said to have emancipated 8,000 slaves, St. Ovidius, a rich martyr of Gaul, 5,000, Chromatius, a Roman prefect under Diocletian, 1,400, Hermes, a prefect in the reign of Trajan, 1,250,1 Pope St. Gregory, and many of the clergy at Hippo, under the rule of St. Augustine, and great numbers of private individuals, freed their slaves as an act of piety. It became customary to do so on occasions of national or personal thanskgiving, on recovery from sickness, on the birth of a child, at the hour of death, and above all, in testamentary bequests.3 Numerous charters and epitaphs still record the gift of liberty to slaves throughout the middle ages, for the benefit of the soul' of the donor or testator. In the thirteenth century, when there were no slaves to emancipate in France, it was usual in many churches to release caged pigeons on the ecclesiastical festivals, in memory of the ancient charity, and that prisoners might still be freed in the name of Christ.4

Slavery, however, lasted in Europe for about 800 years after Constantine, and during the period with which alone this volume is concerned, although its character was mitigated, the number of men who were subject to it was probably greater than in the Pagan Empire. In the West the barbarian conquests modified the conditions of labour in

1 Champagny, Charité chrétienne, p. 210. These numbers are no doubt exaggerated; see Wallon, Hist. de l'Esclavage, tome iii. p. 38.

2 See Schmidt, La Société civile dans le Monde romain, pp. 246-248.

3 Muratori has devoted two valuable dissertations (Antich. Ital. xiv. xv.) to mediæval slavery.

4 Ozanam's Hist. of Civilisation in the Fifth Century (Eng. trans.), vol. ii. p. 43. St. Adelbert, Archbishop of Prague at the end of the tenth century, was especially famous for his opposition to the slave trade. In Sweden, the abolition of slavery in the thirteenth century was avowedly accomplished in obedience to Christian principles. (Moehler, Le Christianisme et l'Esclavage, pp. 194-196; Ryan's History of the Effects of Religion upon Mankind, pp. 142-143.)

two directions. The cessation of the stream of barbarian captives, the empoverishment of great families, who had been surrounded by vast retinues of slaves, the general diminution of town life, and the barbarian habits of personal independence, checked the old form of slavery, while the misery and the precarious condition of the free peasants induced them in great numbers to barter their liberty for protection to the neighbouring lord.1 In the East, the destruction of great fortunes through excessive taxation diminished the number of superfluous slaves, and the fiscal system of the Byzantine Empire, by which agricultural slaves were taxed according to their employments, as well as the desire of emperors to encourage agriculture, led the legislators to attach the slaves permanently to the soil. In the course of time, almost the entire free peasantry, and the greater number of the old slaves, had sunk or risen into the qualified slavery called serfdom, which formed the basis of the great edifice of feudalism. Towards the end of the eighth century, the sale of slaves beyond their native provinces was in most countries prohibited. The creation of the free cities of Italy, the custom of emancipating slaves who were enrolled in the army, and economical changes which made free labour more profitable than slave labour, conspired with religious motives in effecting the ultimate freedom of labour. The practice of manumitting, as an

1 Salvian, in a famous passage (De Gubernatione Dei, lib. v.), notices the multitudes of poor who voluntarily became 'coloni' for the sake of protection and a livelihood. The coloni who were attached to the soil were much the same as the medieval serfs. We have already noticed them coming into being apparently when the Roman emperors settled barbarian prisoners to cultivate the desert lands of Italy; and before the barbarian invasions their numbers seem to have much increased. M. Guizot has devoted two chapters to this subject. (Hist. de la Civilisation en France, vii. viii.)

• Moehler, p. 181.

2 See Finlay's Hist. of Greece, vol. i. p. 241.

act of devotion, continued to the end; but the ecclesiastics, probably through the feeling that they had no right to alienate corporate property, in which they had only a life interest, were among the last to follow the counsels they so liberally bestowed upon the laity. In the twelfth century, however, slaves in Europe were very rare. In the fourteenth century, slavery was almost unknown.2

Closely connected with the influence of the Church in destroying hereditary slavery, was its influence in redeeming captives from servitude. In no other form of charity was its beneficial character more continually and more splendidly displayed. During the long and dreary trials of the barbarian invasions, when the whole structure of society was dislocated, when vast districts and mighty cities were in a few months almost depopulated, and when the flower of the youth of Italy were mowed down by the sword or carried away into captivity, the bishops never desisted from their efforts to alleviate the sufferings of the prisoners. St. Ambrose, disregarding the outcries of the Arians, who denounced his act as atrocious sacrilege, sold the rich church ornaments of Milan to rescue some captives who had fallen into the hands of the Goths, and this practice-which was afterwards formally sanctioned by St. Gregory the Great-became speedily general. When the Roman army had captured, but refused to sup

1 'Non v'era anticamente signor secolare, vescovo, abbate, capitolo di canonici e monastero che non avesse al suo servigio molti servi. Molto frequentemente solevano i secolari manometterli. Non così le chiese, e i monasteri, non per altra cagione, a mio credere, se non perchè la manumissione è una spezie di alienazione, ed era dai canoni proibito l'alienare i beni delle chiese.'-Muratori, Dissert. xv. Some Councils, however, recognised the right of bishops to emancipate church slaves. Moehler, Le Christianisme et l'Esclavage, p. 187. Many peasants placed themselves under the dominion of the monks, as being the best masters, and also to obtain the benefit of their prayers.

2 Muratori; Hallam's Middle Ages, ch. ii. part ii.

port, seven thousand Persian prisoners, Acacius, Bishop of Amida, undeterred by the bitter hostility of the Persians to Christianity, and declaring that God had no need of plates or dishes,' sold all the rich church ornaments of his diocese, rescued the unbelieving prisoners, and sent them back unharmed to their king. During the horrors of the Vandal invasion, Deogratias, Bishop of Carthage, took a similar step to ransom the Roman prisoners. St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Cæsarius of Arles, St. Exuperius of Toulouse, St. Hilary, St. Remi, all melted down or sold their church vases to free prisoners. St. Cyprian sent a large sum for the same purpose to the Bishop of Nicomedia. St. Epiphanius and St. Avitus, in conjunction with a rich Gaulish lady named Syagria, are said to have rescued thousands. St. Eloi devoted to this object his entire fortune. St. Paulinus of Nola displayed a similar generosity, and the legends even assert, though untruly, that he, like St. Peter Teleonarius and St. Serapion, having exhausted all other forms of charity, as a last gift sold himself for slavery. When, long afterwards, the Mahommedan conquests in a measure reproduced the calamities of the barbarian invasions, the same unwearied charity was displayed. The Trinitarian monks, founded by John of Matha in the twelfth century, were devoted to the release of Christian captives, and another society was founded with the same object by Peter Nolasco, in the following century.1

The different branches of the subject I am examining are so closely intertwined, that it is difficult to investigate one without in a measure anticipating the others. While discussing the influence of the Church in protecting

1 See on this subject, Ryan, pp. 151-152; Cibrario, Economica politicu del Medio Evo, lib. iii. cap. ii., and especially Le Blant, Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule, tome ii. pp. 284-299.

infancy, in raising the estimate of human life, and in alleviating slavery, I have trenched largely upon the last application of the doctrine of Christian fraternity I must examine-I mean the foundation of charity. The difference between Pagan and Christian societies in this matter is very profound; but a great part of it must be ascribed to causes other than religious opinions. Charity finds an extended scope for action only where there exists a large class of men at once independent and impoverished. In the ancient societies slavery in a great measure replaced pauperism, and by securing the subsistence of a very large proportion of the poor, contracted the sphere of charity. And what slavery did at Rome for the very poor, the system of clientage did for those of a somewhat higher rank. The existence of these two institutions is sufficient to show the injustice of judging the two societies by a simple comparison of their charitable institutions, and we must also remember that among the ancients the relief of the indigent was one of the most important functions of the State. Not to dwell upon the many measures taken with this object in ancient Greece, in considering the condition of the Roman poor, we are at once met by the simple fact that for several centuries the immense majority of these were habitually supported by gratuitous distributions of corn. In a very early period of Roman history we find occasional instances of distribution; but it was not till A.U.C. 630, that Caius Gracchus caused a law to be made, supplying the poorer classes with corn at a price that was little more than nominal; and although two years after the Patricians succeeded in revoking this law, it was after several fluctuations finally re-enacted in A.U.C. 679. The Cassia-Terentia law, as it was called, from the consuls under whom it was at last established, was largely extended in its operation, or, as some think, re