member him as a father, to revolve, if we may vary somewhat the language of Tacitus concerning Agricola,-to revolve all his deeds and words, to recal the dignity and portraiture of his mind, more than of his person, to reproduce and draw out upon their own souls that spiritual form which is eternal; thus making whatever we loved, whatever we admired in him, to remain not only in the higher being which he has assumed, nor only in the memories of men, but equally in those habits of character which he sought while with us to ennoble and form for heaven. Possessed of these remembrances and these hopes, we linger about his grave, with reverence indeed, but not in grief. What though taken from us in the midst of life? It is all well. We can exclaim with a feeling which the Poet did not understand,

Semper honos, nomenque tuum, laudesque manebunt.

Rather the honor, the praises, of a Saviour shall remain always and forever in the rising of this redeemed spirit to glory. Meantime for us who are yet on the earth, amid its sins and its trials, may God give us grace so to live as he lived, and so,— we will not say, to die, but to live anew through that NAME in which was all his trust!

ARTICLE III.

SLAVERY IN the Middle Ages.

By the Editor.

BEFORE the conclusion of the fifth century, the Roman empire in all the West of Europe was overthrown by the Northern barbarous nations. The Vandals were masters of Africa; the Suevi held part of Spain; the Visigoths held the remainder, with a large portion of Gaul; the Burgundians occupied the provinces watered by the Rhone and Saone; the Ostrogoths nearly the whole of Italy. Among these barbarous nations, involuntary servitude, in various forms, seems to have existed. Tacitus De Moribus Germanorum, 25, says, "The slaves in general were not arranged at their several employments in the household affairs, as is the practice at Rome. Each has his VOL. VI. No. 21.

5

separate habitation, and his own establishment to manage. The master considers him as an agrarian dependent, who is obliged to furnish a certain quantity of grain, of cattle, or of wearing apparel. The slave obeys, and the state of servitude extends no further. All domestic affairs are managed by the master's wife and children. To punish a slave with stripes, to load him with chains, to condemn him to hard labor, is unusual. It is true, that slaves are, sometimes, put to death, not under color of justice, or of any authority vested in the master; but in a transport of passion, in a fit of rage, as is often the case in a sudden affray; but it is also true, that this species of homicide passes with impunity. The freedmen are not of much higher consideration than the actual slaves. They obtain no rank in the master's family, and, if we except the parts of Germany where monarchy is established, they never figure on the stage of public business. In despotic governments, they rise above the men of ingenuous birth, and even eclipse the whole body of nobles. In other States, the subordination of the freedmen is a proof of public liberty." It is not easy to determine whether liberty most flourished in Germany or Gaul. In the latter, the influence of religion was much greater, while in the former there was more individual independence. In Gaul, however, manumission was much more frequent, the slaves being made free, in order that they might, on any emergency, be able to assist their lords, who had not, like the German barons, freeborn warriors always at hand to assist them. In Gaul, the church had a much greater number of slaves, and under the influence of Christianity, slavery is always sure to be mitigated.

In the various ancient codes of law, the first thing which strikes us is the distinction of social ranks. The fundamental one is that of freemen and slaves. Besides the slaves who became so by birth or the fortune of war, anciently any freeman could dispose of his own liberty; if he married a female slave, he incurred the same penalty; if unable to pay his debts, he became the bondsman of his creditors. The code of the Lombards in Italy seems, in some respects, to have been peculiarly rigorous. For him who slew his own slave no punishment was provided; but no composition would atone for the life of the slave who assassinated a freeman. If a slave presumed to

Such as the Lex Salica, the Code of the Ripuarii, Code of the Burgundians, Lex Saxonum, etc.

marry a freewoman, the doom of both was death; but the freeman might marry his maiden, provided he previously enfranchized her. Such unions were, however, regarded as disgraceful. The slave had little hope of escape. Enfranchisement was far from frequent, and the libertus was as dependent on his patron as the slave on his owner; neither could marry beyond his own caste without incurring the penalty of death; yet marriage was all but obligatory, that servitude might be perpetuated. Manumission generally took place in the churches, or by will, or by a written instrument; and these three modes were also common to the Romans; but there were others peculiar to certain nations. In France, it was effected by striking a denarius from the hands of the slave, or by opening the door for him to escape. The Lombards delivered him to one man, this man delivered him to a third, the third to a fourth, who told him he had leave to go east, west, north, or south. The owner might also deliver his slave to the king, that the king might deliver him to the priest, who might manumit him at the altar. Among the Lombards, the symbol was sometimes an arrow, which being delivered to the slave, betokened that he was now privileged to bear arms-the distinguishing characteristic of freedom.* The condition of the liberti varied; those who were emancipated before the altar were exempted from every species of dependence. The same may be said of the manumissio per denarium, per quartam manum, per portas patentes; but if per chartam, the libertus obtained a much less share of freedom; if he escaped from personal, he was still subject to other service, and to the jurisdiction of his late owner. The rustic freedman seldom possessed any land, and if he removed, as his new condition allowed him, to any city or town, he was still bound by an annual return to his patron. He could not depose in a court of justice to that patron's prejudice, nor marry without his consent. The ingenuus, who enjoyed freedom without any civil dignity, and who was privileged to carry arms, often engaged himself as the client of some chief, with whom he fought during war, and administered justice during peace; if no client, he was still liable to military service, and to assist in the local courts. Among the Salian Franks, if a freeman married a slave, he became a slave. The Ripuarians were still more severe; the woman, who had married a slave

See Muratori's Ital. Scriptor. Rerum, Vol. 1. Pars 2, p. 90,

was offered, by the local judge or court, a sword and a spindle; if she took the former, she must kill her husband; if the latter, she must embrace servitude with him. Greater severity still was found among the Burgundians, Visigoths, and Lombards. Among the Saxons, says Adam of Bremen, it is commanded, that no unequal marriages be contracted—that noble marry with noble, freeman with freewoman, freedman with freedwoman, slave with slave; for if any one should marry out of his condition, he is punished with death. A criminal leniency towards crimes committed against slaves, and great severity towards crimes committed by that unfortunate class, characterise more or less all the German codes. By the Lex Saxonum, the mulct for the murder of a noble was 1440 sols to the kindred, besides a fine to the State; for that of a freedman, 120; for that of a slave by a noble, 36; but by a freedman, an oath of compurgation sufficed.

The perpetual wars in which these nations were engaged greatly increased the number of slaves. The Goth, the Burgundian, or the Frank, who returned from a successful expedition, dragged after him a long train of sheep, of oxen, and of human captives, whom he treated with the same brutal contempt. The youths of an elegant form were set apart for the domestic service; a doubtful situation, which alternately expos→ ed them to the favorable, or cruel impulse of passion. The useful smiths, carpenters, cooks, gardeners, etc. employed their skill for the benefit of their masters. But the Roman captives, who were destitute of art, but capable of labor, were condemned, without regard to their former condition, to tend the cattle, and cultivate the lands of the barbarians. The number of the hereditary bondsmen, who were attached to the Gallic estates, was continually increased by new supplies. When the masters gave their daughters in marriage, a train of useful servants, chained on the waggons to prevent their escape, was sent as a nuptial present into a distant country. The Roman laws protected the liberty of each citizen against the rash effects of his own distress or despair. But the subjects of the Merovingian kings might alienate their personal freedom.* From the reign of Clovis, during five successive centuries, the laws and manners of Gaul uniformly tended to promote the increase, and to confirm the duration, of personal servitude.

• Licentiam habeatis inibi qualemcunque volueritis disciplinam ponere; vel venumdare, aut quod vobis placuerit de me facere.

In a later age, and during the prevalence of the feudal system, the lower class of the population may be considered under three divisions. 1. Freemen, distinguished among the writers of the middle ages as Arimanni, Conditionales, Originarii, Tributales, etc. These persons possessed some small allodial property of their own, and besides that, cultivated some farm belonging to their more wealthy neighbors, for which they paid a fixed rent, and likewise bound themselves to perform several small services. These were properly free persons, yet such was the spirit of oppression cherished by the great landholders, that many freemen in despair renounced their liberty, and voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful masters. This they did in order that their masters might become more immediately interested to afford them protection, together with the means of subsisting themselves and their families. It was still more common for freemen to surrender their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of the security which the vassals and slaves of monasteries and churches enjoyed. 2. Villani. They were likewise adscripti glebae or villae, from which they derived their name. They differed from slaves in that they paid a fixed rent to their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after paying that, all the fruits of their labor and industry belonged to themselves in property. They were, however, precluded from selling the lands on which they dwelt. Their persons were bound, and their masters might reclaim them, at any time, in a court of law, if they strayed. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II, the villeis were incapable of holding property, and destitute of redress, except against the most outrageous injuries. Their tenure bound them. to what were called villein-services, such as the felling of timber, the carrying of manure, and the repairing of roads. But by the customs of France and Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to fixed payments and duties. *

3. Servi. The masters of slaves had absolute power over their persons, and could inflict punishment when they pleased, without the intervention of a judge. They possessed this dangerous right not only in the more early periods, when their

* See Ducange on the words, Villanus, Servus, Obnoxatio. Also Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. I, p. 121, and a note in Vol. I of Robertson's Charles V.