38,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History
- Sprache: Englisch
Greek and Roman Slaveries
Slavery was foundational to Greek and Roman societies, affecting nearly all of their economic, social, political, and cultural practices. Greek and Roman Slaveries offers a rich collection of literary, epigraphic, papyrological, and archaeological sources, including many unfamiliar ones. This sourcebook ranges chronologically from the archaic period to late antiquity, covering the whole of the Mediterranean, the Near East, and temperate Europe.
Readers will find an interactive and user-friendly engagement with past scholarship and new research agendas that focuses particularly on the agency of ancient slaves, the processes in which slavery was inscribed, the changing history of slavery in antiquity, and the comparative study of ancient slaveries.
Perfect for undergraduate and graduate students taking courses on ancient slavery, as well as courses on slavery more generally, this sourcebook's questions, cross-references, and bibliographies encourage an analytical and interactive approach to the various economic, social, and political processes and contexts in which slavery was employed while acknowledging the agency of enslaved persons.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 788
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History
This series presents readers with new translations of the raw material of ancient history. It provides direct access to the ancient world, from wars and power politics to daily life and entertainment, allowing readers to discover the extraordinary diversity of ancient societies.
Published
The Ancient Near East
Edited by Mark W. Chavalas
The Roman Games
Alison Futrell
Alexander the Great
Waldemar Heckel and J. C. Yardley
The Hellenistic Period
Roger Bagnall and Peter Derow
Ancient Greek Religion
Emily Kearns
Ancient Greece from Homer to Alexander
Joseph Roisman and J. C. Yardley
Early Rome: Myth and Society
Jaclyn Neel
Greek and Roman Slaveries
Eftychia Bathrellou and Kostas Vlassopoulos
In Preparation
Successors to Alexander the Great
Pat Wheatley and Timothy Howe
Greek and Roman Slaveries
Eftychia BathrellouUniversity of LisbonLisbon, Portugal
Kostas VlassopoulosUniversity of CreteRethymno, Greece
This edition first published 2022© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Eftychia Bathrellou and Kostas Vlassopoulos to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Bathrellou, Eftychia, author. | Vlassopoulos, Kostas, 1977- author.Title: Greek and Roman slaveries / Eftychia Bathrellou, Kostas Vlassopoulos.Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2021021140 | ISBN 9781118969298 (paperback) | ISBN 9781118969328 (pdf) | ISBN 9781118969335 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Slavery--Rome--History. | Slavery--Greece--History. Classification: LCC HT863 .B38 2022 | DDC 306.3/6209495--dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021021140
Cover image: © Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Reggio CalabriaCover design by Wiley
Set in 10/13pt StoneSerif by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India
To the memory ofGerasimos Vlassopoulos (1949–2018),Stavros Bathrellos (1950–2016),and Metaxia Anaplioti (1937–2018),who encouraged us to keep walking in the paths we had taken,whatever the odds.
Contents
Cover
Series page
Title page
Copyright
Dedication
List of Figures and Maps
Note to the Reader
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Introduction
1 What Is Slavery?
2 Studying Slavery: The Variety of Evidence and Its Interpretative Challenges
3 Living with Slavery and Its Consequences
4 Slaving Strategies
5 Masters and Slaves
6 Free and Slave
7 Enslaved Persons and Their Communities
8 Slavery and the Wider World
9 Experiencing and Resisting Enslavement
10 After Slavery: Manumission, Freedmen, and Freedwomen
11 Slavery and Historical Change
12 Comparing Ancient Slaveries
Bibliography
Index of Passages Cited
Index of Places and Peoples
Index of Names
Thematic Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2
1. Funerary stele, end of fifth century BCE, Athens:...
2. Funerary stele, second century BCE, Smyrna:...
3. Funerary stele, first century CE, Antunnacum...
4. Funerary stele of Aulus Caprilius Timotheos...
5. a–b: The Warren cup: Roman silver vessel...
6. The funerary monument of Marcus Vergilius...
7. The agora of the Italians...
8. House of the Lake, late Hellenistic period...
Chapter 3
9. a)Plan of the “villa barracks...
Chapter 6
10. Sketch of a lead collar with Latin inscription...
11. Marble triple statue of Diana, second century...
Chapter 7
12. Columbarium 2 at Vigna Codini, before 20 CE, Rome...
Chapter 8
13. a) Relief from Trajan’s column, early second...
Chapter 9
14. Bronze tag for collar with Latin inscription...
15. Bronze coin of King Antiochos...
Chapter 10
16. Reliefs from the funerary monument of...
17. Funerary relief of Ampudius Philomusus...
18. Funerary relief of Philonicus and Demetrius...
19. Funerary relief of Antistius Sarculo and...
20. Funerary relief of Aurelius Hermia and...
21. Funerary relief of Fonteia Eleusis and Fonteia...
Chapter 12
22. Fresco from the House of Sutoria Primigenia...
List of Map
Chapter 8
1. Map of the places of origin of slaves...
Guide
Cover
Series page
Title page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Maps
Note to the Reader
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Begin Reading
Bibliography
Index of Passages Cited
Index of Places and Peoples
Index of Names
Index of Names
End User License Agreement
Pages
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
List of Figures and Maps
Figures
Front cover: Inscribed terracotta tile, first century BCE/first century ce: Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Reggio Calabria; su concessione del Ministero della Cultura n. 8 del 24/3/2021 – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Reggio Calabria.
1. Funerary stele, end of fifth century BCE, Athens: National Archaeological Museum of Athens, inv. no. 3624, image provided under CC BY license from Wikimedia Commons
2. Funerary stele, second century BCE, Smyrna: Leiden, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. Pb. 75 Smyrna: image provided under CC BY licence by the Leiden Rijksmuseum
3. Funerary stele, first century CE, Antunnacum: image provided under CC BY licence from Wikimedia Commons
4. Funerary stele of Aulus Caprilius Timotheos, ca. 100 CE, Amphipolis: image from J. Roger, “Inscriptions de la région du Strymone,” Revue archéologique, 1945, 24, Figure
5. a–b: The Warren cup: Roman silver vessel, first century ce: British Museum, inv. no. 1999,0426.
6. The funerary monument of Marcus Vergilius Eurysaces, 100–50 BCE, Rome; image provided under CC BY licence from Wikimedia Commons
7. The agora of the Italians, ca. 100 BCE, Delos; reproduced by permission from Trümper 2009, Figure
8. House of the Lake, late Hellenistic period, Delos: reproduced by permission from Zarmakoupi 2016, Figure 4.
9. a)Plan of the “villa barracks,” second–fifth century CE, Villamagna: reproduced by permission from Fentress, Goodson and Maiuro 2016, Figure 5.75. b) idem, Figure 5.
10. Sketch of a lead collar with Latin inscription, Bulla Regia, Africa Proconsularis (fourth or fifth century CE): image from A. Merlin, Le temple d’Apollon à Bulla Regia, Paris, 1910, 10, Figure
11. Marble triple statue of Diana, second century CE, Rome. Source: British Museum;https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/561456001
12. Columbarium 2 at Vigna Codini, before 20 CE, Rome: image provided under CC BY licence from Wikimedia Commons
13. a) Relief from Trajan’s column, early second century CE, Rome: image from C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssäule: Erster Tafelband: Die Reliefs des Ersten Dakischen Krieges, Tafeln 1–57, Plate XXXIII, Berlin, 1896. b) Relief from Trajan’s column, early second century CE, Rome: image from C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssäule: Zweiter Tafelband: Die Reliefs des Zweiten Dakischen Krieges, Tafeln 58–113, Plate CVII, Berlin,
14. Bronze tag for collar with Latin inscription, second half of fourth century CE, Rome: British Museum, inv. no. 1975,0902.
15. Bronze coin of King Antiochos. Source: British Museum: 1868,0730.156; Asset number: 316587001;https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/316587001
16. Reliefs from the funerary monument of Zoilos, late first century BCE/early first century CE, Aphrodisias: image by the authors
17. Funerary relief of Ampudius Philomusus, 30 BCE–30 CE, Rome: British Museum, inv. no. 1920,0220.
18. Funerary relief of Philonicus and Demetrius, late first century BCE/early first century CE, Tusculum: British Museum, inv. no. 1954,1214.
19. Funerary relief of Antistius Sarculo and Antistia Plutia, late first century BCE/early first century CE, Rome: British Museum, inv. no. 1858,0819.
20. Funerary relief of Aurelius Hermia and Aurelia Philematium, 75–50 BCE, Rome: British Museum, inv. no. 1867,0508.
21. Funerary relief of Fonteia Eleusis and Fonteia Helena, late first century BCE/early first century CE, Rome: British Museum, inv. no. 1973,0109.
22. Fresco from the House of Sutoria Primigenia, Pompeii, first century ce: reproduced with permission from Flower 2017, Plate 9; su concessione Del Ministero della Cultura - Parco Archeologico di Pompeii
Map
1. Map of the places of origin of slaves mentioned in 8.1. Source: Adapted from Lewis 2017, 2018: 277–
Note to the Reader
Editions of Greek and Latin literary texts, inscriptions, and papyri
All translations are our own. Unless otherwise specified, we have translated what is considered the standard edition of the Greek and Latin literary texts. For papyri, we have translated the text appearing in papyri.info, while for inscriptions we have translated the text indicated in their reference number unless otherwise specified.
Signs used in the book
*** indicates that something of the original Greek or Latin text has been lost in transmission.
† indicates that the transmitted Greek or Latin text is problematic, and the exact wording of the original cannot be recovered.
[…] indicates that (i) text has been omitted by us or (ii) text has been lost through damage to the inscription or papyrus.
[aaa] lost text restored by the modern editor.
<aaa> text erroneously omitted in the transmitted Greek or Latin text but added by the modern editor.
(aaa) text added by us to facilitate understanding.
Names of persons, places, and peoples
We have used assimilated English forms of names of persons, places, and peoples whenever we judged them recognizable relatively widely (e.g. Attica, Rhodes, Lacedaemonians, the philosopher Socrates).
Names of ancient authors: We have followed the style of the Oxford Classical Dictionary both for the authors of the sources and for authors mentioned in them.
Other persons’ names: In translations of Latin sources, we have kept the Latin form of persons’ names, whatever the names’ origin. With one exception (source 12.2), in translations of Greek sources, we have transliterated people’s names of Greek origin but used the Latin form of Latin names.
Place names: We have used Greek transliterations of toponyms in the Eastern Mediterranean and Latin forms of toponyms in the Western Mediterranean, the northern Balkans, and northern Europe.
Names of peoples
Acknowledgements
This book has had a very long gestation, from the early 2010s, when it was conceived, until its final delivery almost a decade later. We would like to thank Wiley Blackwell and its staff for their original invitation to contribute this volume to the Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History series, as well as for their patience over the years; we hope that the final product has made the long journey worth its salt!Much of the final work for this book was done in lockdown conditions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we are grateful to colleagues and friends who gave us access to material we would not otherwise be able to consult in such circumstances. We would particularly like to thank Angelos Chaniotis, Eleanor Dickey, Kyriaki Konstantinidou, and the staff at the Library of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Lisbon for providing us with materials and going out of their way to help. Kostas Vlassopoulos would like to thank the Department of History and Archaeology, University of Crete, for the research leave in spring 2020, alongside with the Center of Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC, for the Spring Fellowship during the same period; in combination, they provided the time and facilities for completing this volume. We would also like to express our gratitude to the following scholars and friends for their help and generosity in terms of finding the texts and images that appear in this volume: Elizabeth Fentress, Harriet Flower, Pavlina Karanastasi, Stephanie Maillot, Monica Trümper, Mantha Zarmakoupi, and Gabriel Zuchtriegel. We would also like to thank the British Museum, the Leiden Rijksmuseum, the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Reggio Calabria, the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, and the Parco Archeologico di Pompeii for permission to reproduce the images included in this volume. Special thanks also go to Margherita Maria Di Nino for her help in our communication with Italian cultural authorities and to Timothy Duff and Fotini Hadjittofi, who always found time to discuss translation issues with us; Timothy Duff also read and improved large parts of our text, for which we are very grateful. Needless to add, all remaining errors and other shortcomings are our own responsibility.
Finally, we would like to thank our families and friends, whose company and friendship supported us when writing this book and gave us joy: Katerina Arampatzi, Stamatis Bathrellos, Nikos and Vassiliki Boutsika, Apostolos Delis, Vanessa Hillebrand, Eleni Kalamara, Aleka Lianeri, Dunja Milenkovic, Christos Roussis, Vassiliki Stavrou, and Anastasia Theologou.
The years during which we prepared this book were sadly marked by the death of many of our loved ones. This book is dedicated to the memory of our fathers, Gerasimos Vlassopoulos and Stavros Bathrellos, and of EB’s great aunt Metaxia Anaplioti; their sagacity and their love guided us, gave us strength, and to a great extent shaped our lives.
Abbreviations
AJA
American Journal of Archaeology
.
AJP
American Journal of Philology
.
An.Ep
.
L’Année épigraphique
.
Arch.Eph
.
Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς
.
AS
Ancient Society
.
AT
Antiquité Tardive
.
BASP
Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
.
BCH
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
.
BHG
F. Halkin,
Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca
, Brussels, 1957
3
.
BICS
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
.
BNJ
Brill’s New Jacoby
, Berlin, 2008–2019.
CA
Classical Antiquity
.
CEL
P. Cugusi,
Corpus Epistolarum Latinarum
, I–III, Florence, 1992–2002.
Chambry
É. Chambry,
Ésope Fables
, Paris, 1927.
CIL
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
, I–XVII, Berlin, 1862–.
CJ
Classical Journal
.
CMG
Corpus medicorum Graecorum
, Berlin, 1908–.
CP
Classical Philology
.
C.Pap.Gr
.
M. M. Masciadri and O. Montevecchi,
Corpus Papyrorum Graecarum, I: I contratti di baliatico
, Milan, 1984.
CQ
Classical Quarterly
.
CRRS
Corpus der Römischen Rechtsquellen zur Antiken Sklaverei
, I–X, Stuttgart, 1999–.
Dodone
Ε. Lhôte,
Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone
, Geneva, 2006.
EAD
Exploration Archéologique de Délos
.
EAM
T. Rizakis and G. Touratsoglou,
Επιγραφές Άνω Μακεδονίας
, Athens, 1985.
EKM
L. Gounaropoulou and M. B. Hatzopoulos,
Επιγραφές Κάτω Μακεδονίας: Επιγραφές Βέροιας
, Athens, 1998.
ERH
European Review of History – Revue européenne d’histoire
.
FD
Fouilles de Delphes
.
FGrH
F. Jacoby,
Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker
, I–III, Leiden, 1923–1958.
G&R
Greece & Rome
.
Goukowsky
P. Goukowsky,
Diodore de Sicile Bibliothèque historique: Fragments, tome iv: livres xxxiii-xl
, Paris, 2014.
Grauf
.
R. Marichal,
Les graffites de la Graufesenque
, Paris, 1988.
Hausrath–Hunger
A. Hausrath and H. Hunger,
Corpus fabularum aesopicarum
, 1.1–1.2, Leipzig, 1970
2
and 1959
2
.
I.Amyzon
J. Robert and L. Robert,
Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, I. Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions
, Paris, 1983.
I.Aph
.
J. Reynolds, C. Roueché and G. Bodard,
Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
, 2007, available at
http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007.
I.Bouthrôtos
P. Cabanes and F. Drini,
Corpus des inscriptions grecques d’Illyrie méridionale et d’Épire. 2.2: Inscriptions de Bouthrôtos
, Athens, 2007.
I.Ephesos
Die Inschriften von Ephesos
, I–VIII, Bonn, 1979–1984.
I.Iznik
S. Şahin
, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia)
, Bonn, 1979–1982.
I.Leukopetra
P. M. Petsas, M. B. Hatzopoulos, L. Gounaropoulou and P. Paschidis,
Inscriptions du sanctuaire de la Mère des Dieux autochthone de Leukopétra (Macédoine)
, Athens, 2000.
I.Lindos
C. Blinkenberg,
Lindos. Fouilles et recherches, 1902–1914. Vol. II, Inscriptions
, Copenhagen and Berlin, 1941.
I.Magnesia
O. Kern,
Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander
, Berlin, 1900.
I.Miletos
P. Herrmann et al.,
Inschriften von Milet
, I–VI, Berlin and New York, 1997–2006.
I.Oropos
V. C. Petrakos,
Οι επιγραφές του Ωρωπού
, Athens, 1997.
I.Philippi
P. Pilhofer,
Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi
, Tübingen, 2009.
I.Priene
W. Blümel and R. Merkelbach,
Die Inschriften von Priene
, I–II, Bonn, 2014.
I.Rhegion
L. D’Amore,
Iscrizioni greche d’Italia: Reggio Calabria
, Rome, 2007.
I.Smyrna
G. Petzl,
Die Inschriften von Smyrna
, I–II, Bonn, 1982–1990.
I.Sultan Daği
L. Jonnes,
The Inscriptions of the Sultan Daği
, I, Bonn, 2002.
IC
M. Guarducci,
Inscriptiones Creticae
, I–IV, Rome, 1935–1950.
ID
Inscriptions de Délos
, I–VII, Paris, 1926–1972.
IG
Inscriptiones Graecae
, I–XIV, Berlin, 1877–.
IGDO
L. Dubois,
Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont
, Geneva, 1996.
ILS
H. Dessau,
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
, I–III, Berlin, 1892–1916.
Ima. Ita
.
M. H. Crawford et al.,
Imagines Italicae: A Corpus of Italic Inscriptions
, I–III, London, 2011.
Inscr. It
.
Inscriptiones Italiae
, Rome, 1931–.
JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature
.
JHS
Journal of Hellenic Studies
.
JJP
Journal of Juristic Papyrology
.
JRA
Journal of Roman Archaeology
.
JRS
Journal of Roman Studies
.
K-A
R. Kassel and C. Austin,
Poetae Comici Graeci
, I–VIII, Berlin, 1983–2001.
Kühn
K. G. Kühn,
Claudii Galeni opera omnia
, I–XX, Leipzig, 1821–1833.
MBAH
Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte
.
P.Brem1
.
U. Wilcken,
Die Bremer Papyri
, Berlin, 1936.
P.Brux
.
G. Nachtergael,
Papyri Bruxellenses Graecae
, I, Brussels, 1974.
P. Cair.Zen
.
C. C. Edgar,
Zenon Papyri, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire
, I–V, Cairo, 1925–1940.
P.Herm
.
B. R. Rees,
Papyri from Hermopolis and other Documents of the Byzantine Period
, London, 1964.
P.Lips
.
L. Mitteis,
Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig
, Leipzig, 1906.
P.Oxy
.
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri
, I–LXXXIII, London, 1898–.
P.Tebt
.
The Tebtunis Papyri
, I–IV, London, 1902–1976.
P.Turner
P. J. Parsons et al. (eds.),
Papyri Greek and Egyptian Edited by Various Hands in Honour of Eric Gardner Turner on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday
, London, 1981.
P.Ups.Frid
.
B. Frid,
Ten Uppsala Papyri
, Bonn, 1981.
P.Wisc
.
P. J. Sijpesteijn,
The Wisconsin Papyri
, I, Leiden, 1967.
P&P
Past & Present
.
PBSR
Papers of the British School at Rome
.
PdP
La Parola del Passato
.
PG
J. P. Migne,
Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca
, Paris, I–CLXI, 1857–1886.
PMG
D. L. Page,
Poetae melici Graeci
, Oxford, 1962.
PSI
Papiri greci e latini
, I–XVII, Florence, 1912–2018.
RIB
R. G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright,
The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, I, Inscriptions on Stone
, Oxford, 1965.
SB
F. Preisigke et al.,
Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten
, I–XVIII, Strasbourg, 1915–1993.
SCI
Scripta Classica Israelica
.
SEG
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
.
SGDI
H. Collitz et al.,
Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften
, II, Göttingen, 1899.
Sigalas
A. Sigalas,
Des Chrysippos von Jerusalem Enkomion auf den heiligen Theodoros Teron
, Leipzig, 1921.
Tab.Vind
.
A. Bowman and J. D. Thomas,
The Vindolanda Tablets
, London, 1994.
TAM
Tituli Asiae Minoris
, I–V.3, Vienna, 1901–2007.
TAPA
Transactions of the American Philological Association
.
TPSulp
.
G. Camodeca,
Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum
, Rome, 1999.
UPZ
U. Wilcken,
Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit: ältere Funde
, I–II, Berlin, 1927–1957.
Walton
F. R. Walton,
Diodorus Siculus Library of History. Volume XII: Fragments of Books 33-40
, Cambridge MA, 1967.
ZPE
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
.
ZSS
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung
.
Introduction
Slavery was a ubiquitous and fundamental phenomenon of Greek and Roman societies. Slaves constituted a substantial proportion of the population of ancient communities. They worked in practically all sectors of ancient economies, as agricultural workers, artisans, traders, servants, performers, managers, and even civil servants. Their exploitation allowed their masters to live as they wished; the domination of slaves shaped the formation of households, relations of gender, constructions of identity, and cultural practices. Slavery was used as a powerful tool to think about hierarchy, power, religion, and the good life. There is hardly any aspect of ancient history, literature, or archaeology that does not involve, in one way or another, slaves and slavery. Consequently, a sourcebook on ancient slavery has immense value for those interested in the study of Classics, ancient history, and classical archaeology.
The volume at hand is not the first slavery sourcebook. There exist two older sourcebooks on ancient slavery; one in English, by Thomas Wiedemann, that covers both Greek and Roman slavery,1 and one in German, by Werner Eck and Johannes Heinrichs, that focuses on the Roman imperial period.2 Both are still valuable works, and we have tried as far as possible to avoid duplicating their contributions and their selection of texts.3 Instead, our sourcebook tries to present different texts and new topics and uses an alternative, interactive format. We have tried to design a sourcebook that is both user-friendly and at the same time an introduction to the sources and scholarship on Greek and Roman slaveries. Each chapter is preceded by an introduction, which lays out the wider issues examined in the chapter. Each source is accompanied by a small introduction, setting the context and providing necessary information, references to relevant scholarly literature, and a series of questions, which aim to help readers to analyze and debate each source. To help readers focus on how a source illuminates the issues under examination, we have limited the information we offer to the absolutely necessary. We have tried to ensure that each source and question can be studied productively solely on the basis of the evidence provided in the sourcebook. At the same time, by offering bibliographical suggestions, we have tried to make each source a window to the wider scholarship and an opportunity to explore further the issues that each source raises.4 All translations of sources are our own, specifically made with the readership of this volume in mind.
This sourcebook includes a substantial number of sources that are relatively unknown or have never been examined in connection with slavery. We have also made a serious effort to include some of the material and visual evidence for ancient slaves and slavery and to examine some issues using more than one types of evidence. Nevertheless, we deeply regret that our linguistic limitations meant that we have only included sources written in Greek and Latin. The study of ancient slaveries needs to move beyond the usual focus on Greek and Roman slaveries and engage seriously with slavery in Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia, Egypt, the Punic world, Italic societies (Etruscans, Oscans), and temperate Europe.5 We cannot achieve this wider aim in this work; hence, this is a sourcebook of Greek and Roman slaveries rather than ancient slaveries. But we have tried to use Greek and Roman sources as evidence for other slave systems (Anatolian, Jewish, Celtic, Germanic, Sarmatian) and to point out consistently their similarities with and differences from the better-known Greek and Roman slave systems. We also emphasize the diversity of these systems. The study of Greek slavery usually focuses on classical Athens, while that of Roman slavery is usually geared toward republican and imperial Rome and Italy. Other areas and periods, like the Hellenistic and early imperial Eastern Mediterranean, or late antiquity, are often ignored in synthetic, non-specialist surveys. We have tried to maintain a chronological and geographical balance, from the archaic period to late antiquity and including the whole of the Mediterranean and its adjacent areas, within the limits of the available evidence.
Finally, our selection of sources has been guided by our selection of topics. We have obviously included important topics that have always generated important research, such as the brutality of slavery, the economic exploitation of slaves, and the practices of manumission and the conditions of freedpersons. At the same time, we wish to present new topics, perspectives, and approaches, which have been at the forefront of innovative research in the last fifteen years. Earlier approaches tended to see slavery from a unilateral and top-down perspective, as a relationship defined exclusively by the masters. This meant that slavery was approached as a static institution, while slaves were largely seen as passive objects of domination and exploitation. We have adopted a processual approach, which explores the variety of economic, social, political processes and contexts within which slavery was employed for a variety of purposes; at the same time, while masters played a major role in the historical configuration of slavery, the agency of enslaved persons and other groups and factors (the state, religious groups, voluntary associations) was also significant. The involvement of various processes, contexts, and agents generated important contradictions and conflicts, as well as both widespread diversity and convergent tendencies. We thus devote chapters to the various slaving strategies of masters and the dialectical relationships between masters and slaves, free and slave, and the communities of enslaved persons. In addition, we attempt a systematic comparison of ancient slave systems while also exploring how they changed in the course of the 1500 years of ancient history. Finally, while slavery is usually approached as a socioeconomic phenomenon, recent work has put at the forefront its cultural and political aspects. We have thus devoted substantial space to the geopolitical setting of ancient slave systems and the role of slaves within cultural and religious processes.
All these various factors and topics were, of course, interrelated, and this means that the sources we have selected can be profitably juxtaposed and examined from a variety of viewpoints. We have included extensive cross-references to enable readers to explore sources in different contexts than those we have placed them; the detailed index is also a tool for using the sourcebook in multiple and alternative ways. We hope that this volume adequately reflects the diversity and richness both of the ancient evidence for slavery, as well as its modern scholarly study.
Notes
1
Wiedemann 1981.
2
Eck and Heinrichs 1993.
3
For other important collections of sources on ancient slavery, see Scholl 1990;
CRRS
.
4
For the voluminous scholarship on ancient slavery, see the search engine at
http://sklaven.adwmainz.de/index.php?id=1584.
5
Lewis 2018; Vlassopoulos 2021a
.
1 What Is Slavery?
What is slavery? Modern scholarship has largely focused on two definitions: slaves were human property,6 and slavery is a form of social death: the violent domination of dishonored outsiders without acknowledged kinship links (natal alienation).7 There is no shortage of ancient sources that support these two definitions (1.1, 1.11–2, 1.14). On this basis, scholars have constructed a stereotype of slaves as outsiders acquired through trade or war (1.2) who lived and worked under the direct control of their masters.
We aim to assess the advantages and limits of these approaches by examining servile groups like the Spartan helots and the Cretan woikeis, who were native inhabitants with their own families, working the land and surrendering a part of the harvest to their masters. Were such groups really slaves, or should they be interpreted as persons in an intermediate state “between slavery and freedom,” as serfs or dependent peasants (1.3)? Or should we rather see them as slaves with peculiar characteristics, as a result of the peculiar histories of the societies in which they lived (1.4–9)? If so, slavery was not a uniform institution across ancient societies but a complex and contradictory phenomenon affected by a variety of economic, political, social, and cultural processes.8 Social death was undoubtedly a constant threat that slaves faced and a harsh reality for many of them, but how should we account for cases in which masters (1.18) or states (1.15) honored their slaves? How should we interpret sources in which slaves present themselves as honorable persons (1.17) or honor their fellow-slaves (1.16)? Natal alienation was undoubtedly part of the slave condition, but how should we account for the evident significance of slave families for how slaves acted (1.13)?
If property and social death emphasize the power of masters over slaves, we also need to take into account the role of slave agency. Should we see slavery as a relationship unilaterally defined by the masters or rather as an asymmetrical negotiation of power involving, masters, slaves, and other groups and agents?9 In this respect, we explore a variety of issues: the negotiations that were inherent in the master–slave relationship (1.19, 1.21–2), the slaves’ quest for emotional fulfillment and support and its impact on how slavery operated as an institution (1.20, 1.25), the significance of the intervention of the state and other third parties in relations between masters and slaves (1.23–4), and the conjunctures that slaves could take advantage of to enhance their conditions (1.26).
Finally, we move beyond property and social death to examine other ways (modalities) of conceptualizing slavery that existed in ancient societies, even in the text of the same author: as domination, an instrumental relationship, an asymmetrical relation of benefaction and reward, and so on (1.27). Although some sources can describe enslaved persons as natural slaves (1.28), it was also possible to conceive of slavery as an extreme form of bad luck, from which it was legitimate to seek to escape (1.30). These diverse modalities were partly complementary and partly contradictory;10 we shall explore their consequences for how slavery operated in the various ancient societies.
PROPERTY AND DOMINATION: “CHATTEL SLAVES” AND OTHERS
1.1 Aristotle, Politics, 1253b23–1254a17:11 Greek Philosophical Treatise (Fourth Century BCE)
Literature: Garnsey 1996: 107–27; Millett 2007; Vlassopoulos 2011a.
Because property is part of the household, so the art of acquiring property is part of household management – for both living and living well are impossible without the necessaries. Now, as a specific art would have to have its own proper tools, if its work is to be accomplished, so is the case with the person practicing household management. Tools can be inanimate or animate. For example, for the helmsman, the helm is an inanimate tool, while the look-out man an animate one (for when an art is concerned, an assistant is a kind of tool). Accordingly, a possession is a tool for maintaining life; property is a multitude of tools; a slave is a kind of animate possession; and every assistant is like a tool before tools. For if every tool could accomplish its own task when ordered or by sensing in advance what it should do […], then master-builders would not need assistants, nor would masters need slaves.
“Possessions” are spoken of in the same way as “parts.” A part is not merely a part of another entity but also is wholly of that other entity. The same is true of a possession. This is why a master is just the master of his slave, not “his slave’s” without qualification, but a slave is not merely the slave of his master but also wholly his. It is clear from these considerations then what the nature and the essential quality of a slave are. For anyone who, while being human, is by nature not of himself but of another, is by nature a slave; now, a human being is of another when, while being human, he happens to be a possession.
Property, tool, nature: how does Aristotle use these concepts to characterize slavery?
What does he mean when he claims that the master is just the master of the slave, but the slave belongs to the master completely?
Under what conditions does Aristotle think that slavery would be superfluous?
1.2Digest, 1.5.3–4: Collection of Latin Juristic Texts (Sixth Century CE)
The Digest is a collection of excerpts from the works of republican and early imperial Roman jurists made during the reign of the emperor Justinian in the sixth century ce.
Literature: Lambertini 1984; Cavallini 1994; Garnsey 1996: 23–34; Welwei 2000; Lenski 2016.
Gaius, Institutes, Book 1: Certainly, the most important division in the law of persons is the following: all men are either free or slave.
Florentinus, Institutes, Book 9: Freedom is one’s natural ability to do what one pleases unless this is prevented by force or by law. Slavery is an institution of the law of nations12 whereby a person is subjected against nature to the ownership (dominium) of another. Slaves (servi) are thus named because commanders tend to sell captives, and thus to preserve them, rather than kill them. They are, indeed, said to be mancipia because they are captured from the enemy by force (manus).
What is freedom according to these passages?
What is the cause of slavery?
What conception of slavery underlies these passages? How does it relate to the view expressed in 1.1?
1.3 Pollux, Onomastikon, 3.83: Greek Thesaurus (Second Century CE)
Literature: Lotze 1959; van Wees 2003; Paradiso 2007; Lewis 2018: 143–6.
Between free men and slaves are the helots of the Lacedaemonians, the penestai of the Thessalians, the klarôtai (i.e. “those belonging to the allotted land”) and mnôitai of the Cretans, the dôrophoroi (i.e. “tribute-bearers”) of the Mariandynoi,13 the gymnêtes (i.e. “unarmed”) of the Argives and the korynêphoroi (i.e. “club-bearers”) of the Sikyonians.14 But those helots who are released to freedom are called neodamôdeis (i.e. “new members of the community”) by the Lacedaemonians.
Which groups are enumerated in this passage? In which parts of the Greek world are they located?
How are these groups characterized? On what grounds?
Do the passages below by Strabo (1.6) and Plutarch (1.7–8) support such a characterization?
Did these groups exist when Pollux was compiling his thesaurus? Cf. 1.6.
1.4 Thucydides, 5.23: Greek Historiography (Late Fifth Century BCE)
Thucydides lists the terms of the alliance agreed between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians in 422/1 BCE, after the signing of the “peace of Nikias,” a peace treaty that ended the first ten years of the Peloponnesian war.
Literature: Vlassopoulos 2011a.
The Lacedaemonians <and the Athenians> will be allies for fifty years under the following terms: If any enemies invade the land of the Lacedaemonians and harm the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians are to help the Lacedaemonians in the most effective way possible, as far as they can. […] And if any enemies invade the land of the Athenians and harm the Athenians, the Lacedaemonians are to help <the Athenians> in the most effective way possible, as far as they can. […] And these things are to be done in a just, prompt and honest manner. Also, if the slaves revolt, the Athenians are to help the Lacedaemonians with all their power, as far as they can.
What is the exception in this list of reciprocal obligations for Athenians and Spartans?
Who are the people referred to as slaves? How does this compare with Pollux’s definition in 1.3?
Why is there no reciprocal obligation for the Spartans to help the Athenians in the case of a slave revolt? What does this imply about differences between the Athenian and Spartan slave systems?
1.5 Thucydides, 8.40.2: Greek Historiography (Late Fifth Century BCE)
In 412/1 BCE, in the course of the Peloponnesian War, the Chians asked for Spartan help to revolt from the Athenians, who then tried to reconquer the island. On the slaves of Chios, cf. 9.24, 11.6.
Literature: Luraghi 2009; Lewis 2018: 139–41.
The Chians had many slaves – a greater percentage than any other city, except that of the Lacedaemonians. And because they were so many, the punishments they used to receive for their offences were harsher. So, when the Athenian forces seemed firmly established with a fortified base, the majority of the slaves immediately deserted to them and, as they knew the land well, it was they who caused the greatest harm.
Who are the slaves in Lacedaemon, who are compared with the slaves in Chios?
Does this description of the servile groups of Sparta differ from the way they are described in 1.3?
What makes possible the description of helots in such divergent ways?
Should we prefer one description to another?
How are Chian slaves treated? Why?
If Athenian chattel slaves were unlikely to revolt (1.4), how do Chian chattel slaves compare? How can we explain such divergence?
1.6 Strabo, Geography, 8.5.4: Greek Geography (End of First Century BCE/Early First Century CE)
Ancient authors tried to account for the origins of the helots. Here Strabo reports the views of Ephorus, a fourth-century BCE historian: according to his account, originally the Spartans were equal with the other communities of Laconia.
Literature: Vidal-Naquet 1986.
Ephorus says that (king) Agis, son of Eurysthenes, withdrew the equality and commanded everyone to pay tribute to the Spartans. All the others obeyed, but the Heleians, who had the city of Helos – and were called Helots – revolted. They were defeated totally in war and were condemned to be slaves on specified terms: namely, that their owner was not allowed to manumit them or to sell them outside the border. And this war was called the war against the Helots. We may almost say that it was those around Agis who established the helot system that persisted until the time of the Roman rule. For the Lacedaemonians held these men in a way as public slaves, having assigned to them some houses to live in and special services to perform.
How are the origins of the helots explained?
What conditions modified the slavery of the helots? What do you think were the reasons for such conditions?
How does Strabo try to conceptualize the peculiar slavery of the helots? With what does he compare them?
1.7 Plutarch, Spartan Sayings 239d–e: Greek Collection of Sayings (Late First/Early Second Century CE)
Literature: Hodkinson 2008; Luraghi 2009.
Lycurgus15 was thought to have secured for the citizens a fine and blessed good: abundance of leisure. For it was absolutely forbidden to touch manual work; moreover, there was no need at all of money-making, which involves painstaking accumulation, or of business activity, because Lycurgus had rendered wealth wholly unenviable and dishonorable. The helots worked the land for the Spartans, paying to them a part of the produce (apophora), which was regularly set in advance. A curse was in place against anyone who rented out the land for more, so that the helots might serve gladly since they were making some gain, and the Spartans themselves might not try to get more.
In which way did the Spartans benefit from the agricultural work of their helots? How did it differ from other forms of employing slaves in agriculture? Cf. 4.2–6.
How does Plutarch explain the reason for this arrangement?
Do you accept Plutarch’s explanation? What other explanations can you think for this arrangement?
Does this arrangement make helots completely different from chattel slaves? Cf. 12.18–9.
1.8 Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus, 28: Greek Biography (Late First/Early Second Century CE)
Literature: Luraghi 2002; Luraghi and Alcock 2003.
In other respects, too, the Spartans used to treat the helots harshly and cruelly, to the point that they would force them to drink great amounts of unmixed wine and introduce them to the communal messes, thus demonstrating to the young what it meant to be drunk. And they would order them to sing songs and dance dances ignoble and ridiculous and abstain from the songs and dances of the free. This is why they say that later, during the invasion of Laconia by the Thebans,16 when the Thebans would order the helots they captured to sing the songs of Terpander, Alcman, and Spendon the Spartan, they used to refuse, saying that their masters would not wish it. So those who say that in Lacedaemon the free man is freest, while the slave is most a slave, have correctly gauged the difference.
How did the Spartans try to humiliate the helots?
Why did the Spartans enforce such practices on the helots?
What example does Plutarch cite to show the effects of such practices on slaves?
Does Plutarch think that helots were “between slave and free”? Cf. 1.3.
What do you think?
1.9 Aristotle, Politics, 1264a17–22: Greek Philosophical Treatise (Fourth Century BCE)
Aristotle draws attention to the vagueness of Plato’s Republic about whether the ideal of communal property would apply to all the classes in the ideal city or to the guardians only.
Literature: Lewis 2018: 147–65.
If everything is common to all in the same way as among the guardians, then in what way will the farmers be different from the guardians? Or what benefit will there be to those who submit themselves to their rule? Or on what consideration will they submit themselves to the guardians’ rule unless the guardians think of a clever idea similar to that of the Cretans? For the Cretans have allowed to their slaves everything they allow to themselves, with only two exceptions: they forbid them to use the gymnasia and possess weapons.
What activities are prohibited to Cretan slaves? Why?
Does this necessarily mean that Cretan slaves were better treated than Spartan helots?
Does the description “between slave and free” (see 1.3) fit Cretan slaves better than helots?
1.10 Ps.-Xenophon, Constitution of the Athenians, 1.11–2:17 Greek Political Treatise (Probably Fifth Century BCE)
This text, while critical of Athenian democracy, attempts to offer a sociological analysis of why the Athenian system works and is difficult to overthrow.
Literature: Vlassopoulos 2007; Canevaro 2018.
If anyone is also surprised at the fact that here they allow their slaves to live in luxury and, some of them, magnificently, they could be shown to be doing this too with good reason. For where there is a naval power, it is necessary for financial reasons to be slaves to the slaves − so that we may receive the payments (apophora) the slaves make − and then to let them free. “But in Lacedaemon, my slave would have been in fear of you!” But if your slave is in fear of me, there will be a risk that he might even give his money so as not to be in danger. Where there are wealthy slaves, it is no longer useful that my slave should be in fear of you. This is why we established equality of speech between slaves and free men and between metics and citizens.
How does the author describe the condition of slaves at Athens?
How does he explain the peculiar condition of Athenian slaves?
Do you find his explanation credible? What is the author’s agenda?
Why would a Spartan helot fear a free man who is not his master more than an Athenian slave would?
Can we say that Spartan helots behaved more slavishly than Athenian slaves?
Can we say that some Athenian slaves worked and lived as independently as most Spartan helots?
In the light of this and the above passages, does it make sense to posit a single categorical distinction between helots and chattel slaves?
SOCIAL DEATH
1.11 Social Death and Roman Law
Civil law was the law applying to Roman citizens; the law of nations refers to rules common to all human communities; natural law was law according to nature. On the Digest, see 1.2.
Literature: Buckland 1908: 397–418; Wieling 1999: 1–30; Bodel 2017.
1.11.a Digest, 50.17.32: Collection of Latin Juristic Texts (Sixth Century CE)
Ulpian, On Sabinus, Book 43: As far as the civil law is concerned, slaves are regarded as nobodies. However, this is not the case with natural law because as far as natural law is concerned, all human beings are equal.
1.11.b Digest, 50.17.209: Collection of Latin Juristic Texts (Sixth Century CE)
Ulpian, On the Lex Iulia et Papia, Book 4: We compare slavery closely with death.
1.11.c Paul’s Views (Pauli Sententiae), 4.10.2: Latin Juristic Text (Third Century CE)
For the senatus consultum Claudianum (SCC), see 11.22. According to this law, a free woman who entered a union with a slave could lose her free status and become a slave.
Under the senatus consultum Claudianum, a daughter who is a slave or a freedwoman cannot inherit her mother’s estate if the latter dies intestate. For neither slaves nor freedpersons are acknowledged as having a mother who is a Roman citizen.
What does Ulpian compare slavery with? Why?
What are the rights of slaves according to civil law?
Does Roman law recognize slave kinship?
How do these passages use the distinction between natural law, civil law, and the law of nations with regard to slavery?
1.12P.Herm. 18, 1–12: Papyrus with Record of Official Proceedings in Greek, Egypt (323 ce?)
Literature: Wolff 1966; Straus 2004a: 14–15.
[…] when […] were about to become consuls [for the third time], on the eighth day before the Ides of December, on the 9th day of the month Choiak.
When Firmus came forward and presented Patricius, the advocate, Clematius said: “Firmus, who came forward, has a slave called Patricius. Firmus has brought him here so that he be questioned on his status.”
The officials18 said to Patricius, “Are you slave or free?” He responded: “Slave.”
The officials said to him, “Whose slave?”
He replied, “Firmus’s.”
The officials said to him, “From which place did he acquire you?”
He replied, “From Reskoupos.”
The officials said to him, “From whom?”
He responded, “From Nikostratos.”
The officials said to him, “Is your mother a slave?”
He replied, “Yes.”
The officials said to him, “What is her name?”
He replied, “Hesychion.”
The officials said to him, “Do you have siblings?”
He replied, “Yes, one. His name is Eutychios.”
The officials said to him, “Is he a slave, too?”
He replied, “Yes.”
What kind of questions do the officials ask to establish the identity of the slave?
What questions do they ask concerning his family? What does this imply?
What question concerning his family do they
not
ask? What does this imply about natal alienation?
1.13 Ammianus Marcellinus, History, 28.1.49: Latin Historiography (Fourth Century CE)
Ammianus here delineates the persecution in Rome of members of the senatorial rank through trials under the emperor Valentinian I. Fausiana was a widow of senatorial rank, accused of adultery with two men of the same rank, Abienus and Eumenius. Anepsia was also a widow of senatorial rank. Simplicius of Emona was at the time (ca. 374–5 CE) in charge of the persecution.
Literature: Harper 2011: 69–78, esp. 72.
But after Fausiana was convicted, they (i.e. Abienus and Eumenius) were enlisted among the accused and summoned with edicts to appear in court. They took themselves off into deeper concealment. Of the two, Abienus was hiding for a long time in the house of Anepsia. However, as unexpected events often aggravate pitiable misfortunes, a man called Sapaudulus, a slave of Anepsia, stricken by pain because his spouse (coniunx) had received a beating, denounced the matter to Simplicius, after reaching him in the night. Public attendants were sent and, when they were pointed out to them, the attendants dragged them away from their hiding place.
Why did Sapaudulus reveal the secret of his mistress?
What political conditions allowed Sapaudulus to take his revenge? What are the implications of this for the exercise of slave agency?
What were the consequences of slave family for this particular mistress?
What can we learn from this story about the significance of kinship for slaves?
1.14 Ps.-Plutarch, On the Education of Children, 8f–9a: Greek Moral Philosophy (Late First/Early Second Century CE)
Literature: Golden 1985; Klees 2005.
I also state that children should be guided toward honorable practices through admonitions and reasoning – not, by God, through beatings and blows. For these measures seem rather more fitting to slaves rather than to the free. Children end up dull and shudder at hard work, partly from the pain of the blows, partly from the outrage they suffer. It is, instead, praise and rebuke that are most beneficial for the free – praise because it urges toward what is good, rebuke because it keeps one away from what is disgraceful.
By what means should free children be trained? How should slaves be trained?
How can we explain the different treatment of free and slave?
1.15 IG I3 1390: Greek Inscription on Theater Seat, Athens (450–400 BCE)
In the ancient world, the privilege of sitting in the first row at the theater was a major indication of honor, reserved for magistrates, priests, and benefactors of the community and bestowed on prominent foreigners. The theater of Dionysus in Athens had inscriptions on the marble seats, reserving them for particular categories of people. Ancient cities possessed public slaves who performed many important tasks as civil servants.
Literature: Kamen 2013: 19–31; Ismard 2017: 57–79.
(Seat) of the (slave) assistants of the Council.
To what people does this inscription refer?
Why do you think the Athenians conferred this honor on these slaves?
Can we learn something about slavery from this inscription?
1.16SEG XL 1044: Greek Funerary Inscription, Gordos, Lydia (69–70 CE)
This funerary text uses the language of honorific inscriptions, a common feature of epitaphs from Roman Lydia. All the names recorded are Greek. Because the style is largely elliptical, we have added the assumed words in round brackets, to assist comprehension.
Literature: Martin 2003; Zoumbaki 2005.
In the year 154, on the eighth day of the last third of the month Artemisios.
Elikonis honored Amerimnos, her husband […]; Amerimnos (honored) his father; Terpousa (honored) her own son; his grandmother Nikopolis (honored him); Alexandros and Demetria and Terpousa (honored) their brother; Aigialos, his foster father, (honored him); Gamos (honored) his in-law. All his kinsmen and fellow slaves honored Amerimnos.
Farewell.
What kind of inscription is this?
What kind of community is presented here honoring Amerimnos? What forms of kinship are evident? Cf. 7.12.
Are these people slaves? How can we know?
Is the master of these people mentioned? If not, what are the implications?
What do you think about the use of the vocabulary of honor by this group of slaves?
1.17 CIL VI, 6308 (Latin Text After Caldelli and Ricci 1999): Latin Funerary Inscription, Rome (First Half of First Century CE)
The deceased was buried in the columbarium of the slaves and freedpersons of the aristocratic Statilii Tauri (see 4.9, 10.16). For columbaria, see 7.17.
Literature: Caldelli and Ricci 1999; Borbonus 2014.
Jucundus, [freedman?] of Taurus, litter-bearer. So long as he was alive, he was a man, and defended both himself and others. So long as he was alive, he lived honorably.
This is offered by Callista and Philologus.
What was Jucundus’ legal and work status?
How is he described in his epitaph?
What was the role of honor in Jucundus’ life?
1.18P.Turner 41, 1–20: Papyrus with Petition in Greek, Oxyrhynchos, Egypt (Mid-Third Century CE)
Literature: Llewelyn 1992: 55–60, 1997: 9–46.
Aurelia Sarapias, also called Dionysarion, daughter of Apollophanes, also called Sarapammon, formerly exegêtês of Antinoopolis, acting without a guardian, in accordance with the ius liberorum.19 I own a slave, formerly my father’s, Sarapion by name, who I thought would commit no wrongdoing because he was part of my patrimony and had been entrusted by me with our affairs. This man, I don’t know how, at the instigation of others, adopted an enemy’s attitude toward the honor and the provision of the necessities for life I was giving him. He stealthily took from our household some clothes I had prepared for him and some other stuff, which he helped himself to from our belongings, and secretly ran away. When it came to my ears that he was at Chairemon’s, in the hamlet of Nomou, I requested […].
What are the names of the mistress and the slave? Can we draw any conclusions from this?
How is Sarapion described?
Why did Sarapias not expect him to betray her and flee?
Why does Sarapias think that Sarapion was ungrateful? What did she offer her slave?
What do you think of the employment of the term honor in this context?
How does Sarapias explain Sarapion’s change of behavior? How credible do you find her explanation? What other explanations can you think of?
What can we learn about “the mind of the master class” from this petition?
SLAVERY AS AN ASYMMETRICAL NEGOTIATION
1.19 Herodas, Mimiambs, 5:20 Greek Verse Mime (First Half of Third Century BCE)
Herodas’ mimiambs are poems of a dramatic form, written in a type of iambic meter associated with invective poetry. They are influenced by comedy and the mime and were probably not only read but also performed, possibly to a fairly learned audience. For many societies, the theme of sexual relations between a mistress and her slave is an object of satire.
Literature: Fountoulakis 2007; Parker 2007; Todd 2013.
Bitinna:Tell me, Gastron. Is this so overfull, that it is no longer enough for you to move my legs, but you’ve been coming on to Menon’s Amphytaia?
Gastron: I to Amphytaia? Have I seen the woman you speak of?
Bitinna: You spin out excuses all day long.
Gastron: Bitinna, I’m a slave. Do whatever you want with me but don’t suck my blood day and night.
Bitinna: You! You can’t hold your tongue either! – Kydilla, where is Pyrrhias? Call him to me.
Pyrrhias: What is it?
Bitinna: Bind this man! Are you still standing there? Untie first the rope from the bucket. Fast! –
