Did anyone in ancient times want to abolish slavery?

Musonius Rufus was a Roman philosopher. He was against slavery and lived about the same time as Jesus Christ. Back then if you were against slavery it was dangerous to come out and say it plainly. It could get you killed. There were people against it we know.

To be honest a lot of ideas we consider modern like being against slavery, against forced prostitution, pro womens rights, no prison for debtors who could not pay their debts, no physical abuse (truly beating) of children and people as punishment, etc you will find throughout history. There are times where the less morally developed have more influence over society and there are times the more developed have more influence. But the morally correct have always been there.

Well, very quickly three ideas came to my mind:

1. The Spartacus rebellion: it was just one of the three servant wars in Rome. Although it is pretty obvious, the slaves themselves wanted to abolish slavery (at least some of them)
2. The myth of Atlantis talks about the automatons, some kind of robots designed by the Atlanteans so that there will be no need for slaves (yes, I know, a myth, but the idea of a slave-free society was defined, at least as an utopia).
3. Seneca (the tutor of Nero) mentions in some of his writings the brutalization of slaves in Rome, in particular gladiators.

Finally keep in mind that the concept of slavery was different at that time, some of the slaves did actually have a reasonably good life at that time, some of them even were educated, think of Aesop for example.

As far as I know: no, that was not an issue at all. At best people said 'Don't be a slave. Own one!' Spartacus never mentioned he wanted to abolish slavery. In fact, he set Roman senators up as pairs against each other in gladiatorial games himself.

Slavery is of all times and all cultures. As long as people are hunter/gatherers they don't have the necessary surplus to support slaves. Slaves have to be guarded, fed, cared for. Hunter/gatherers live on the edge, they can't afford it.

Almost every agricultural society kept slaves. Conditions varied enormously, of course. Roman house slaves could be pretty well off. Some could buy they freedom or obtained positions of power (in the imperial household). Mine slaves, not so much. They lasted about or less than a year.

Slavery was less common in China, where the government had other ways to make people productive. Why make people slaves if you can tax them? Works just as well.

In Mediterranean societies slavery never was an issue. Of course they knew that nobody wanted to be one. Of course there were revolts and rebellions. But all of them were crushed. Not wanting to be a slave means not automatically working towards abolishment. The ex slaves of the two revolts on Sicily simply changed places with their ex masters who were now their slaves.

According to William Ebenstein (1969):

Zeno and the early Stoics insisted that slavery was contrary to natural law, that it was no more than an arbitrary convention based on force and expediency, and that there were no nations or ethnic groups naturally inferior, fit only to serve those who claimed to be superior.

(Note though that Zeno's writings have not survived, so we have no explicit record of him opposing slavery.)

Not all Roman "workers" were slaves, and in fact my (very small) Latin dictionary has three words for "workman" - none of them being "servus". To say that in Latin " a world without slaves " would mean "a world without workers" is simply wrong. There were butchers, fishmongers, fullers, dyers, schoolmasters, doctors, tavern-keepers - all workers, but not slaves. Otherwise, there would have been no need for "bread and circuses" - the free dole of grain and entertainments used to keep poor Roman citizens happy. Domestic servants would normally have been slaves, although the Romans were surprisingly generous in manumitting their slaves - the Greeks were astonished by this. Some slaves were what we would now call "white collar workers" - secretaries, administrators, tutors (paedagogi), family physicians in the richest homes. These were often freed, like Cicero's amanuensis, Tiro, who continued to serve Cicero as his freedman and later collected some of his former master's writings. Of course slavery was evil, but to see the Roman world as divided between a rich elite and enchained slaves is unnuanced and incorrect. There could be genuine affection and care between master and slave - Cicero wrote letters to Tiro, concerned for his health when the latter was sick, and Cicero's household slaves protected their master when his killers came looking for him! It is entirely possible that slaves with a decent master had a better life than the poor free citizens, living in cramped tenements that regularly caught fire, and wondering where the next meal was coming from. In short, while all slaves were workers, not all workers were slaves.

As a matter of proselytization (not just in my country but in every country) or actual policy, it doesn't appear that anyone particularly prominent in ancient times did that, no.

It has become fashionable to put that belief on ancient Persia's King Cyrus the Great. There's little doubt that his behavior toward conquered peoples was far better than that of the Babylonians and Assyrians before him. Both the Torah and the Babylonian Cyrus Cylinder testify to this. He certainly did free his Jewish slaves he inherited when he conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However, claims that the same cylinder is some kind of early declaration of human rights are at best a bit of modern mythologizing^*.

The earliest I could find as a state-wide political movement was 14th Century France (late Middle Ages). King Louis X in 1315 declared that "France signifies freedom", and ordered all slaves and serfs setting foot on French soil to be freed. It seems to be assumed that this was in a large part a financial move (the serfs were supposed to pay the crown for their freedom), but the principle was applied to foreign slaves imported into France thereafter, to no financial benefit to the crown.

^{* - Of course if that's what you want, sort of an ancient history "spirit animal" for abolition, King Cyrus is probably your guy.}

Probably not. Here's a statement by a modern historian:

There were no crusaders for universal abolition at this time; while an ancient Christian (or a Stoic) might esteem a slave as a brother, revolutionary efforts to end slavery were never on the table.

Source: Christopher J. Fuhrmann, Policing the Roman Empire, p. 27.

Other historians might have a different take on this.

Keith Hopkins in his book Conquerors and Slaves expands Fuhrmann's short brief remark (actually Hopkins' book is much earlier and though Fuhrmann does not cite it on that particular point, he does refer to it a lot, so I suppose Fuhrmann might have condensed Hopkins' argument):

Stoic philosophers stressed the common humanity of slaves and free men: the master buys and sells only the slave's body; 'only their body is at the mercy and disposition of the master; the mind is its own master, and is free...' (Seneca, On Benefits 3.20); the slave can be free in spirit, just as the free men [sic] can be a slave to ambition, fear, grief or gluttony. Man is by nature free, not a slave. But for all their enlightened views on slavery, Stoic philosophers were not social reformers. They objected to cruelty, but they never aimed at abolishing slavery. Christians similarly, by their emphasis on rewards in heaven partly in compensation for sufferings on earth, accepted slavery.

(Conquerors and Slaves, p. 121-122)

From the book Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man by Joseph Vogt, which I opened to a random on page (37) and found an important passage:

It is a characteristic of slave wars wherever and whenever they occurred - from Asia Minor in the East to Italy in the West, and from Eunus' revolt to that of Spartacus - that while the rebels repeatedly tried to make their masters slaves, they never proclaimed, or held out hopes for, the complete abolition of slavery. After the Romans had put down all of theses uprisings and crucified the last of the rebels, the inequality of the social order was firmly entrenched for many centuries to come.

So it seems that even the slaves were not abolitionists.

Alcidamas of Asia Minor. He said that God had made no man a slave in the 4th century BC. He was talking about the Spartan enslavement of the Messenians, but it was a universal statement.

The more I read about the ancient world, the more I come to the conclusion that there was no unified notion of slavery at all. There were multiple things (which the people of the time could distinguish) which we call with the same word, slavery. This is similar to how we call nearly any head of state (and sometimes even not head of state) in ancient world a king, even though many of them had different titles and powers.

In fact there were at least

• Captured POWs used for labor

• Criminals punished with forced labor

• Low-rank clan (family) members who were obliged to serve their clan leaders

• Debtors who had to work for their creditors for a time period as a substitute for repaying the debt if they could not repay with money.

• Dependent peasants of various sorts

• Hostages of various sorts

etc etc.

Romans even had no distinguished word for a slave: they called them "servus" which simply meant "servant".

If we acknowledge that we currently use a single word for totally distinct legal notions it will become clear why no ancient author ever proposed a world without slavery: there was simply no such united term. In fact, in Latin language "world without slavery" would sound as "world without servants" or "world without workers". That said up to this time we still had not eliminate most legal states which we call slavery when we speak about Ancient Rome. We still have POWs, we have penal labor, we have correctional labor, we have conscripted workers and of course we have servants.