AVI linked a post by Earl Wajenberg that examines the treatment of slavery in various parts and eras of Biblical society. While his thrust is chiefly moral rather than historical, the treatment of pre-Roman Biblical society reminded me of my historical studies into feudalism and vassalage.
There is a word which is contextually translated ‘slave’, but it means just a ‘worker’ or a subordinate. This word is ‘ebed’.... In Near Eastern Bronze Age societies, everyone was the subject of someone, and everyone except the lowest tier had someone else as their subject. The ‘lord’ was the ‘adon’ (in Hebrew—other languages had the same system but different words). The ‘subject’ was the ‘ebed’.
Normally, the adon took on obligations in regard to the ebed, typically of protection and advancement, and the ebed took on obligations in regard to the adon, typically in regard to services rendered and honour due, though it might be taxes or profit-sharing.
High status was conferred by having a high-status adon, and by being given a high role in his entourage....
There is a careful breakdown of different types of this relationship, with very different levels of honor and status. In later, post-Roman society slavery was a legal institution governed by Roman law. He details this as well.
The relationship he describes between the 'adon' and 'ebed' is roughly analogous to the relationship in feudalism between the 'suzerain' and the 'vassal.' When reading chivalric romance from the High Middle Ages, our own cultural assumption that freedom is the most desirable state is often called into question. In England, there are free men of various sorts; they are often of Anglo-Saxon heritage and not very high up at all in the social structure; the most prestigious are the "franklins," formerly thanes, who inherited knightly levels of privilege from the Norman Conquest and its subsequent peace.
Yet you frequently read of knights addressing men as "Vassal," and are mistaken if you think they are talking down to them as servants. Rather, they are acknowledging that -- rather than a mere freeman, who can come or go as he likes but has no secure social position -- this person has established a prestigious relationship with a nobleman. A vavasour, in the literature, is generally a figure of quite high respect: he is a vassal who also keeps his own subordinate vassals, and outranks the knights he encounters socially.
Also, just as he describes marriage as a special case of the adon/ebed relationship, in feudal society the marriage relationship among the nobility increasingly took elements from the homage ceremony between knights and their lords. This was partly because of the increased prestige of knighthood resulting from the chivalric literature: nobles, who cleanly outranked knights, increasingly found themselves being knighted or seeking to join knightly orders (like the Order of the Garter) established by the royalty.
Much as the society depicted in Starship Troopers elevates those who serve -- "Service Guarantees Citizenship" -- ancient and medieval societies often found themselves valorizing services of certain kinds, especially of course military services. Even nearby societies that did honor freedom still honored service to clan and kin -- as in Lawrence of Arabia where the sheikh rejects the idea that he is a 'servant' who is paid 'a servant's wages,' but proclaims instead that he is paid well but is poor "because I am a river to my people!" He does not 'serve' the Turks, and is free to pursue what he calls 'his pleasure,' yet his honor is entirely tied up with the service he provides to his tribe.
2 comments:
Fascinating!
Back in the fall I read a book about Thraldom, and all the problems archaeologists and historians have with defining and pinning down "slavery" in Iron Age and Medieval Scandinavia. Unless a person was very unusual, he or she was controlled in some way by another person. The degree of control, and the rights the subordinate had, varied so much that heated arguments are ongoing as to whether Vikings and others had chattel slaves, or sold slaves but didn't keep them, or if thralls and others count as "slave-slaves" or something else again.
In a world where how you slotted into the superior/subordinate hierarchy mattered immensely, I'm not surprised there were so many variations in different cultures.
LittleRed1
I'm reading Carl Sandburg's 1926 biography of Abraham Lincoln, which quotes this arrest excerpt from a stump speech:
"''Is it the will of God that Sambo shall remain a slave, or be set free? The Almighty gives no audible answer to the question, and His revelation, the Bible, gives none--or, at most, none but such as admits of a squabble as to its meaning. No one thinks of asking Sambo's opinion on it. So at last it comes to this--that Dr. Ross is to decide the question; and while he considers it, he sits in the shade, with gloves on his hands, and subsists on the bread that Sambo is earning in the burning sun.
"'If he decides that God wills Sambo to be free, he thereby has
to walk out of the shade, throw off his gloves, and delve for his
bread. Will Dr. Ross be actuated by the most perfect impartiality
which has ever been considered most favorable to a correct
decision?'
"Then from a voice of easy, familiar talk he changed to a
high moving wail and cried: 'When I see strong hands sowing,
reaping, and threshing wheat into bread, I cannot refrain from
wishing and believing that those hands, some way, in God's good
time, shall own the mouth they feed!'"
Post a Comment