על החוקים לפרטיהם, ספר ג ל״הOn the Special Laws, Book III 35
א׳
1[195] If, then, anyone has maliciously injured another in the best and lordliest of his senses, sight, and is proved to have struck out his eye, he must in his turn suffer the same, if the other is a free man, but not if he is a slave. Not that the offender deserves pardon or is less in the wrong, but because if the master is mutilated as a punishment the injured slave will find him worse than before. He will harbour a perpetual grudge for his misfortune and avenge himself on one whom he regards as a mortal enemy by setting him every day to tasks of an intolerable kind and beyond his powers to cope with, the oppressive weight of which will break his spirit also.
ב׳
2[196] The law, therefore, provided on the one hand that a master should not go unpunished for his malicious assault and on the other that the servant should not suffer further wrong in addition to the loss of his eye. It effected this by enacting that if anyone struck out his servant’s eye he should without hesitation grant him his liberty,
ג׳
3[197] for in this way the master will incur a double penalty; he will lose the value of the slave as well as his services, and a third affliction more severe than either of these two is that he will be forced to confer a benefit that touches his highest interest on an enemy whom he probably hoped to be able to maltreat indefinitely. The servant will receive a double solatium for his suffering; he is not only set at liberty but has escaped from a harsh and cruel master.