for the one would some day be a lord, the other would remain a slave, but their legal relation to the _dominus_ was the same. But the legal status of the slave is no true index of his condition. This will depend on two factors, his origin and his _social_ relations to his master; and on both these grounds the early slavery of Rome must have compared favourably with that of later times. The slave trade was probably unknown, and the condition must have been mainly the result of capture in war from neighbouring states. Slavery is not altogether degrading when it is wholly the consequence of the laws of war. The slave was an Italian, perhaps of as noble birth as his master, and this, though it may have aggravated the bitterness of the lot, must have rendered possible an intimate social intercourse which would not have been possible with the barbarian, and must have forced on the master’s mind the conviction that a sudden turn in fortune’s wheel might place _him_ in the same position in the city of his serf. Again, the servitude was domestic; whether employed in the home, or on the common lands of the clan, or on the petty plot of ground that the master called his own, the slave was never severed from his master or his master’s kindred. We hear in early times of his sitting at his master’s table,[98] and of his being the tutor and playmate of his lord’s children.[99] He may in some cases have been better off than the client or the unattached Plebeian engaged in some petty trade. Certainly the opportunities for the primitive culture afforded by the Roman household were more open to him than to the other orders excluded from the Patriciate. In the case of domestic slavery extending over a small area, public opinion is generally a powerful restraint on the master’s caprice. We do not know whether this opinion found a religious expression in such principles as those which protected the client’s rights; but the fact that the censor of the later Republic, who perpetuates the obligations of religious law, punishes acts of cruelty committed by the _dominus_,[100] may show that the slave was not wholly without the pale of divine protection. If, as we have seen, the Roman’s chief mode of livelihood, the land, was not his own property but that of the clan, no individual disposition of it during lifetime or after death was possible, although there may have been some right of bequest over the movables classed as _res nec mancipi_. When the theory of common possession was modified by the recognition of a heritable allotment, bequest may have become possible; but doubtless intestate inheritance still continued to be the rule. A law of inheritance is first known to us from the Twelve Tables, which allowed the utmost freedom of bequest and legacy; but there was a survival both of theories and practices which show that testamentary disposition was originally regarded as the exception and not the rule.