There is little in this section that needs special comment. It is concerned not with the inalienable estate, which has been dealt with earlier (§9), but with movable property – of which slaves, of course, are one kind (a point of view that was almost universal in the Greek world). The rules about freedmen are tougher than those of Attic law, noticeably in the provision for the summary arrest of a freedman who fails in his duties to his former master; Attic law permitted only a charge of delinquency under ordinary legal procedure. Plato clearly believes that however much a freedman may have deserved his emancipation, he still needs the rigorous treatment he received when a slave.
RESPECT FOR PROPERTY
ATHENIAN: The next subject needing to be reduced to due [BK XI] order will be our transactions with each other. I suppose [913a] something like this will serve as a general rule. Ideally, no one should touch my property or tamper with it, unless I have given him some sort of permission; and if I am sensible I shall treat the property of others with the same respect.
REMOVAL OF BURIED TREASURE
Let’s take as our first example treasure which someone who was not one of my ancestors stored away for himself and his family. I should never pray to the gods to come across such a [b] thing; and if I do, I must not disturb it nor tell the diviners, as they are called, who (I shall find) can always invent some reason for advising one to remove something deposited in the ground. The financial benefit I’d get from removing it could never rival what I’d gain by way of virtue and moral rectitude by leaving it alone; by preferring to have justice in my soul rather than money in my pocket, I’d get – treasure for treasure – the better bargain, and for a better part of myself, too. ‘Hands off immovables’1 is aptly applied to a great many [c] situations, and this is one of them. And we should put our trust in the traditional view of such conduct – that it injures our descendants. Suppose a man takes no thought for his children and becomes indifferent to the legislator, and removes what neither he himself nor his father nor any of his fathers before him deposited, without the consent of the depositor; suppose he thus undermines the finest law there is, that simple rule of thumb, formulated as it was by a man of great nobility,2 ‘Don’t pick up what you didn’t put down’ – [d] well, when a man treats these two legislators3 so contemptuously and picks up something he had not put down (and sometimes no bagatelle, either, but a huge treasure trove), what penalty should he suffer? God knows the penalty of heaven; but the first person to notice such an occurrence in the city should report it to the City-Wardens; if somewhere in the city’s market, to the Market-Wardens; and if in some [914a] place in the country, he should inform the Country-Wardens and their Chiefs. On receiving the information the state should send to Delphi and in submission to the oracles of the god do whatever he ordains about the objects and the person who removed them. If the informant is a free man, he should acquire a reputation for virtue, but
63. (a) if a free man fails to inform,
he must get a reputation for vice.
If the informant is a slave, then as a reward he will deservedly be presented with freedom by the state, which will give his master what he is worth, but
(b) if a slave fails to inform,
he must be punished by death.
REMOVAL OF PROPERTY IN GENERAL
The natural thing to do next is to apply this same rule to all [b] objects, important or trivial. If a man leaves some piece of his own property somewhere, deliberately or inadvertently, anyone who finds it should let it be, on the assumption that such things are under the protection of the goddess of the wayside, to whom they are consecrated by law.
64. If in defiance of this rule someone picks up an object of no great value and takes it home, and
(a) he is a slave,
he should be soundly beaten by any passer-by who is not less than thirty years of age;
(b) if he is a free man, [c]
in addition to being thought ungentlemanly and lawless, he must pay the person who left the article ten times its value.
If one man accuses another of being in possession of some piece of his own property, whether valuable or not, and the accused person admits he has it but denies that it belongs to the complainant, the latter should – if the object has been registered with the authorities according to law4 – summon the person in possession of it before the authorities, and the possessor must produce it; then if on being presented for inspection it proves to have been recorded in the registers as the property of one of the disputants, the owner must take it [d] and depart; but if it belongs to some other party not present, then whichever disputant furnishes a credit-worthy guarantor should exercise the absent party’s right of removal and take the article away on his behalf for delivery into his possession. If on the other hand the article in dispute has not been registered with the authorities, it must be left with the three oldest officials pending settlement of the case; and if it is an animal that is thus kept in safe custody, the loser of the suit must pay [e] the officials for its keep. The officials are to settle the case within three days.
THE TREATMENT OF SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
Anyone who wishes – provided he’s in his right mind – may seize his own slave, and (within the permitted limits) treat him as he likes. He may also arrest a runaway slave, in order to stop him escaping, on behalf of a relative or friend. If anyone demands the release of someone who is being taken for a slave and arrested, the captor must let him go, but the releaser must furnish three credit-worthy sureties. On these terms and on no other the man may be released.
65. If a man secures a release except on these conditions, he must be liable to a charge of violence and if convicted,
[915a] he must pay to the captor twice the damages claimed in the suit.
Freedmen too may be arrested if they fail to perform their services to their manumittor, or perform them inadequately. (The services are these: three times a month a freedman must proceed to the home of his manumittor and offer to do anything lawful and practicable; and as regards marrying he must do whatever his former master thinks right.) He must not grow more wealthy than his manumittor; if he does, the [b] excess must become the property of the master. The freedman must not stay in the state longer than twenty years, but like the other aliens5 he must then take all his property and leave, unless he has gained permission from the authorities and his manumittor to remain. If a freedman or one of the other aliens acquires property in excess of the limit allowed the third property-class,6 then within thirty days of this event he must pack up and be off, without any right to ask the authorities [c] to extend his stay.
66. If a freedman disobeys these regulations and is taken to court and convicted,
he must be punished by death and his property confiscated by the state.
Such cases should be tried in the tribal courts, unless the litigants have previously settled their charges against each other before their neighbours – that is, judges they have chosen themselves.