different codes of laws, but in all of them the slaves were a majority of the people. The proportion of slaves to freemen probably varied in different states, and in the same state at different times. A historian states the proportion to have been at one period as 400 to 30. In Athens, another writer states, there were three slaves to one freeman. In Sparta, the proportion of slaves was much greater than in Athens.
The greatest writers of antiquity were, on this subject, perplexed and un- decided. They appear to have comprehended the extent of the evil, but to have been themselves too much the slaves of habit and prejudice to discover that no form or modification of slavery is consistent with justice. Most perplexing of all, however, was the Laconian Heloteia ; because in that case the comparatively great number of the servile class rendered it necessary, in the opinion of some, to break their spirit and bring them down to their condition by a system of severity which constitutes the infamy of Sparta.[1]
The discredit of subsisting on slave labor was, to a certain extent, shared by all the states of Greece, even by Athens. But in the treatment of that unfortunate class, there was as much variation as from the differences of national character might have been inferred. The Athenians, in this respect, as in most others, are represented as the antipodes of the Spartans ; inasmuch as they treated their slaves with humanity, and even indulgence.[2] We read, accordingly, of slaves whose love for their masters exceeded the love of brothers ; they have toiled, fought, and died for them ; they have sometimes surpassed them in courage, and taught them, in situations of imminent danger, how to die. An example is recorded of a slave, who put on the disguise of his lord, that he might be slain in his stead. These examples, however, do not prove that there is any thing ennobling in servitude. On the contrary, the inference is, that great and noble souls had been dealt with unjustly by fortune.
As soon as men began to give quarter in war, and became possessed of prisoners, the idea of employing them and rendering their labors profitable, naturally suggested itself. When it was found that advantages could be derived from captured enemies instead of butchering them in the field, their lives were spared. At the outset, therefore, it is argued, slavery sprung from feelings of humanity. A distinguished historian remarks: "When warlike people, emerging from the savage state, first set about agriculture, the idea of sparing the lives of prisoners, on condition of their becoming useful to the conquerors by labor, was an obvious improvement upon the practice of former times, when conquered enemies were constantly put to death, not from a spirit of cruelty, but from necessity, for the conquerors were unable to maintain them in captivity, and dared not set them free."[3]
