1Ingram, p. 261.↑2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑5Ingram, p. 262.↑6Lippert, II p. 534.↑7Sohm, p. 106.↑8Letourneau, p. 492.↑9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑11Jhering, II p. 167.↑12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑15Sohm, p. 106.↑16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑17Bancroft, p. 349.↑18Letourneau, p. 27.↑19Idem, p. 45.↑20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑24Hore, p. 11.↑25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑39Ibid., p. 196.↑40Sohm, p. 363.↑41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑53Puchta II p. 97.↑54Ingram, p. 262.↑55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑60Puchta, II p. 264.↑
1Ingram, p. 261.↑2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑5Ingram, p. 262.↑6Lippert, II p. 534.↑7Sohm, p. 106.↑8Letourneau, p. 492.↑9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑11Jhering, II p. 167.↑12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑15Sohm, p. 106.↑16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑17Bancroft, p. 349.↑18Letourneau, p. 27.↑19Idem, p. 45.↑20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑24Hore, p. 11.↑25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑39Ibid., p. 196.↑40Sohm, p. 363.↑41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑53Puchta II p. 97.↑54Ingram, p. 262.↑55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑60Puchta, II p. 264.↑
1Ingram, p. 261.↑2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑5Ingram, p. 262.↑6Lippert, II p. 534.↑7Sohm, p. 106.↑8Letourneau, p. 492.↑9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑11Jhering, II p. 167.↑12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑15Sohm, p. 106.↑16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑17Bancroft, p. 349.↑18Letourneau, p. 27.↑19Idem, p. 45.↑20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑24Hore, p. 11.↑25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑39Ibid., p. 196.↑40Sohm, p. 363.↑41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑53Puchta II p. 97.↑54Ingram, p. 262.↑55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑60Puchta, II p. 264.↑
1Ingram, p. 261.↑2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑5Ingram, p. 262.↑6Lippert, II p. 534.↑7Sohm, p. 106.↑8Letourneau, p. 492.↑9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑11Jhering, II p. 167.↑12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑15Sohm, p. 106.↑16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑17Bancroft, p. 349.↑18Letourneau, p. 27.↑19Idem, p. 45.↑20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑24Hore, p. 11.↑25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑39Ibid., p. 196.↑40Sohm, p. 363.↑41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑53Puchta II p. 97.↑54Ingram, p. 262.↑55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑60Puchta, II p. 264.↑
1Ingram, p. 261.↑2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑5Ingram, p. 262.↑6Lippert, II p. 534.↑7Sohm, p. 106.↑8Letourneau, p. 492.↑9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑11Jhering, II p. 167.↑12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑15Sohm, p. 106.↑16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑17Bancroft, p. 349.↑18Letourneau, p. 27.↑19Idem, p. 45.↑20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑24Hore, p. 11.↑25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑39Ibid., p. 196.↑40Sohm, p. 363.↑41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑53Puchta II p. 97.↑54Ingram, p. 262.↑55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑60Puchta, II p. 264.↑
1Ingram, p. 261.↑
1Ingram, p. 261.↑
2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑
2In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use of the term “slavery”.↑
3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑
3Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.↑
4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑
4Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.↑
5Ingram, p. 262.↑
5Ingram, p. 262.↑
6Lippert, II p. 534.↑
6Lippert, II p. 534.↑
7Sohm, p. 106.↑
7Sohm, p. 106.↑
8Letourneau, p. 492.↑
8Letourneau, p. 492.↑
9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑
9Schmoller,GrundrissI p. 339.↑
10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑
10E. Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.↑
11Jhering, II p. 167.↑
11Jhering, II p. 167.↑
12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑
12This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.↑
13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑
13Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.↑
14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑
14Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.↑
15Sohm, p. 106.↑
15Sohm, p. 106.↑
16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑
16Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.↑
17Bancroft, p. 349.↑
17Bancroft, p. 349.↑
18Letourneau, p. 27.↑
18Letourneau, p. 27.↑
19Idem, p. 45.↑
19Idem, p. 45.↑
20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑
20Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 139.↑
21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑
21Ratzel,Völkerkunde, II p. 66.↑
22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑
22Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the majority of Australian tribes.↑
23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑
23Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek: The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station: Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid. pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay: Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz,pp.100, 160–164, 213; N. S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling (N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai: Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp. 141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln: Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia: Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne,Die Eingeborenen Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251; Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102, 558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322; Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.: Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66, 68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125,46; Australia in general: Curr, I pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr. Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.↑
24Hore, p. 11.↑
24Hore, p. 11.↑
25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑
25Pinart, pp. 44, 45.↑
26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑
26Steinmetz,Strafe, II p. 45.↑
27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑
27Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.↑
28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑
28See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz,Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.↑
29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑
29Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wieldedbythe master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the truth.↑
30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑
30Meyer,Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.↑
31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑
31Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 180, 181.↑
32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑
32Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”↑
33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑
33Steinmetz,Strafe,II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern.”↑
34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑
34Steinmetz.Strafe,II p. 190 (after Bancroft).↑
35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑
35Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).↑
36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑
36Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).↑
37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑
37Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).↑
38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑
38Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).↑
39Ibid., p. 196.↑
39Ibid., p. 196.↑
40Sohm, p. 363.↑
40Sohm, p. 363.↑
41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑
41Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that clearly shows the high degree of development of thepatria potestaspossible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves, and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a strictpatria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.↑
42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑
42Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see Steinmetz,Strafe, II pp. 215—217.↑
43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑
43See Lippert, II p. 535.↑
44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑
44Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.↑
45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑
45Bastian,Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2. Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of the king.↑
46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑
46Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).↑
47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑
47Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.↑
48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑
48See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.↑
49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑
49Siegel, pp. 328–330.↑
50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑
50Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.↑
51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑
51Schröder, p. 41. He states that theseHörigenwere also calledlatioraldio(l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those described by Brunner.↑
52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑
52Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.↑
53Puchta II p. 97.↑
53Puchta II p. 97.↑
54Ingram, p. 262.↑
54Ingram, p. 262.↑
55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑
55Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.↑
56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑
56Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A. C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has to work at definite periods.↑
57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑
57Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).
We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other relations of a compulsory nature.↑
58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑
58Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.↑
59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑
59Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken,Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.↑
60Puchta, II p. 264.↑
60Puchta, II p. 264.↑