foreign Christian, who had fled from his home because of persecution, had been taken in by another Christian, whom he served for many years for wages; he was finally rated as a slave by his master, and sold. Regino of Prüm, in whose time this occurred, disapproved of it very strongly.32 But who ever protested against the slave-trade as such? A slight change of opinion seems to be evident at the synod summoned to Coblenz by the Frankish King Charles the Simple and Henry I. of Germany. It was there asked what should be done. with one who sold a Christian. The unanimous answer was, that he should be considered guilty of murder.33 But note well that there is no mention of the selling of non-Christians. Even the evil specifically mentioned in the decree was not extirpated by it, as is evident from an Ordo Poenitentiae of the time of Otto III.34 In 1009 in England, the only censure is that Christians, sometimes innocent. ones, were sold out of the country, even to heathen people.35 In the time of Gregory VII., the Scots still sold their wives.36 According to the synod of Szabolcs (1092), if a priest instead of taking a wife had chosen a servant or a slave as a companion, she was to be sold and the proceeds were to be given to the bishop.37 A shocking condition is revealed by a decree of the synod of London (1102): "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals."38 The stern prohibition provokes sympathy, and reflects credit on the English bishops. Still, it is to be observed that the slave-trade, not slavery, was condemned. And did this sentence affect every form of slavetrade, or only that particular form then prevalent in England? Be that as it may, the slave-trade continued in England. The English, even before they suffered from poverty and starvation, were in the habit of offering their sons and relatives for sale in Ireland. The Irish obtained English slaves not only from merchants, but also from robbers and pirates. On the other hand. the English penetrated into Ireland and made slaves of the Irish.3 39 32 33 Regino, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, 1. 11., interr. 77, p. 214. Synod of Coblenz (922), c. 4, in Pertz, Mon. Germ., Leges, II. 17. "See the Ordo, with questions, in Schmitz, p. 748. 35 Synod of Aenham (1009), in Mansi, XIX. 300. "Gregory VII., Ad Lanfrancum Cantuariensem, ibid., XX. 374. 37 Synod of Szabolcs (1092), c. 2, ibid., p. 759. Synod of London (1102), c. 27, ibid., p. 1152: "ne quis illud nefarium negotium, quo hactenus in Anglia solebant homines sicut bruta animalia venundari, deinceps ullatenus facere praesumat." 39 Synod of Waterford, according to Giraldus Cambrensis (1158), ibid., XXI. 861; synod of Armagh (1171), ibid., XXII. 123 ff. The synod of Herstal (779) under the presidency of Charlemagne decreed that slaves could be sold only in the presence of a representative of the ecclesiastical or temporal power, that is, of the bishop or count, the archdeacon or the centenarius.40 What was the object of this order? Perhaps it was to regulate the slave-trade, to subject it to hard and fast rules. 41 Some came under the power of others through theft; both freemen and slaves were stolen. Slavery was also ordained as a punishment for theft, prostitution or other sins.42 From all appearances, medieval society must have contained a much larger number of slaves than has been generally supposed.43 In spite of all prohibitions Christian slaves served Jewish masters.** Mothers had their children nursed by slaves. 45 Monasteries possessed slaves. From the penitential of the Greek Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, it appears that the Greek monks did not have slaves, but that the Roman monks did.46 47 A shocking fact is that the Church herself often possessed slaves. We find slaves of the Church in Spain, in the kingdom of the Franks,48 in Germany, 4 in Hungary,50 in Italy.51 49 Occasionally slaves of the Church were admitted to holy orders. The synod of Toledo (655) required, however, that they must first have secured emancipation through the bishop.52 Clerics of this kind were forbidden to acquire private property. They could not inherit or buy anything from parents or relatives. Should they in the name or through the assistance of some free man succeed in acquiring anything, they were to be whipped and imprisoned until the Church recovered the 40 Synod of Herstal (779), c. 19, in Pertz, Mon. Germ., Leges, I. 38. 41 Synod of Neuching (772), c. 3, in Mansi, XII. 854: Regino, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, 1. 11., interr. 41, p. 209; Poenitentiale Valicellanum I., c. 62, in Schmitz, p. 296. 42 Poenitentiale Theodori, c. 12, par. 8, in Wasserschleben, p. 214. 43 Synod of Soissons (853), c. 10, in Pertz, Mon. Germ., Leges, I. 418; Nicolas I., Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, c. 21, in Mansi, XV. 412; synod of Mainz (888), c. 12, ibid., XVIII. 81 ff.; synod of Rome (1078), ibid., XX. 506. "Twelfth synod of Toledo (681), c. 9, ibid., XI. 1035 ff.; Regino, De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis, 1. II., interr. 41, p. 210. 45 Epistola Pastoralis Vulfadi, in Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, p. 102. 46 Poenitentiale Theodori, c. 8, par. 4, in Wasserschleben, p. 210. 47 Synod of Emerita (666), c. 15, in Mansi, XI. 83 ff.; synod of Toledo (675), c. 6, ibid., p. 141; synod of Saragossa (691), c. 4, ibid., XII. 44 ff. 48 Synod of Aachen (817), Capitula ad Episcopos, c. 6, in Pertz, Mon. Germ., Leges, I. 207; Hludovici I. Capitulare, c. 13, ibid., p. 216. 49 Synodal statutes of Boniface, c. 7, in Mansi, XII., app., p. 108. 50 Synod of Gran (1114), c. 29, ibid., XXI. 106. 51 Synod of Pavia (1018), c. 3, in Pertz, Leges, II. 562. 52 Synod of Toledo (655), c. 11, in Mansi, XI. 29. deeds to the acquired property.53 It was cruel law that sons and daughters of such ecclesiastics, of whatever rank, even though born of a free mother, were, together with all their property, regardless of how it was acquired, to remain the property of the Church, never to be freed from their sad state.54 A pronouncement of the great synod of Aachen discloses something astonishing: "Many bishops admit into the number of the clergy only bondmen, who dare not complain of any treatment because they fear hard blows or a cruel reduction to slavery. This is not to say that persons of good reputation among the slaves of the Church may not be admitted to holy orders, but, that no prelate shall entirely exclude the nobles." Church slaves could accept no protection from another authority.56 No one might buy the inheritance of a slave of the Church; if he did, he lost both the purchase money and the object bought. It was Charlemagne who, probably at the mixed assembly of princes and bishops at Paderborn (785), issued the capitulary, which among other things was designed to secure revenue for local churches. The peasants were to vacate for the church to which they belonged a farm-yard and two mansi of land, and each one hundred and twenty of them were to give the church a male and a female slave.58 The Trullan synod (692) decreed that the freeing of a slave must occur before three witnesses.59 A synod of Berkhampstead assumed that emancipation took place at the altar.60 Did the Church earnestly promote the freeing of slaves? She decreed that Jews might not buy or possess Christian slaves; if they Synod of Pavia (1018), c. 5, in Pertz, Leges, II. 562. Ibid., c. 4, ibid. At the synod of Gran (1114), c. 29, in Mansi, XXI. 106, it is said that children of such clerics "inter liberos ecclesiae habeantur ". This probably has the same meaning, but Hefele has translated it in another sense: they "werden freie Angehörige der Kirche". Conciliengeschichte, sec ond ed., V. 323. Synod of Aachen (816-817), c. 119, in Mansi, XIV. 230 ff. "Synod of Leon (1012), c. 7, in Mansi, XIX. 337. A similar idea is contained in a decree of the synod of Aschaffenburg (1292), c. 22, ibid., XXIV. 1093: "De servis et mancipiis ecclesiarum in civitatibus residentibus, post eorundem servorum mortem ecclesiae debita jura quorum servi et mancipia fuerunt, recipere minime prohibeantur." Hefele translates as follows: "Ist der Knecht oder Sklave einer Kirche, der in einer Stadt wohnte, gestorben, so darf die Kirche nicht gehindert werden, das in Empfang zu nehmen, was ihr bei solchem Todfalle zusteht." 58 Capitulare, c. 15, in Pertz, Leges, I. 49. 61 did, such slaves became free. Vinniaus fixes as one of the punishments of a perjurer the manumission of a slave; but he allows the substitution of a donation to the poor equivalent to the slave's price; elsewhere the punishment was emancipation and a fine.63 The female slave who bore her master one or more sons, or in general who bore him children, was freed.65 64 Otherwise the freeing of slaves was hindered rather than helped. If a father in his will granted freedom to all his slaves, his daughter could require the restoration of one-third of them on the ground of the illegality of the testament.66 67 From the fact that the Church was not disposed to give her freedmen entire independence, and nearly always attached severe conditions to liberation, it can be most easily seen that she was not inclined to adopt mild policies toward her slaves. Bishops could not free slaves of the Church, unless they reimbursed the Church out of their own property. Otherwise, it was said, they would be taking from the poor what they did not themselves give. A bishop's successor might reclaim men freed by him."7 In the eleventh century these regulations were included by Burchard of Wormses and Ivo of Chartres in their collections of canons. They were inserted by Gratian7 and in the decretals of Gregory IX."1 If a bishop desired to free a church slave, without reserving the right of protection to the Church, he must in council give the Church, in place of the one freed, two other slaves equally valuable and disposing of an equal amount of money. This exchange was made permanent through a document signed by the priests who were present. Under such conditions manumission was unhindered, the theory being that the bishop had previously acquired possession of the slave. Should such a freedman later complain or testify 71 1 Synod of Toledo (633), cc. 59, 66, in Mansi, X. 633, 635; Burchardus Wormaciensis, Decretorum Libri XX., 1. Iv., c. 85, fol. 128°; Ivo, Decretum, pt. I., c. 279, fol. 410; pt. XIII., c. 99. 62 Vinniaus, Poenitentiale, c. 22, in Wasserschleben, p. 113. 63 Poenitentiale Cummeani, c. 5, par. 4, ibid., p. 477. Vinniaus, Poenitentiale, c. 40, ibid., p. 115; Poenitentiale Valicellanum I., c. 21, in Schmitz, p. 277; Poenitentiale Casinense, c. 22, ibid., p. 404. 65 Poenitentiale Bedae, c. 3, par. 16, in Wasserschleben, p. 222. Capitulare Francicum, synod of Diedenhofen (783), c. 9, in Pertz, Leges, I. 47. 67 Synod of Toledo (633), c. 67, in Mansi, X. 635. 6s Burchardus Wormaciensis, Decretorum Libri XX. (Paris, 1550), 1. III., c. 189, fol. 106. 69 Ivo, Decretum (Louvain, 1561), pt. III., c. 249, p. 109oo. 70 C. 39, C. XII., qu. 2. against the church to which he had belonged, he again became a slave of that church.72 Bishops who left property to the Church, or who had acquired properties, lands or slaves for their church could manumit slaves of the Church to the value of that property.73 Frequently emancipation was coupled with conditions. son, who in his testament confirmed freedom formerly granted, limited this freedom by the words, "only under observance of the conditions set down in the brief of emancipation". the conditions made by the Church were oppressive. In general The chapter of the abbey church of St. Père in Chartres required of the freedman the perpetual performance of his former duties as a bondager (homo), The chapter of Notre Dame in Paris often granted. freedom on conditions of the payment of a large sum, either in one payment or in annual installments. The inhabitants of the village of Wissous paid at one time a thousand Parisian pounds for their freedom, those of Orly four thousand pounds.76 The same chapter freed more than one homo (slave or bondman) with the purpose of admitting him to the clergy. If, however, such an one married or withdrew from the clerical status, he fell back into his former condition. In order to prevent the property of any church slave or bondman from falling into the hands of free men, no freedman was allowed to inherit, buy, or in any way acquire property from parents or relatives. Finally, he was required to take an oath that he would not summon to court any one subject to the jurisdiction of the chapter without the chapter's consent.” The assertion that these limitations on the freedom of the emancipated were not designed to be burdens78 can hardly be considered more than a cheap evasion. A few illustrations will best show how hard the treatment occasionally was. A certain Haimo 12 Synod of Toledo (633), c. 68, in Mansi, X. 635; Burchardus, o. c., l. III., c. 176, fol. 105; Ivo, o. c., pt. 111., c. 237; pt. xvI., c. 65; c. 68, C. XII. qu. 2. Gratian adds a detailed commentary. This is evidence that at that time the matter still had practical significance. 13 Ibid., cc. 69, 70, 71, in Mansi, X. 636. 66 "Diplomata, ed. J. M. Pardessus (Paris, 1843), t. I., no 413, p. 212: quos de servientebus meis per aepistolam ingenuetatis laxavi, in integra ingenuetate resedeant; tamen secundum quod eorum aepistolas loquetur." 73 Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint Père de Chartres, ed. Guérard (Paris, 1840), (Collection des Cartulaires de France), t. II., no. 27, p. 286: "fidelitate erga ecclesiam nostram et libero hominio ex more retento". 16 Cartulaire de l'Eglise de Notre-Dame de Paris, ed. Guérard (Paris, 1850), t. I., préf., pp. cci ff. "Ibid., t. II., no. 45, pp. 66 ff.; cf. no. 97, p. 88. 1 Ibid., t. II., no. 4, p. 378, De manumissione Hugonis Olearii: non tamen causa honerande libertatis ". |