sstatus.



6/17

190 GLENN R. MORROW:(c) The slave owes duties to personsother than his master;that is, he is subject to a law distinctfromhis master's will.The later distinction etweenpositive aw and moralor religiousrequirementss not explicitly ormulated y Plato, yet is im-plicitly ecognisedt numerous oints n the Laws. Some rulesof actionare explicitly rescribed y the state's egislators,nter-pretedby the courtsofthe state, and sanctionedby penaltiesthat thestate'sofficials an impose uponan offender.Like thefreeman, heslave is boundby these aws. He can be tried ndpunished ordelicts gainstotherpersons ndfor ffencesgainst

the public,the punishmentometimes eing inflicted y stateofficials, nd sometimes y the injured partyor his represen-tatives.' The chief differences etween the freeman nd theslave as respects he law of the state are two: the freeman snormally ubjectto punishmentnly by publicofficials,nd thefreemans punishedby fines nd dishonour &ntFta),while theslave is punishedn hisbody, .e., bystripes rbranding.2Besides the law ofthe state there are otherrulesby whichthe slave is bound. His master s to teach himtheprinciplesfthe moraland religiousaw; forexample, hat incest s unholy(VIII, 838d), and that the just life is the happiest II, 665c).The most triking xampleof awsdistinct romhestate's legis-lation s to befoundntherulesfor he purifyingfa homicide.Such rules,a necessary onsequenceofthe post-Homeric eliefthathomicidenvolved ollution, erewidely ollowednGreece.3In Platonic awthey re to be interpretedya bodyofExegetes,as at Athens,whoseconnection ithDelphirather han with hepolitical organsof the state is clearly broughtout in Plato'stext IX, 865b-d). It ismost ignificanthattheserules pplytoslavesas to freemen.Not onlydoes themurder fa slave, ikethemurder f a freeman,nvolvepollution as weshallsee later),buta slavewho commits omicidespolluted ndmustbepurifiedlikeanyfreemanXI, 916c).(d) We turnnow to the protectionwhichthe slave enjoyedunder he aw. As a pieceofproperty,fcourse,he is protectedby thefact hathismaster anprosecutend exactdamagesfromanyonewhohasinjured im IX, 865c, 68a). But isheprotectedin his ownright gainstmalicious njury o life nd limb,parti-cularlv against njuriescaused by his own master We have

1Some typicalpassages: VIII, 845a; IX, 854d, 868b,868c,869d,872b, 81c,882ab; XI, 914ab; XII, 941d.2 Note the penaltiesprescribedn the above passages,and VI, 777e.Demosthenespeaksofthis principles ofa common rinciplef Greeklaw (XXII, 55).3Treston, oine,138 ff.



7/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 191already aidthat themaster's ight o punishhis slave is limitedby the canonsof " holiness and justice. Plato also prescribesthat the killing f a slave, whether eliberately,r in anger,oraccidentally,nvolves hereligious ollution hatfallsupon anyhomicide IX, 865cd, 868a). This shows that the slave wasregarded s a memberof the community f persons; for thekilling f an ox ora sheep nvolvedno suchreligious efilement.And Plato admonisheshis masters o avoid all hybris n theirtreatment f laves,using n ancient erm losely ssociatedwithreligious motionsnd embracinghewhole sphere f njuries othe person VI, 777d).'(e) Thuswe seethat he lave sprotectedy religiousndmorallaw. But is he also protected y the law ofthe state, so thathybris gainsta slave, or themurder f a slave, could be pro-secuted n thestate'scourts OnthispointPlato's law is signi-ficantlyilent. There s no indication hat legal action can betaken against a masterfor businghis sla*ve, xcept underveryspecial circumstances.Whoeverkills a slave forfearthat hewill give informationf offencesgainst the law shall be pro-secutedand punishedas if he had killeda citizen, ays Plato(IX, 872c). To understandhesignificancefthisprovisionwemustrecallthatat Athens and likewise n Plato's state)a slavepossessed he right o lay informationefore magistrate fcer-tain graveoffencesgainst hepublic.2 From thefrequentmen-tionof slave informationpjvvats) in Plato's law we knowthathe attaches onsiderablemportanceo thisfunction ftheslave;and the aw we have justcited s designed oprotect he slave nthedischarge f thisdutyto the state. But as an informerheslaveoccupies omethingikean officialosition; heis an agencyintheadministrationf ustice; and thustheonly aw inwhichtheslave's person s explicitly rotecteds onewhosepurpose sto protecthim nwhat onemaycall hispublic capacity. Otherthan this there s no indication hatan action will lie againstapersonwhohas injured slave, apartfrom n actionfordamageswhich hemastermay bring fthe injuryhas been causedby athird arty. Where he public nterests not nvolvedthe slaveis protected,t wouldseem,onlybyhismaster's onscience ndthefearofreligious enalties.(f) Lastly, heslave swithoutny power f egalactionexceptin what I have called his publiccapacity. Besides theright f

1For the meaning fhybrisn Attic aw, see Lipsius,Attischesecht,421-428; Gernet,Recherchesurle Developpemente la PenseeJuridiqueetMorale nGr&ce,83-187; Partsch,Archiv iirPapyrusforschung,I, 62.2 Bonner, videncen Athenian ourts, 9; Laws, XI, 914a, 917d,932d.



8/17

192 GLENN R. MORROW:'vvats-,lreadymentioned, latonic law also permits he slaveto give testimonyn murder ases withouttorture, nd evento act as avv'4yopos,or assistantprosecutor,n such cases (XI,937ab). The general uleofAttic aw(and clearly lso ofPlatoniclaw) was that slave evidence ouldbe admitted n court nlywhengivenunder orture. The peculiar mportancef lave testimonyin murdercases was recognised lso in Attic law, althoughwhether,ikePlato, t allowed uchtestimonyobegiven n courtwithout hetortures a matter fdispute.' Hereagain, both aswitnessand as avviryopos the slave is acting for the public

interest,nd this factdoubtless xplains heunusual measure flegal capacityconferredponhim. In no othercases does theslave appear to have any rightof action under Platonic law.In otherwords,forthe legal protection f his purely privateinterests e is dependentntirely ponhis master, r upon someother personactingforhis master. And a fortiorihe has nopoliticalrights.2These are, in brief, he characteristicsf the Soz3Aos-nderPlatonic law. Their significancean be best broughtout bycomparing he slave with the citizen and the metic. Bothcitizen ndmeticpossess heright o take egalactionto protecttheirprivate nterests; bothenjoynot onlytheprotection freligious nd moral aw, but also the protection f the courts.The citizen,of course,possessesmorelegal capacitythan themetic; he has politicalrights,which he meticdoesnot,and hecanprobablynitiatecertain ypesofpublicprosecutionhatarenot within he competencef themetic.4 But metics s well ascitizens re " partnersn the laws," whereas heslave,so far ashis private interests re concerned,s without egal recourseagainst njustice. The slave's position s similar o that ofthechild,5 ut with the enormous ifferencehat the child's statusis temporary, hereas heslave's state s oneofpermanentegalimmaturity.Even after mancipatione s still egally ependentuponhis formermaster. Yet it would notbe correct o regard

1 Bonner, vidence,34 ff.; Lipsius, 73.2 Cf. the fragmentfMenander,p. StobaeusLXII, 34:4LOl so'A&s EOTL KaL KaTa#Vyii KaLvposvKal TOV^ &lKalOV TOV^ T' a Kov ravTos KPLTflso 8ea7fTOT)sV rrpos OVrOV Eva 8el 4,v C,ue.3The metic's ight osue nthecourtss clearfromX, 938be.

4 Though t s possible hata metic lsocould nitiate ypaO4n Platoniclaw. Compare Plato's formulaypa#4aGw o'fovAo'1Acvosith the customaryAtticypaofiOawAOfvalcv ' fovAo'Pevos.5 The analogies are numerous: VII, 793e; IX, 882a, 877b,869d;XI, 937ab, II, 674a comparedwith666a; and XI, 914dwithVII, 808e.



9/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 193theslave as merely thing,utterly evoidofpersonality. Theprotectionwhichthe religious aw accords him in principle,however neffectivet mightbe in fact, s a recognitionf hispersonalitynd itsright o protectiongainst njustice.

III.If itbetrue hatPlatoat heartdisapproved fthe nstitutionfslaveryand in introducingt into theLaws was simply ccom-modating imselfo his age,' we shouldfind ome hint ccasion-ally ofhis real views,and possibly omeapologyor excuseforadvocating second-bestcheme fthings, s wedo,for xample,withregardto the institution f privatepropertyV, 739 ff.).It hasbeen sserted hatsuchhints retobe foundn theextendeddiscussion fslaveryn Book VI, 776b-778a, he only passageinwhichPlato treatsofthe institutionn general. Let us brieflyrecall thecontents f this passage.The discussion f slavery s introduceds partof a discussionof property. There are somekinds of property,he Athenian

Stranger ays,whichare easy to understand nd easy to own(OVTE vor7latXaAEaovvTEKT71caaOat);but the property alledslavespresentsll sorts fdifficultie'(xaAE1TaTcvl). Thereign-ing opinions nthesubject re a mixture ftruth nd falsehood,just as theusual treatment f slaves is a combination f the ex-pedientwith he nexpedient. Pressedfor n explanation fthiscryptic tatement, he AthenianStranger emarks hat the in-stitution fHelotage n Spartahas causedthemostcontroversy,some ssertingnd somedenying hat t s a well devised rrange-ment (E0yEyovvZa). Similar differences f opinion are foundwithrespect o the aovAE'a of the Mariandynin Heraclea and thePenestae in Thessaly. Furthermore, en differ normouslyntheir iews s to the natureof slaves. Somemenpraisethemasthe best and most loyal of retainers; while others,followingHomer, ook upon the slave as onlyhalfa man, and treathimas if he werea speciesof wild beast. Without ommittingim-self on thesedisputedpoints, he speakerproceeds o pointoutthechief ifficultyhe egislator asto surmount,iz.,the ntract-abilityof thehumanspecies, n intractabilityhat is especiallymarkedwithrespect o this " necessarydistinction (ivayKata&o'ptats) between slave and freeman. He then makes twoproposals or he colony hey reestablishing:first,heslavesaretobe of differentationalities nd languages. o that revoltswill

1As was maintained y Ritter, latos Gesetze: Kommentar,173 andPlaton, II, 604 ff.13



10/17

194 GLENN B. MORROW:be less ikely ooccur; andsecondly,he slaves aretobeproperlytrained, reated ustlybutsternly,nd notspoiledby indulgenceor familiarity.It is significanthat Plato does not say (as in the analogouspassage dealing with privateproperty) hat in the best statethere will be no slavery. And thoughhe refers o variousopinionsabout slaveryhe does not mention he doctrine hatslavery s contrary o nature, hough his doctrinewas almostcertainlyn the airbythis time.1 More thanthis, heAthenianStranger allsthedistinctionetween lave and freeman neces-sary one. Necessity, f course, s relativeto conditions; andsince the Athenian tranger oes not specifymoreparticularlywhatthe circumstancesre thatmakeslaverynecessary,we areat liberty o suppose a greatmany things. Neverthelesshisstatementwould most naturallybe interpreted, think,as aqualified pproval of,rather han a seclet protest gainst, heinstitutionfslavery.2A morepromisingine of nquirys to ask how Plato's law com-pareswith he Athenianawofslavery. If Plato disapproved fthe nstitution,t is hardly onceivable hat hewouldhave com-pletely accommodatedhimself o the practicesof even such arelatively umane aw as that ofAthens. Somewhere nthe de-tails of his legislationwe shouldfind nnovations or ncreasingthe protectionfslavesagainstabuse,orencouragingmancipa-tion,or substitutingegal methodsfor directaction in dealingwith laves. Butwefindnothing fthissort. After omparinghis law of slaverywith whatwe knowofAthenian aw, one isimpressedby the generalconformityf the two codes to oneanother. But Plato does occasionally depart fromAthenianpractice, nd the strikinghing s that in almostall such casestheresults togivetheslavea distinctlyess iberalposition hanhe had underAttic aw. There are fourpoints n particular owhich ttentionhouldbe called.1. Thefirst oint oncernshepunishmentf lavesfor ffencesagainst he aws. It was a common rinciplefGreekaw,as hasbeensaid,thattheslaveshouldbe punishedwith tripes,whereas

1The MeMseniakosf the SophistAlcidamas, contemporaryf Platoand Isocrates, dvocatedthe freedom f the Messenians n the groundthat naturehas made no man a slave (Miller,Or. Att. I, 316). Thedoctrines discussed t some ength y Aristotle, ol. I, 1254a 17to 1255b15. Cf. Philemon, r. 39 (Meineke).2 Yet Apelt PlatosGesetze,ote on 777b) findshere" eine versteckteAnerkennung er gleichenMenschenwiirde; and Zimmern GreekCommonwealth,85n) a recognition of theunityofhumannature ndthe absurdityfdividingffmankind nto twoseparate lasses .



11/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 195the freeman'spersonwas usuallyimmune. But Athenian awhad certainhumanefeatures hat set it considerably bove thelaw ofotherGreek tates, o far s we can udge.' Thus at Athensthe number f stripes o be dealt theslave was prescribed y law,and was equal to thenumber f drachmae o be paid by the free-man for hesameoffence;and thenumber fstripes rescribedwas a maximum,whichmightbe reduced,but not exceededbythe magistrate. Plato's law does not measureup to Attic stan-dards n these respects. Sometimes henumber f stripes s notfixed IX, 854d, 882b; XI, 914b),and where t is specified,toften eemsoutofall proportiono the Athenian rinciple fonestripe to one drachma (IX, 845a). Especially severeare thepenalties mposed for attacks upon the personoffreemen. Ifa slavehas struck freeman e is to be whippedbytheinjuredperson IX, 882ab); and if he has inflicted wound, he njuredmanmaydowithhimwhathe will,hisright ovengeancebeingqualifiedonly by his liabilityfor damagesto the ownerof theslave (IX, 879a). The slave is uniformly unishedwithdeathforkilling freeman,ven ifthe killingbe in self-defenceIX,869d,868c). The slavewho killshis master s to be delivered otherelatives fthe slainman,whomay punishhim s theywill,but he must n any case be put to death IX, 868b). The slavewho wilfullymurders freemans to be taken to the victim'sgrave,wherehe is to be flogged o the satisfaction fthe deadman'slegal representative,nd then" if he is still live," he is tobe put to death (IX, 872b).Besides the severitynay, brutality) fsome ofthesepenalties,we shouldnot fail to note the recognition f the principle fprivate vengeance. We are told by the Old Oligarchthat atAthens t was forbiddeno strike slave (i.e., obviously slavenot one's own); and we hear of privatesuitsarisingfrom heslander fa freemanya slave.2 All this uggests hatAttic awdid not permit person njuredby a slave nothis own to takesummary ction against the offender;whereas this seemstobe a fairly ommon eature f Plato's law. In a case ofmurderthe kinsmen fthe victimplay a leadingpart in inflictinghepenalty. Sometimesthey are themselves ntrustedwith theexecution f the sentence; and evenwhen he sentences carriedout by the publicexecutioner, e is underthe direction f thedeadman'srelatives,whomaydetermine ow severely he slaveis to be flogged eforebeing put to death. This is in striking

I Glotz, n ComptesRendus de l'Acade'mie es Inscriptions t Belles-Lettres,908,571-586.2 [Xen.]Const. fAthens,, 10; Aristotle, onst. fAthens, IX, 5.



12/17

196 GLENN R. MORROW:contrastwith Attic law. Though n Athensa prosecution ormurderwas a private ction ndhadtobe institutedya relativeof the murderedman, yetthepenaltywas executedby thestateofficials. Antiphon ells us expressly nd emphatically hatnoteven slaves who had murdered heirmasters, ven whentheyhad beencaught n the act,were allowedto be put to deathbythe dead man's relatives, ut were delivered o the authorities" in accordancewith the ancestral aws." 1 This showsclearlythe awof he ate fifthentury,nd t s mplied hattheprocedurewas eventhenof ong standing. In thisrespect lato's law is ananachronismn thefourthentury.2. The secondpointon which Plato diverges trikingly romAttic aw is withregard othe statusofpersonsofmixedparen-tage. Liaisonsbetween itizens nd slaves are to be discouragedofcourse; butthey annotbe completely reventedVIII, 841d).What is the status of the ofispringf suchunions A priorithereare fourpossibilities. The childmight nherit he statusofthe father, he status ofthemother, he melior ondictothestatusofthefree arent) rthedeteriorondiciothestatusoftheslave parent). Roman awseems o have decidedfor he secondof hese lternatives,ndthisrulewaswidely revalent lsewhere,forGaiusremarkshat t is a principle fthe us gentium.2 Therulevalid in Attic aw is a littlemoredifficulto determine,ndseemsto have varied n differenteriods. But we knowthat nthe fifthnd fourth enturies he children ffreemotherswereregardeds free t Athens. There s reason lso tobelieve hat,under ertain ircumstancest least, he children f lave mothersbycitizen athers ere lsoregardeds free. ThusAttic awwascertainlys liberal s Roman awandtheus gentium,ndperhapson occasionmore o. But Plato's law unequivocally doptstheprinciple fthe deteriorondicio: a childbornofoneslave parentand one freeparent nherits he statusofthe slave parent XI,930d). This s notonlymore evere hanAttic aw; itembodiesa principle ollowed owherelse, o faras we know, n theslavelegislation fclassicalantiquity. Even at Sparta the Mothakes,or children f citizens nd Helot mothers,wereordinarily ree.andoften illedmportant ositionsn thestate.43. We shouldalso noteonemodificationlato introducesntothe status of the freedman s it prevailedat Athens. Both

1Murder fHerodes,8.2 Wenger, echt erGriechenndRomer, 86; Gaius, nstitutes,, 82.3 Beauchet,DroitPrivede la R'publiqueAthelnienne,I, 407 ff. Thelaw of Gortyn eems to have adoptedeventually he principle f themeliorondicioKohler-Ziebarth,tadtrechtonGortyn,2).4 Busolt,Griechischetaatskunde,rded.,667f.



13/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 197Platonic law and Attic law provideforemancipation; but inbothsystems hefreedmans boundto performertain ervicesto his formermaster.1 He must ivenear him, electhimas hislegal patron vpou'rcar-qs-)nd performuch other dutiesas areset forth n the emancipation greement. According o Atticlaw a freedmanwho was negligentn the performancef theseobligationswas subjectto a suitfor postasy SiK-qdroraaiov),and if he lost this suit his emancipationwas annulled. Platoprovides simpler nd more summary emedy orsecuring hedischargeof these obligations. Instead of starting suit forapostasy, hemaster antake forcible ossession f hisfreedman,a procedure echnically alled a'yeLv (XI, 915a). This was theprocedure sed in arresting runaway lave,and its legal effectwasthata person oarrestedouldtakeno legalsteps o vindicatehisrights, ut hadto dependuponsome hird arty otake actionin hisbehalf,2whereas he suit for postasydid not deprive hedefendant f his legal capacity. The substitutionf the a'yetvfor hesuitfor postasy s therefore ecidedly rejudicial o thefreedmannd makeshis statuseven moreprecarioushan twasunderAttic aw.4. Thus farI have made no use of the evidenceex silentio.There recertain aps inPlato's slave-law s comparedwiththelaw ofAthens,particularly ithrespect o the protectionf theslave against personal njuryand the punishment f offencesagainsthis person. Atticlaw not onlyforbade, s was statedabove,theputting'a lavetodeathwithoutudicialauthorisation,butprovided ariousremedies orpunishing ffencesf thissort.Besides an ordinary rosecution ormurderS1K-q j0vov), whichcouldbe brought ytheslave'smaster,Atticlaw also permitteda publicprosecutionypaq)r ;3peEws-) against manguilty fhybris that s, anymistreatment,ersonal njury, r indignity)towards slave.3 The ancientoratorsfeltthisto be a curiousprovision fthe aw, nd endeavouredo explain tbysaying hatthe institutionf thelawgiverswas not so muchto protect heslave as to habituate he citizens o refrain rom ll acts of vio-lence.4 But whatevermay havebeentheoriginal urpose fthelaw (itwas an ancientone),there t was,and Demosthenes ellsuthat "man Athenians had naidthenenaltv f death under

'For Attic aw,see Beauchet, I, 475-476; and Busolt, 84.2 Cf.XI, 914e; andforAttic aw,Lipsius, 39-642; Partsch,GriechischesBilrgschaftsrecht,95-298.3For the t'K17 o'vov,Dem. XLVII, 72,which ites lawofDraco; forthe ypa'i v,PpEcw,em. XXI, 47 and AthenaeusVI, 266 ff.4Dem.XXI, 46; Aeschines, imarchus,7.



14/17

198 GLENN R. MORROW:it.' NowPlatonic awdoesnotmention heypai' b'flpews-t all,and in onlyone case (the murder f a slave informer)s anyprovisionmade for the prosecution fthemurdererf a slave.Again,Attic law recognised he slave's rightto asylum; if aslave fleeingfroma cruel master succeeded in reachingtheTheseum rthealtarof theEumenides,nd the priest ermittedhim to take refuge, e was safe from ecapture y his master.2Here again Plato's law is silenton a pointof considerablem-portance. Shall we give Plato the benefit f the doubt andassume hat he intended otake overtheseproceduresndpenal-tiesofAttic aw ? Orthathe proposed o leave theslavemorefullyunderthedominion fhis master hanwas doneby Atticlaw ? One thingis certain: if Plato had been interestednbetteringhecondition f theslave he couldhardlyhave avoidedgivingmoreparticular ttention o proceduresnd penaltiesforpreventing master's buseofhispower.In all theserespects lato's law is distinctlyess liberalthanthe awofAthens. To be sure,Plato occasionallyntroducesn-novations n the otherdirection, ut theyare exceedinglyare.Thus the slave's powerof vumatsws somewhatmoreextensivethan under Attic law. LikewisePlato's provisionpermittingthe slave to be a avuv'yopo sn a prosecution ormurders cer-tainlyhisown nvention,ndpossibly lso theadmission fslavetestimonywithout orturen murder ases. All thesechangesgivethe slave slightlymore egal capacitythanhe had at Atticlaw; but t willbe observedhatall theseprovisions,ike the awprotectinghe slave informer,flectthe slave in what I havecalled his public capacity, .e., as a humblethough mportantagent n the enforcementf the aws; and noneofthemcan befairlynterpreteds expressions f a desireto lighten he legaldisabilities ftheslavestatusgenerally.

IV.It maybe urged hat thesedeparturesf Plato fromAthenianlawareprobablyccidental ndshouldnotbe taken s expressinga principle ra fixed ispositionowardgreater everity. Onthecontrary,herewould seemto be a commonpurposerunningthrough hese innovations. All of them accentuatethe dis-tinction etween he slaveand the freeman. This sparticularlyevident n the adoptionof the deteriorondicio ordeterminingthe statusofpersonsbornof mixedunions,and in the use oftheaEvE againstthefreedman, hichwouldrenderhisfreedom

1 XXI, 49. 2 Beauchet, I, 437ff.



15/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 199at bestpartial nd alwaysprecarious. In short, latomakesthegulf etween reemannd slavesowidethatnot even emancipa-tioncan fully ridge t. And themoregeneral uggestionshattheAthenian trangermakesfor hehandling f theslavesshowthe sameguidingpurpose VI, 777c if.). The requirementhatslaves are to be of differentationalitieswouldsurely ntensifyand perpetuate hecleavagebetween lavesand freemen;whilea just,but firm nd unbendingusterityoward laveswillmakeit easier, he Athenian tranger ays,both for he slave to obeyand for he master o rule.

It is not difficulto see in these last proposalsa criticismof Athenianpolicy.' We knowfrommany sourcesthat theAthenians reatedtheir laves,whether romhumanity r fromshrewd onsiderationsfpolicy,withconsiderableeniency,rasPlato would undoubtedly egard t, with considerableaxness.The Old Oligarch ellsus, amongotherthings, hat at Athenscitizensand slaves were indistinguishable,n appearance,thatslaves livedin luxury nd stood n awe ofnobody, nd that inshort heutmost ack ofdiscipline revailed.2 The mingling franks n a democracys theobjectof Plato's bitter atire n theRepublic,nd theprivileged osition ftheslave does not escapehisnotice. The last extreme f ibertys reached,he says,whenthebought laveis as free s hismaster IX, 563b). He ridiculesthe ambitious reedman ho,having ustbeenemancipated, oesto marry is master's aughterVI, 495)-the kindofoccurrencethat could easilyhappenat Athens. The timocraticman,whoafterall is only one degreeremovedfromperfection, ill be" roughwithslaves,"Plato tellsus, though ourteouswithfree-men VIII, 549a). In short, latowould mprove ponAthenianpolicy,not by abrogating r lessening he distinction etweenslave and freeman, ut by taking t moreearnestly nd makingthe manners nd customs onform.Plato thenadoptsa critical ttitude owardcertainforms fslaveryexisting n his day. The Spartanpolicyhe regards stoobrutal, heAthenian s too easy-going. But there s not onewordofcondemnationftheinstitutiontselfn all thePlatonicwritings. There s no evidence hathe everreally uestionedtsrightness r justice. He seemsto have regarded he authority

1 Justas there s a clear criticism f the Spartans n the referenceothosewho " treat heir lavesas iftheywere species fwildbeast,whip-ping and goadingthem and therebymaking heir naturemuch moreservile han t was before (VI, 777a). PlutarchLyc.28) saysthattheslavewasmore f a slave at Spartathan nywherelse.2 [Xen.]Const.ofAthens, 10-12.



16/17

200 GLENN R. MORROW:ofa master verhis slave as in principle ully s legitimate s theauthorityf father verhischildren,r a ruler verhis subjects.In fact, according o Aristotle's nterpretationfPlato, the artof a master nd the art ofa ruler re the same. If we wish tosee Plato through he eyes of an understandingontemporary,we should turn to Aristotle's iscussionof slavery n the firstbook ofthePolitics 1252a 7 ff.; 1253b14 if.). In mentioningthe divergent iews that prevail,the contrasthe specificallyemphasisess that between hosewhosaythat slaverys contraryto nature nd those whomaintain hat thepowerofthe master(SEUVroTEa) is a kind of science uErFcr,u71),r a form f rule,like that of a kingoverhis subjects. Thelatter s beyond ques-tion Plato's view,as is usually recognized. The implicationsthat slavery s in principle egitimate, rovided hemasters repossessedof the ruling rt. Doubtless one aim of the legislatorin the Laws is to trainup citizenswho willpossessthe qualifica-tions forruling heir laves. But this s a large task, and whenthe Athenian Strangerremarksthat the chief difficultyhelegislatormust surmount s the intractabilityf human nature,Plato is thinking,s England trenchantlybserves, not solelyof he disinclinationo serve, ut alsoof hefailure fthe capacityto rule."1Thus the slave's SovAEta is, in a rightly rdered tate,sub-jectionto legitimate uthority,ovAEta n the senseso often x-tolled n the Laws. To assign to all menequal functions, ithequal rights nd duties, s to act contraryo nature nd justice;for rueequalityrequires he subordination f the nferior o thesuperior VI, 757). Thisis the lessonofboth the Republic ndthe Laws. Thus the distinction etween lave and master, ikethat betweenchildand father, r citizenand public official,sgrounded n necessary iversities f functionn the social groupand inevitable istinctions f quality amonghumanbeings. Toall this therecan be no objection; but in his application f theprinciple lato is not faithfulohis own deeper nsight. If sucha system fdifferingights nd duties s to be just, as well asnecessary,hen heright o exercise ower ndtheduty f ubordi-nation must depend upon capacity or merit,not upon heredityalone,as theRepublic o clearly ays. Andifthis differentiationis to be morally ecure, heremustbe a system f aw declaringwhat therights fthesuperiorre and who should xercise hem,andproviding dequate remedies orprotectinghe nferior artyagainst he unauthorisedxercise fpower. Just s it sa naturalmistake o assumethatthemoral antithesis etween he slave-1VI, 777b, ndEngland'snoteon thispassage n hisedition ftheLaws.



17/17

PLATO AND GREEK SLAVERY. 201nature nd the free oincideswiththe legal distinction etweenslave and freeman, o it is easy to confuse bedienceunder awto legitimate uthority,withsubjectionwithout egal remedytothepower fa superior. When uch egalremediesre acking,there snothingopreventheruleofthesuperiorrom egenera-ting ntobrutal nd arbitrarymight. In Plato's statetheslaveis in a realsenseoutside helaw,becausehe lacksthe assurancethatonly awcangive andthe aw alas can onlypartially iveit) that hisSovAa'awillbe a subjection o legitimateuthority.'Doubtless it was far fromPlato's intentionto legitimatebrutality rtyrannyn thetreatmentfslaves. Therecouldbeno finer ppeal to the conscience f a privileged lass than thefollowing: " A genuine nd unfeignedeverence or usticeandhatred f njustice howthemselves estindealingswithpersonstowardwhom t is easyto be unjust" (VI, 777d). But it cannotbe said that Plato's law makesit any less easy to be unjusttoslaves,orraises ppreciablyhestandard f,justicenthe privateempire fthemaster. HereagainPlato failed o seethe mplica-tions of one of his own most important oliticalconvictions.Conceiving fruling s a science,he first rewthe implicationthatqualified ulers houldenjoyabsolutepower,untrammelledby law. But he was led by sad experiencend reflectiono seethatqualified ulers rerare ndthat aw is theonly afeguard fjustice in humanaffairs. The primarypplicationofthisprin-ciple he saw clearly,viz., that politicalpowershould neverbeabsolute,but alwayssubjectto legalrestrictions.But there reotherforms f &EUTOTE&a besidesthe political, nd one of themisthe ruleofmasters ver heir laves. Herealsolaw isnecessaryas a safeguard f ustice. But thisapplication f his mature n-sightPlato unfortunatelyid notmake.

1Ritter Kommentar,75 f.) overlooks heseelementaryrinciples flegal ustice nhiscautiousdefence ftheposition lato assigns isslavesin theLaws. It is true hatthe" true quality which lato commendsdoes lead,when ogically arried ut,to the bovAdsa(in one sense of theword) of the less giftednatures. But thisbovAdtaconsists n obedienceto legitimateuthority nd is to be sharply istinguishedrom helegalstatusoftheslave,which lone s here n question. Thus t is misleadingto compare he boiAot in the Laws withthe thirdclass in theRepublic,forthe latter,however ubordinateheirfunctionn the state,are stillpossessedof legal rights nd legal capacity. One wouldhave to thinkofthem s lackingnot onlypoliticalpower, ut also citizenshipnd civilrights, efore heirconditionwouldbe analogousto that of the slavesin theLaws. Whenonekeepsthesedistinctionsnmind, ne willhardlyagreewithRitterthatmost menwouldprefero be slavesrather hancitizens n Plato's state,or thatPlato's attitude s essentiallyn accordwith heChristianecognitionftheworth f all men.

plato and greek slavery

Documents