Re: post-mortem manumission?

From: Timothy Byrd <timbyrd_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:49:15 -0800

Ian Gorlick:
> > Or, consider the case of a slave who has been accumulating the
> > capital to purchase his freedom, but dies before he has quite
> > enough. Can a portion of his "freedom fund" be used to secure
> > the slave a higher status in the after-life? (and provide some
> > compensation to the slave-owner for the loss of his property.)

David Weihe:
> What makes you think that the slave could pass along its
> capital? This would imply that the slave could properly keep
> property from its owner, which is absurd on the face of it.
> When a horse dies, does its foal get its tack, or is it the
> master's property to use on whichever horse he deems best?

Whether it's absurd depends on what model you are using for slavery. The only printed source I can think of is "The Richest Man in Babylon", and IIRC, the assumption there is that slaves can own property (and even other slaves) of their own. Of course if a slave who is sold to the King to work on the city walls, may never get a chance to earn back his freedom. It also seems to me that slavery worked somewhat this way in Rome.

It might be a difference of attitude coming from "these slaves are captured enemy soldiers from that big battle - it could have happened to me" instead of "this entire clan/nation/culture is inferior to us and fit for nothing better than slavery".

• -- Tim

  ---