Both classes of free men could own slaves, though it is obvious that they were more numerous in the households and on the estates of members of the upper class.  The slave was the absolute property of his master and could be bought and sold and employed as a deposit for a debt, but, though slaves as a class had few rights of their own, in certain circumstances they could acquire them.  Thus, if the owner of a female slave had begotten children by her he could not use her as the payment for a debt, and in the event of his having done so he was obliged to ransom her by paying the original amount of the debt in money.  It was also possible for a male slave, whether owned by a member of the upper or of the middle class, to marry a free woman, and if he did so, his children were free and did not become the property of his master.  Also, if the free woman whom the slave married brought with her a marriage portion from her father’s house, this remained her own property on the slave’s death, and supposing the couple had acquired other property during the time they lived together as man and wife, the owner of the slave could only claim half of such property, the other half being retained by the free woman for her own use and for that of her children.

Generally speaking, the lot of the slave was not a particularly hard one, for he was a recognized member of his owner’s household, and, as a valuable piece of property, it was obviously to his owner’s interest to keep him healthy and in good condition.  In fact, the value of the slave is attested by the severity of the penalty imposed for abducting a male or female slave from the owner’s house and removing him or her from the city; for a man guilty of this offence was put to death.  The same penalty was imposed for harbouring and taking possession of a runaway slave, whereas a fixed reward was paid by the owner to any one by whom a runaway slave was captured and brought back.  Special legislation was also devised with the object of rendering the theft of slaves difficult and their detection easy.  Thus, if a brander put a mark upon a slave without the owner’s consent, he was liable to have his hands cut off, and if he could prove that he did so through being deceived by another man, that man was put to death.  For bad offences slaves were liable to severe punishments, such as cutting off the ear, which was the penalty for denying his master, and also for making an aggravated assault on a member of the upper class of free men.  But it is clear that on the whole the slave was well looked after.  He was also not condemned to remain perpetually a slave, for while still in his master’s service it was possible for him, under certain conditions, to acquire property of his own, and if he did so he was able with his master’s consent to purchase his freedom.  If a slave were captured by the enemy and taken to a foreign land and sold, and were then brought back by his new owner to his own country, he could claim his liberty without having to pay any purchase-money to either of his masters.