UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attic manumissions : a commentary on IG II2 1554-59 and Agora I 3183 and 4763 Joss, Kelly L. 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2001-0416_fixed.pdf [ 5.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0090432.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090432-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090432-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090432-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090432-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090432-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090432-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0090432-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0090432.ris

Full Text

ATTIC MANUMISSIONS: A COMMENTARY ON IG 112 1554-59 AND AGORA I 3183 AND 4763  By KELLY L .  JOSS  B . A . , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,  1999  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL, NEAR EASTERN AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 2001 © Kelly L. Joss, 2001  In presenting this thesis  in partial fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  [JdHiCoil Q)de<>  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  A>q.*lfo}  -11-  ABSTRACT The following paper is based on eight opisthographic fragments as assembled and published by D.M. Lewis in Hesperia  XXVIII (1959)  - IG II 2 1554-59 and Ag. I 3183 - and Hesperia XXXVII (1968) Ag. I 4763. Although the existing text is fragmentary, much of it remains intact and is legible. Both faces of the stele consist of entries recording the results of fictitious trials for abandonment, in which, in every case, chattel slaves were acquitted from their masters and given metic status. Along with each acquittal, there was a payment of a phiale worth one-hundred drachmas. This stele now stands as the most complete manumission document surviving from ancient Athens and its existence compels us to ask many more questions than can perhaps be answered. Manumissions were exceedingly uncommon at Athens, as attested by the near absence of literary and epigraphical evidence for them, and it is unclear why such a document would appear suddenly, having no predecessors, save for a few fragments found to be from around the same period, never to be followed by further evidence of its kind. Why would it have been necessary to simultaneously manumit so many slaves in the last quarter of the fourth century? Surely, it wasn't to honour them, judging from the format of the entries. What, then, was the purpose? With this question in mind, the following topics were explored. Chapter one focused on the legal aspects of the document such as what was meant by the apophugon procedure and who paid for the phiale. Chapter two involved charting the deme-distribution of the former masters and slaves, with the purpose of finding a general area of domicile. for those named on the document. The third chapter discussed the various occupations listed in conjunction with the former slaves, with the ultimate motive of finding what types of slaves were being released and what this might reveal about the document's purpose. The following conclusions were formed: the slave probably bore the responsibility for the payment of his release, which here took  -111-  the form of a phiale. Based on Plato's reference to paramone agreements in Laws 915a, it is viable that such agreements were practiced at Athens and, furthermore, that .they were similar to those found at Delphi. The deme-distribution of both the former masters and slaves provides evidence that the majority probably had domiciles in city-demes. Lastly, the fact that the highest percentage of former slaves were involved in wool-working and domestic-service lends some credence to the slaves' manumissions having been based upon something other than solely the attainment of freedom. These slaves would have been virtually unskilled and, therefore, the cheapest for the masters to release. As for the other more skilled slaves listed, they would almost certainly have been living-apart, already in a. quasi-free state. In essence, these slaves appear to have been token manumissions, although their new legal status is indisputable, assembled from the more politically active city-dwellers, whose purpose was to allow the state to gather revenue for the oncoming and inevitable war with Macedon. This revenue took the initial form of phialai payments and then, subsequently, the perpetual metoikion payments, required of every metic. The text of the inscription, as published by D.M. Lewis (1959 and 1968), along with his assembly of the fragments, is included. I have also written an English translation. Charts and maps of the former masters' and slaves' deme distribution and slave occupations are also included, as well as an appendix on slave names.  -ivTABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  n-iii  List of List  of  Tables  v  Maps  vi  Abbrevia fci oris  vii  Introduction  1-9  Text of the Stele (Greek) Text of the Stele (English) Chapter I  Legal Issues Payment of the Phialai The Formula Comparison with IG II2 10  1.1 1.2 1.3 Chapter II  Chapter III  Bibliography  44-59 47-53 53-56 56-59  The Demes  60-69  2.1 2.2 2.3  63-65 65-67 67-69  Former Master's Demes Freedmen's Demes Correlation of the Former Masters' and Freedmen's Demes  Slave Occupations  76-101  3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8  86-93 93-95 95 96 96-97 97-99 99-100 100-101  Industry Retail Entertainment Transport Domestic Agriculture General Work Comparison with IG II2 10  102-107  Conclusions Appendix  10-27 28-43  Slave Names  of Works  Cited  108-112  113-116  -vLIST OF TABLES  Table 1: Face A  70  Table 2: Face B  72  — These record information from each entry on the stele. The entries in the charts are listed in alphabetical order by the former masters' demes. The order of each horizontal entry is as follows: line number, status of former master (citizen or metic), his deme, freedman's deme, gender, occupation.  -Vl-  LI ST OF MAPS Seven Fragments of the Manumission Stele as Assembled by D.M. Lewis (1959)  Deme Map A: Face A Deme Map B: Face B — Using a deme map of Attica taken from John Traill (1975), I have charted the deme distribution of the former masters and slaves.  -vi lABBREVIATIONS  Journals: ABSA  Journal  AJA  American  CJ  Classical  CQ  Classical  CR  Classical  JNES  Journal  ZPE  Zeitschrift  of  the  British  Journal  of  School  at  Athens  Archaeology  Journal Quarterly Reviewof Near Eastern fur  Papyrologie  Studies und  Epigraphik  Reference: FRA IG 112  M.J. Osborne and Sean G. Byrnes, The Foreign Residents of Athens; Peeters, Leuven, 1996. J. Kirchner, Inscriptiones  Graecae:  Editio  Minor; Berlin, 1927. LGPN  M.J. Osborne and S.G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. ii; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.  LSJ  H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. vii; Oxford, 1997.  PA  J. Kirchner, Prosopographia  Attica,  vols, i-ii;  Berlin, 1901-03. SAG  L.C. Reilly, Slaves  in Ancient  Publishers Inc, Chicago, 1978.  Greece;  Ares  -1-  Joss  Introduction  The following thesis is based upon eight fragments as published XXVIII (1959) - IG II 2 1554-59 and Ag.  by D.M. Lewis in Hesperia •3183 -  and Hesperia  (1968) - Ag.  XXXVII  I  I 4763. Koehler had  earlier assigned IG II 2 1556-58 to the same stele, and in fact, as Lewis notes,. 1556 joins 1557. * Kirchner assigned  IG II 2 1554 to  1555 and lastly, Lewis added 1559, Ag. I 3183 and later Ag. I 4763 to  the.' group.2  These  fragments  are  part  of  one  large  opisthographic stele, consisting of five columns on Face A written in stoichedon, with sixteen letters in the first four columns and seventeen in the fifth, and four columns on Face B, written in non-stoichedon. Although the existing text is fragmentary, much of it remains intact and is legible.  Both faces of the stele consist of entries  recording the results of fictitious trials for abandonment,3 in which, in every case, chattel slaves were acquitted masters and given metic status.  from their  Because these trials all seem to  have the same result, this document appears to represent a series' of  legal  fictions,  each  having  the  predetermined  result  of  acquittal. The masters are listed as either citizens or metics and the  former  slaves  are  listed  given the metic designation a  OIKCOV EV  payment  of  their occupations  + domicile. a phiale  and  Along with each  acquittal,  there  drachmas.  Because all of these fragments record manumissions and  1  was  along with  worth  one-hundred  Lewis (1959), 208. Please refer to pp 10-11 for a diagram of the fragments' placement (taken from Lewis [1959]). 3 Discussed in Ch 1. 2  -2constitute referred  part  of  the  to together  Introduction,  I have  same  Joss  stele, they will  as the Manumission included  a  copy  of  henceforth  be  Stele. Following the the  layout  of the  fragments (only the first seven as published by Lewis in 1959) as well as the inscription as published by the same scholar (1959 and 1968). These are followed by an English translation. As will be seen below, there are three different types of marble found in the descriptions of these fragments - Pentelic, Hymettian and subcaeruleus.  One would expect that if all of the fragments  came from the same stele, they would all consist of the same type of marble. This discrepancy has not been noted by Lewis and cannot be rectified in this paper. The epigraphical information for the fragments is as follows: 1 IG 112 1554 Height, 0.26m.; width, 0.50m.; thickness, 0.11m. Height of letters, 0.005m on both sides.  Opisthographic fragment of Pentelic marble, wholly intact on the left side. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns one and two. Face B is nonstoichedon and retains parts of columns three and four.  2 IG 112 1555 Height, 0.20m.; width, 0.18m.; thickness, 0.10m. Height of letters, 0.005m. on Face A (Face B has been damaged and does not retain any inscription)  -3-  Joss  Fragment of Hymettian(?) marble, broken on all sides.  Face A is  written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns one and two.  Face B has been lost but presumably it  would have included part of column four. 3 IG 112 1556 Height, 0.18m.; width, 0.22m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.004 on both sides  Opisthographic  fragment  of  Hymettian  marble, broken  on  three  sides. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line for column four and 17 for column five. Face B is non-stoichedon and includes parts of columns one and two.  4 IG 112 1557 Height, 0.47m.; width, 0.28m.; thickness, 0.125m. Height of letters, 0.004 on both sides  Opisthographic fragment of Hymettian marble, intact on the right side.  Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line  for column four and 17 for column five. Face B is non-stoichedon and includes parts of columns one and two.  5 IG 112 1558 Height, 0.41m.; width, 0.26m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.004 on both sides  -4Opisthographic  fragment  of  Hymettian  Joss marble, broken  on  three  sides. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line for column four and 17 for column five. Face B is non-stoichedon and-includes parts of columns one and two. 6 IG 112 1559 Height, 0.205m.; width, 0.37m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.005 on both sides  Opisthographic fragment of blue marble {subcaeruleus) all sides.  , broken on  Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per  line and includes parts of columns one to four. Face B is nonstoichedon and includes parts of columns two to four.  7 Ag.  I 3183  Height, 0.214m.; width, 0.262m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.005 on both sides  Opisthographic fragment of Pentelic marble, broken on all sides, found in a wall of a house dated to 638/9, located west of the Church of the Holy Apostles on 9 January 1935. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns three and four. Face B is non-stoichedon .. and includes parts of columns two and three.  -58 Ag.  Joss  I 4763  Height, 0.14m.; width, 0.125m.; thickness, 0.055m. Height of letters, 0.005  Marble fragment, intact on the left side, found in the wall of a late  pit  southeast  of  the  Agora,  east  of  the  Late  Roman  Fortification, on 20 April 1937. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes part of column one. Face B has been lost but presumably would have included part of column four.  NB: All the dates in the following paper are BCE.  The main clue for dating Face A of . the Manumission Stele is found  at  line  189ff  where  we  find  three  sons  of  Demon of  Phrearrhioi - Demotion, Dem(?) and Demophilos - joining to free a woman who was presumably a family slave." The fact that the father was not present as one of. the manumittors implies that he was probably dead by the time of the manumission. There was, however, a Demon of Phrearrhioi alive in 323 or 322, as seen on IG 112 1632.48.  Based on this evidence, Face A cannot be earlier than  323. It also cannot be much later than this date, since there are men present on the stele who were born in 389/8 (A.140)5 , ca. 380 (A.219)6  and one before 397 (A.557)7 . Furthermore, it is probably  not after Demetrios of Phaleron's reforms in 317/16 since the name ' Lewis' prosopographical study of the masters' names (1959) has been most helpful in this section. 5 LGPN: p 472, Chairippos (16). 6 LGPN: p 229, Thrasymedes (16). 7 LGPN: p 80, Autokles (23).  -6of one of the masters  Joss  (A. 548) has been found on a gravestone  (IG  112 6437) which appears to have been made before restrictions were placed on extravagant grave markers.  Based on the above evidence,  the date for Face A likely lies in the very early twenties. Face B appears to be later than Face A as it was not as carefully  planned  and  executed,  although  the  date,  if  indeed  later, does not appear to have been much after that of Face A. The main clue is found at line 328ff where there are two brothers joining to free a family slave. One of the brothers, Antisthenes, is found on another inscription, dated 326/5, where he is recorded as having paid for half of a new trireme as the heir of the elder Antisthenes.6 Since the elder Antisthenes is last known from an inscription dating to 334/3, he could have died after this point and was surely dead by 326/5 when the younger Antisthenes made a contribution  in his  earlier than 334.  name; the  stele  then  should  not  be dated  Furthermore, there is a man called Misgolas at  line 335 whose accepted birth date is 390,9 so the date for Face B is probably not much lower than 320, although it is possible. Thus we  have  for  Face A  of  the Manumission  Stele  a date  probably  between 323 and 320 and not much lower, if at all, for Face B. As will be discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, manumission seems to have been exceedingly uncommon at Athens.  This stele, along with  a group of related manumission stelai,10 which all appear to have been produced within a twenty year time frame, is the only extant epigraphical evidence for manumissions at Athens. That there would be 8  no evidence  for  such procedures  from before  or after  this  Cf. Kirchner's stemma, PA 1196. 9 PA 10225. Cf. Lewis (1958), 108 for a discussion of the problems with this date. 10 Lewis (1959) , 233-35.  -7period  rouses  suspicion  that  Joss this  document  is  linked  to  contemporaneous events limited to this particular time in Athenian history. The mid to early twenties was a period of. great turmoil for the Athenians, as they were feeling the heavy weight of Macedon upon them.  Drastic measures had been taken by Lycurgus' coalition to  systematically prepare for' the inevitable battle between the two powers and at the same time to bolster the Athenians' patriotism and  political  spirit  which  had  eroded  after  so  many  failed  campaigns over the past thirty years. The Athenians knew that if they were to compete with Macedon's enormous revenues and manpower, they had to act quickly to gain resources  to  update  fortifications.  their  warships  and  rebuild  their  From 338/7 until his death in 326/5, Lycurgus  took the helm as chief Finance Minister and was hugely successful at  gaining  vast  amounts  of  money,  thereby  increasing  Athens'  annual income to 1200 talents, up from 400 in 346. n He not only used  this  capacities  money but  to  also  strengthen to  fund  Athens'  Athenian  military  building  and  naval  projects  and  festivals. How he managed to gain such revenues is not exactly clear. He did encourage wealthy Athenians 'to perform liturgies for Athens while prosecuting those he felt were not doing or had not done their civic duty.12  At the same time, those who had done  their civic duties were given honours, thereby encouraging others to  do  the  inscriptions 11  same;13 from  Williams  this  period  states appear  Williams, 7; Ferguson, 10. 12 Cf. Lye.52.3; PA 9422, 2746. 13 Cf. M.N. Tod (1962), nos. 178, 193, 198-9. " Williams, 14 no. 37.  that to  over be  half . of  honorary.14  the  After  -8-  Joss  Lycurgus' death, his coalition, perhaps with Demades as the new chief financier, who had collaborated with him in finances, no doubt continued to raise money for Athens. When Alexander died in 323, the Athenians, knowing that Macedon was about to enter its own political turmoil as its generals struggled for power, decided to go to war. How does the Manumission Stele fit into this context? One hundred and twenty-three slaves can be identified as having been freed as a result of these feigned trials. The question arises, why were so many slaves being released at this tumultuous time in Athens?  I would like to suggests three reasons.  First of all, as  mentioned above, with the release of each slave there was a payment of a phiale  worth one hundred drachmas.  Even in the  stele's fragmentary condition, a total of 12,300 drachmas can be seen as having come to the state15 as a result of these acquittals and the total was doubtless even higher. Coupled with the  phialai  payments, each freedman was registered as a metic, obligating him/her to pay the metoikion  (metic tax) . This tax was ongoing so  the state was assured of receiving a continuous payment from every metic as long as he or she resided in Attica.  Thirdly, every male  metic would have been liable to fight on behalf of Athens in the event of warfare, an obligation slaves did not generally have.16 The high date for the document, 323, is more likely as this marked the beginning of the Lamian War; by 322/1, the Athenians had surrendered to the Macedonians after being defeated at the Battle of Crannon. These releases could have been simply another effort 15  That these phialai were payments to the state rather than dedications to a god is discussed below, p ,. 16 See below, p 76 no.73 for an exception.  -9-  Joss  to gather revenue and manpower in preparation for the war. Aside from providing some evidence into the political atmosphere of fourth-century Athens, the Manumission Stele gives us valuable evidence for legal issues, such as the little known  apophugon  procedure, as well as deme distribution and slave occupations. It is these topics on which the following paper will seek to provide a commentary. The first chapter will focus on legal issues and questions concerning the document: what the evidence is for apostasiou phialai,  dike  trials, what were paramone agreements, who paid for the what formula was used and what this document has in  common with the oft-compared IG II2 10.  The second chapter will  chart the deme-distribution for the former slaves and masters. In the process, I hope to illuminate any patterns of distribution relating to the former masters and their slaves. Maps for visual reference and cross-reference charts listing former masters and slaves and their demes will be included at the end of this chapter. slaves  Chapter three will discuss the social roles chattel played  in  Athenian  society  occupations listed on the stele.  by  an  analysis  of  the  I will also try to uncover  whether there is any pattern to the kinds of slaves that were being freed, in the hope of further understanding the purpose of this document.  -10-  Joss  Seven Fragments o f t h e Manumission a s A s s e m b l e d b y D.M. L e w i s  Stele  (1959)  FACE A  Vacat  }  1556 ' Y?T\  ^J>vix£siX>  ^iJT^U^'  &  1557  -3-  I3A83 »: i-'^  •^ifc  155H  1558 *>?  ,  ^  ¥•.'••'•*  15 CWl  l v  ' -Y.N  £'>•>  Vacat  -11FACE B  Joss  -12-  Joss  Text of the Stele (Greek) (as published by D.M. Lewis i n 1959 & 1968)  FACE A  Column I 23 lines missing ]9 25  . . . . (f)i.dk crradu • H ] ** otK  ... J <i)V  30  airtxpv J yoiv Jarou . . . * . . . <£«£X cr\Ta6(i:Y\ . .. .' ifi] Ilctpa rro OLKWV diroijivy^wv . . . . .10. . . . . K] VSOV T  ..*...  35  40  <f>LaX <TT]adfw :H ' ey] K o U v ouuov a.TTo<pvy]oiv 12 ..]paro 12 , . ] 1,WK 13 . . ]Kpa Aa]/X7TT ..J/oar  about 28 lines missing o]uc a.TTO<j)vy] o>v  70  ] 1TQ)\  <^U£XTJ] o r a : H  K .. . .*  75  10  ey Ko\]Xv oi air]<xf>vy 1  /  ojKparo  v  Joss  -13-  [ . . ' . . . <f)tdXrj] a-radjjL-.H  [....."..... ]fcu>v i f [....* o]lK d.TTO<j> [vy . . . . * . . . .]oKpdro  about 12 lines missing 92  [  V  [ ....*  95  100  ]Xe d ] ncxfnry  [ . . . . I" ] V 'OXvp.1T [ioSa>pov 'A]yp <f>ui crra:H [ . . . ' . . . . ] raXa iv KvS r [OIKOU] a.iro<j>vyovcra AvcriSiKov Avaurrp 6.TOV 'A\apvi <jud crra: H [K] I7TOS ip Uei OIKWV  ^aX/ccu dvocftvywu vv Aiovvanov UroTtXi} <f>idXij <na.6pJbv \H : r r r MvT)crid£a{v} ip. IIci oi 105 KO raXa. dTro<f)iryovo-a i Aiovvcriov UroreXf} <f>idkr) o~ra.dp6v:H : e c r Sdrvpos 'Ayvovv OLK i yecopyo diro<j>vywv n 110  KT)4>UTIOV Kr)(f)io-oSrj  I fiov IlaXX^ <f)id crra#:H ; [K]aXXta<?> KairrfX ip lie [i OI]KCOV dno<j>vyoiv  115  cr  [. .'. . ,]iv HoXvevtcro  [ . . . ' . . . . ^M£XT/] era :H  [vacat] Column II 11 lines missing 128 130  [ .". }ov 6 [. . . . . . <f>idX o~T]adp:H i [ :-. ]/?ipK [ . . OIKWV dTr]o<f)irywv v  Joss  -14-  [....*... .jATj/xoorpet [TO &ped]pp <f>idk o~ra-£\ [. .5. . .]o? iv KvSa OLK 135 [<w XPV ] °"°X° dircxf>vyoi>v [lLi/]dwf>pova Ev0v*Xe , , OU? XoXXc <j)td OTO.Q '. H Buoy ifi MeX ouc<u Sa*c •n/XioyXu dvo<j)xryoi)v 140 Xai/jMnrov XatpcS^ /iov 'AXatc *cat KOI ep aft TWV fierd Xcupiir •no 'AXatc <f>idk o-rad:V\ 'Cl(f>ekttt)v kv KoXXv oi 145 KS) KKLVOTT a.TTO^>vyo}v F>vv6kefwv Einrokep, o 'Aypv <fudk o-radpx>:H Moo-xuov ip, Tleip O[IK] aj ifiiropo airo<f>vy[ci)v "] 150  AVKIV3UI>I>OS ['Axa-pv]  _<f>idX <rradpx>v [:H —"] tyikovucrj rfaXad-t £v] ACVKO OLK a[7ro<f>vyov] At\pxxr6hn\v [ . . . * . . . ] 155 Xo &vkd [<f>idk o-radp. :H] ^—1'A8ow-[tos....?....]  About 28 lines missing 185 TTX^[  190  »......*]  v KoX[Xv OIK <f>id o r a : H ] Mevimrt] [....* ] Takaxri diro<f>[iryo{kra] Arjfurruova A[rjpxavos] Qpedppi, Arjp[. . . * . . . ] ArjfUDvo <&ped[ppi, ATJ/A] 6<f>ikov Arjpxj[vo^ ^*pc] dppio (fudkr) [oTa6p,:\-\] 'Ovjo-ipos 'A[kame( ?)ouc]  195 About 11 lines missing  -15-  207  [A]VKU7TCO[V ALOSOTOV] 'EWIKT) <f)id[\OT]ad  210  Joss  p.[  \H]  Mai^js dp<f>o[p] iv KoX[X] OIK<O airo<j>vy<i)P Oivid8r)v  OIVOK\£O  'Afia£av <f>idk oraOp,: H <J>tXumj raXcuri ep M cX OIKOV airo<fivyo\HT 215  'Eirtxapi&rjv Avcrimr ov Aa/MIT <f>id OTddp: H 'Apurropevrjs ip MeX OIK CTKVTOTO dlTO<f)Vy  220  Qpaarvp-qSrj Rrj8eiSo AevKOvo <f>ux arra6p:V\ 'Ov7)o~ip,T) o~r)cra[p]oir<i)k 'AXGWT OLKOV dv[o<f>vyo] QiXava 3 > i X i [ . . . . 'AX] cone OIK <j>i [aX o-radp.: H ]  225  230  Hoo-ei8d>v[u><; . . . . c] v KoXXw O[IK a7ro<f>vyio] "Tyiaiv[ovra . . . * . . . ] X<> 'AyxfuX <f)id <xra#/i:H] Si/ia [ " ] raX [ axri dtro^vyowra ] *ApX[ V ] ov <£a [Xijp <£«£ aradp: H ]  z'acaf Column III s  6 lines missing 241 [ Xrpo ] (ifiix Seop [ vrjor ] r _ l [ OX]vV0i <f>td\ o-ra[0:H] IT«rTO*cX'j}5 ip Me[X oi] K VTrO$T)p.a.TOTT diro<f>[v] 245 KaWiTTiriSrfv KaXX[t] ov 'AtbiS <f>id\ aradp [ :H] AuWo-io? c[v 2]#ca o [ t ] K yttopyb dTro[<f>]v[y]ci}v [']  -16-  250  Jos  ['A]ywui'i[8]Tji' [IIc]«rio-[T] pa.ro KTJ^I <f>ia cnoB :JH IIOXVTI/IO? h> KoXXu OIK CTKVTOTO airo<f>vy  KakXiav KaXXtaSov TiaxaviA <buxX o-rad.H 255  AafiTrpls ev XKO/J. OUC  over TCTOT) asnexfavyov 'ApurroijxLvT 'Apurri wo 'A<j>i8 <£iaX arrad'.H Evneidt) TTCUSI tird 2 6 0 iv XK OLKOV diro<f>vyo 'Apurro(f>(t)VT 'Api[o*]Ti <ov 'A<f>i8v <j>uik O-[TO.8 :JH] ~~Eifi[. . . ]? iv Ko[XX(T)ouc] 53 lines  missing  7  317  [. . . . . . . airo<f>\ryov]<r [ \s ]Sov  320  [. A . . e/i Me]Xi oucov [. . .7. . . . a]iro<}>vyovo[....*.... 'A]TTOWO8O> [pov . . . <f>tdk o-ra]6fi:H 3 lines  missing  327_.A-!P[ » ] AuSi] 'AXconeKTJ [OIKOV] TaXacrio avo<f>[vyovar] 3 3 0 &eo<f>i\ov'Av [..."...] EvoiwpA <f>ui [ X OTOB : H ] _ Meviosiv I / [...'. . . 7 ] 8I<£KOI/ a.7r[o<£vyaw"*]  Aioy«'[Tji>. . . .* 335  ]  ITO 'Ep [. . . 4>id crradp.: H  ~Ka[ ov[ »[ About  .". .". "  ] ~ ] ]  10 lines  missing  Joss  -17-  Column IV 5 lines missing W....-..]«•  335 [-]  . * . . . <f>idX oraBp.: ] H 11  •! ~ OljKOJ  v ano<fnry(ov  Vtcv mv  ]  .".  [-] 360  ] AYAO  . . . * . . . <f>td\ <rr]adp:H "  ]  ifiMeo  LK(OI> . . . . diro]<f>v/(o  .".  v  JoIIaX  \r}V€a <f>u£\ oTadp.: ] H "  2f ]  365 «[  "  ;  J  ui)[. . . * . . . <j>id crraffiH]  ~Aop[ 370  ~Aw[......'. 375  380  385  ".....J  \i/3a[varro dircxfavy. . ] Xrp[ '.' ] ip. II [tip OIK <f>id crra:H ] !  7  Ta[\axri.ov diro<f>vyov\ A[. ......". ]o T. . . " . . . <f>idk <rra0]p,:H .". ip]M^ X owe. . . dircxf>vy. . ] ** I3. o]v ' . . . .<f>ia\ <rra0p,:]H " . . . .* eV 2]/ca/3<y v OLK . . . . * . . . . ] dno<j> . . . . * . . . . 8rjp.]ov Kvd rjppio <fnd <r] radp 'M m h> %K]aj3a)V o IK ] oc diro<f> . . . .8. . . . &T]]pX)V KvO rjppiov <f>td cr]ra6p.:V\ * ip] Ilet OIKO vera . . . . dir]o<f*vyov v  _18-  Joss  390  [. . . .'. . . .tfrjfiov Kvd [rjppiov <f>id] crradfio:H . .* ]")"€«!> €V *H [<fxu OLKU)]V airo<f)vywv : ] AP.i . . Savo  395  [ . . A . . 4*]d\ oraffmH  400  .'. . . fi]ur6cjrb 'AXoi airo<j)vya> vvv .*. . .]8r)v *A[p]t[o-]Tap [xov Mv]/pp Topyado 2a» [a-urrp]a.Tov KvSadjj " [<f)idkTj] oTa6p.6.H **'"' s . . . ] S ScuSoa-xurr 5 . . . ] y OIKCO dircxfrvy .*...]»' Qikotvos ria  405  [. . /  [ITCK OIK]  410  ]9Xo 1<f>UTTL  [aS . . . " . . .]S<upo MetS . . \ . . . ] 0 I N A I 'ATTO [XX . . . . * . . . .]cuaov .". . . (f>La\ <rr]a.0p.:\~\ [ !\ «>Ko [XXv?ouc ]rrv 15 lines  427  430  435  [...'.. .]VT) raXfao-t iv] KoXXv OLKOV airo[<f>vy] "AvSpcav 'AXKI/JLOLXOV [IT] atavi KaXXiinriS-qlv] TtfuovaKTos Tlaiavi ea <f>tdXr) <rra.dp.6v [ : H ] Tvpr/v avXoiroi iv Kv 8a#ij OIKO) d.iro<f>\rya)[v] Afo[....,.\3 ] M[ <f>uLX crrad \H] 5 /i«ej  442  445  missing  missing  [..:...':...._.]oS 2^ [ i f m <^uzX o-r]a#/i:H vv [ rajXcuri iv K [. . . OIKOV air]o^>vyov  -19-  V  Joss  ]6yK\€  . .*. . . .]<f>id o-ra#:H . . * . . . . ] at&Tjpo kv .'. . . OLK]O) diro<fnry<b  450  455  \. . . .*. . . .] Avcraviov . 6 . . . <£]M£X crra^rJH , . ' . . . .]#coXXa/> 'AXco irt OLK(U\ airotpvyu) .*. . .]apvr) 'Apixrro r . . . ( ? ) XoX]Xe<£«£oTa0:H . . . s . . .] vevpopd eu £ ,rl KCL OLK]<I) d.TTO(f)v-yco . . . 6 . . .] Uo\vpTJTOV " . ..'...] <f>ta. a~rad :H "  vacat Column V 460  [  ' ! . . . . « / * ] n « oi ~  I f f _ JV vvvvvvv airo\<p[vy\(o [ X a ] p i a v XapcovvBov Eu wmipi <f>id\ crradfi'.H &ikcov ypafip.aT€ iv 0 [ o ] 465 piKhi OLKO) a.Tro<f>vya)v v <I>€p€xXei8Tj <£ep«cXe ov Htpidoi <f>ui\ o r a :H 'PoSia raXacrt cv 0opi Ku> OLKOV dvo<f>xryov(ra 4 7 0 3>€p€*cXei87} <J>€p€*cX€ ou Hepido <f>idk <rrad: H KopSwrnj TratSioi' ev © optK oucov a7ro<^i/y[oi}] ^cpcficXjecSr; <J>€p€[*Xe] 4 7 5 _ o t / [Ilepi0]oi [<^>u£X o-ra:H]  [ Kwv  »  K[...\..]»*[....\...f 5 /incj missing 480  [....'. . . . o ] v p [ y q t M A | d.TTO<f>vyov "" Xavpiav 'AO-qvimrov IT IT OLKOV  -20-  Joss  eipai %TTovhia.v 8 e a [ i ] TTJTO XoXap Sid a-rad: H 4 8 5 "EmKcpSii? 'Oijo-t oi/cai dtwreXoup diroSvyotv " ATJ [p.]oSikov Aypxxbdvo Haiavi Sid crradiH vvv 'HpaxXctSTj? ip. Me OIK 4 9 0 a» KaTri) dTro(j>vy<i>v vevt MeveSypov e/x Me OIK [ O ] _u(£ M £AoTa0:H C T , , , C M ' , ' &pdirra Kamp\i e/x Me OIKOV airoqtvyov 495 MeveSTj/xoi'ett MeXi o [ t ] _KOv^«£XoTa^:H , , , ; , , , " , 'Ira/ir) TaXcuri e/x Ilei o »  500  505  «* »  i  ~ m e n  I/cow airo<pvyov Xaipimrov Tt/xo/cXet 8ov 'Axapvc Sid <naJd: H 'E7Tiyovo<; ep.irop e/x lie OIKCD awofptryo) Krrjcriav K-rrjcrcovos So piKi StdX <rra0p,:H vvv A7j/xTjTp[ta] Ki6apo)iSb 'Eiriia)Si[art]c!> OIKO dno  510  'AOrjvoSwpov [0]eoSa>po MeXtre &€o8aipov 0eo 8wpo MeXiT Sid orad :H &i\wv rapixoiroi i[p] Ko XXv OIKW diroSvyav  M  X.aip4Sikov $>ei8(0vo Haia Sid\ trradpoiH ** Xpxxriov iTcuSi 'HpcucX 515 ei eV "S,WT OIK diroSvy " Qopp'uav EvpAxo 'Pap,v _[ov] SidXa~rad,Hvvvc" 'OXu/xmd? raXaxri iv K vSa ot/cov dnoSxryov v 5 2 0 'Apx*8d [ p. ] cur 'Apx^S^p ov 'AXate ciidX crra# :H " 'EOTICUOS (TKVTOTO iv  -21-  Joss  ^.KafifSo) OLK aircxfrvyotv [E]i>6vftaxov Ev&ucov [ H ] [VTTCJTCU <f>id\ (rradfi [ :H "]  525  t_^[  ] TaXao-[toev] K [ . . . ] 17 lines  544  ,  550  555  560  [  ,  *  missing ]TO[V]  Ev[*pa]  <f>ui <rr[a:H] [2]tDTT7[p]tSl75 oiTjXaT [«>] Aiofui OIKWV d.ircxj)v[y] 'Avrifiivriv UUTTOKX [ £ ] ou Kt)<f>urU 4>uL <rra[#:H] 2Laxrrpdi-q naiSio i[v K ] [ epa.fi. ] «i» oucov dir<xf> [ try ] ' AvrLpAvqv n«rroK[Xc] ou Ki}(f>uri "Ayvaiv Ev[#u] Kpi KvSa^Tjv <£u£ OT[a:H] nXayyaiv raXaa-to cv [ K ] v8a otKowr airo^)vyo[v] AVTOKXC 'Ai'SpoKXcfov] Evcowjfii <f>iak (rra.0[ft : H ] Yldfi<fnXo<; opewKOfi [i A ] eua OIKSJV a.iro<f>vyo)[v l] ®eoxdpr)v *Epyoxap[ou] IlpcuTiea <£iaX crradp, [ :H ] [T]OVV 'ETTIJOJ  Nuchas XIJSCIVCDTO c/i, [ I I ]  « otK<ai>v diro<))vywv 565  m  OtXoKpaTTJ 'ETTlKpaTO "EXewt KOI KOIPO epa VtOTWI' T<2V f i c r d B€CM^  pdcrrov BadvXXov XoX apy4(i><! <f>idk (rtoBpjo: [ H ] t/acaf  -22-  Joss  FACE B Column I ~~~]  [  [K]CU Kotvby i[pa]vL[aT(iiv aK€(rrpiav ey Kcipt [OIK </>«£]  Xi,:H 5  10  15  20  ]  '  TvScv? Aapaxov 'OijOev [ ] v aproTTa)\r}v 'AXwTreKrj O[IKOVV] TO, <j)tdk: H ~Evdvy€\o<; ®eavyi\ov XoXXe Mwfiov CTKVXO<8>€<I/»>OJ' iv KvSa.0 oiKOVvra <£>u£X:H IIoXvoTpaTOS HokvcrrpdriaT) 'ETT iKT]<f>icrio<: 'S.oxriav ytuipybv iv H(f>aurria OIKOVTO. <f>idk: H AvTry'evT]$ *E7jry<e>»'ou9 iv MtXi [O]IKO> WLvacroiv cr#cvro<T>o/xo iv M« Xi] OIKOV <f>id\rj "A\~\> l i d ] VKOKO<S 'AdTjvaSov irp6£fvo<; *Kp}x<iiv Ta^vSij^tov CK KOIXTJ? . . . ]iav TraiZCutiv ey ITeipa OI[K] [<^iaX]ij:H IIdi>KaXo]s 'A#i}i>d 18ov ^po^e^os]  8 lines missing 30  ]f dX7j:H]  35  40  vacat ] IEP PO. 0Y  iv Iljctp oiKoucrfai' <£w£:H] p.axo9 K]aXXi/id^ou Mapa#q> ] iir Ileip <OI>K rapix0 [<£•• ; H ] ]/xaxo? KaXXi/xdxov [Mapa0&>] ]c^»diTj TraiSa cv Ileipc OIK <f>ia\ri: ] H /iaxo? Ka]XXi[/x]dxo? M a p a # ]ev Ileip OIKO [<£u£ :H ]  ] ] Mapa[6] 2 lines missing  -23-  45  [  Joss  ]8wo[—] 3 lines missing ] OIK  50  [  ]vo[ ] ] Nauo-[ d.fi.]irekovpy [bv ]V <J>ttK7TpaT[  ] ] ]  ] h> KV8CL9[T)V] OLK [ $ M £ X : H ]  55  [. . .]o-t7nro5 E p [ . . . ] s ntaJXXfTji/c] Tax«r TT)V T[aXao-to]vp iy Ku[8a# OLK] <^U£XTJ:H &V(IO8[T)<; ]i7r7r[7iv] rakaxriovpy [ OIK <f>idkT]: H ] TLLV60€O<; M«/i[  60  65  70  y&apybv ifi Ila [ [ .arpoJKXTjs 'Av[ [EVJKOXT; raire[ [. ] aTpoKkr}? 'Av [ [ . . JorTirf [ .aTp]oKX[Tjs 'Av [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [  ]?  'Av[r]Lyo)v  OLKOVVTCL  <f>ui: H ]  —  ]?Hv7?T owe <£u£ :H ] —— ] ? piyire [ T ] ]OIK <f>id[ :H] s ] HVTTCT[ ] O]LK <f>Lai[ : H ] ] yEtTLKT)<f>Ur o] iKoCo-a <j>i:H • - - 6]ov[<s] 'Airo[. . ] -i]fiUeLoiK [<J>L:H] ] 6ov<; 'Avo [. . ] —]8cov OLK [<f>i:H] ! ]o)p ol[ ]  17 lines missing 91  95  100  [ ]ann)v iro-TjKLarrpL i[v ] [ OIK $ i ] a : H [0]cpo-i7nros 'AvTi<f>dvov[ ] [. . ]privL(i)v 6p€co ifi II OIK [ $ t a : H ] Qipo-timos 'AvTL<f>dvov [ ] ILLLOV TTOISLOV ifi II OIK <£«£ [ :H ] [ . . ] LiapT)S 'A\or7T€KTJ OLK ACTTT [ . . ] [. . . ] v iv TWV epy eirl Kvv OLK [. .5. . . ] s MTOTCXTJ? MCO-O) TaXa [ \AX&» ] TTtlCTJO-lV OIK <f>ld\T]'.H  -24-  105  Joss  [. . j/toorpaTO? IloXvxapfjLiBov [ ] X QtiZiorpaTov -xpwroxoov [ey] K<u>8a# owe <fndk-q:H [. . ] Kpdrqs EvfeVov IIOXXTJ NIKO^CVOS 'HyTjcrtou *Epxi ATj/xoarpaTO? A-qfLoo~rpa.Tov [II]aXX "Q.Kifiov raXa o» "H^at [OI]K ^>U£X7J:H  [KjXeo^evos KCU icvptos KTTJO-OJVI [8]7js Ow}0 Eu/cXea ey KoX OIK  110  •yewp <£M£X : H  115  MCVITTJ? Mevcovos KvBad "Array oa-irptoTToiKriv ey K OIK <f>idX:H Mei'i7Tj9 Mei/wvo? Kv8a# MaX Oaacqv Tokaxriovpybv ey K<ei>p OIK <^M£XT7:H  120  Mevmj? Mevw^os Kv8a# nXayyova 7rat8toi' ey K « OIK <f>i: H MevITTJV Mevojvos K.vSa0 Mocr^of Trav&iov ey Kei OIK <£t: H Mevirqs WLivwvos KvSad ' ApuTTOviicr)v iraiol ey Ke oi <f>ui: H  Column II About 8 lines missing 131  /|-_M[— ?  ET[-  0M[135  'EJT[-  _'Apx[" •EJT[-  140  [-"[  [---  -} "-] --] "-] "-] —] -] -] --] —]ov  4*:]H 9 /»»« missing  -25-  151  Jos  ..ot[  --]  Awrixdpr) [s  ]  KOI KOIVOV ep[avurru»v  ]  OIK [<f)ta:H] About 50 lines missing 205  210  215  [ [  }*vQo[.] °]** ?!Wf ^f ; H  [ — ] oXepov *EXcv 'Kxypica [ O]IK y€(op <f>id:H [ ]os XaipeSypov 'AXat [. . . ] \ l [ . . 'A]\(inreKrj OIK p,v\a>9 <f>i:H [ . . . ] ta? 'ApurroKpirov 'A<f>t8v [ . ] irvpav ip. H OIK awX7/ $t :H ['E]irtxa/>t^o? 'Eirixapu'ou Aewc ['H]xa> rdkaxrvovpybv ip, Ha [O]LK [<£]«£:H [NjeoirroXc/to? 'AwucXcov? MCXIT ArjpJav T€KTOV h> [  ]  [O]IK <f>i:H  220  [...]HP!P[ [  ] ]e  [  r  [  ]t 7 lines missing  230 A[ __<£«£[ :H] AVTO[Kpdrrjs A-y 'ApicrTT)[v  ] ] OIK <£i:H]  AVTOKP6.T[T]<; Ay  235  240  ]  lipakov nai8\iov owe] <f>id:\~\ AvroKpan)<i Ay[ ] Nwcapamjj/ ira[iBiov owe] <f>id:H <£i/Xa£ta? &av[iov 'Avayvpdarios] FXvKepap Ta[Xacriou owe] <f>id:\~\  ~ Eu£ovXos K17 [  ]  Joss  -26-  tfino Motrx [  ]  vacat Column I I I About 5 lines missing 250  [  ]ov Ewov  [ [  ] vacat ] X olx Kgvpe <f>i:H  [NiKijparo? Ni]ta)pa.Tov MeXw [&ei&nnros] XaxTtSij/iou Ev7T  255  [  ]  C/A Mekirrji OIK SOJCTV  [*:H]  260  265  [NiKJ^paros Nuajparov MeXt [<I>e]i8ti7Tros SaxriSi/Aov HVJT [. . ] i/aiva irauSiov ip. Me OIK $ i : H Nuajparos NiKJjparov MCXIT (fctSunro? S&xriS^fiov H i r e SrpaToviKTjj' c/i Mc OIK raXa <^>ia:H Niici7paT05 Nt/ojpaTOw McXtr ^>ci8Mrxros SonnS^/iou HIWCT UpidvOrjv ep. Me OIK raXa <£M£:H AIXTMISTJS Xiueo? 'AAOWTCK  XaKrrparjji> raXacrtovpy c/i M OIK  <fu,:\~\ 270 [KjaXXta? KaXXiKparov? 'A<f>t8 r -J [. . jaroi' ey KoXXv OIK OVT) (f>i:H [..*.. .]KXTJS 'Apurro<f>dvov<! 'Axap r -,[ ] ep, M [OIK raXajtrioup <^i :H [ ]ou Acv 275 [ --]<£i:H About 50 lines 326  ov[--  missing  ]  _>:[H] 330  'AvTUT<.dyiv[t)^ 'Avrurdivovs Kv] 6T)P 'Avri<f>dv[ri<; '' Avrurdivovs] KvOrjpp Xrparo [ ]  -27-  335  Joss  'AypvX oix <j>i: [ H ] NucdorpaTfo? ] 'Axap KXeo [ ] TaXaxrup [ <f>ui :H ] MaryoXas [Nawcparous KoXXv]' NauKX[iJ? Navjcparov? KoXXv [  ] :~~ owe <f>ui:H MuryoXa? Nawcparovs KoX 340 Xv NavxXijs Navjcparovs KoX "&8urrr)v vaiStov i Ixap, owe _<^:H  Tt/lOOTpaTO? SfJUKplOV  S^T  [. . . ]/tatoi' T[€t]x«rn7v 2sfyryrroi 345  [owe <£«£] :H  [ [ [  350  II] aptf>iXov <PvkacT ]s Z.(o<f>i\ov <Pv\a OI]K raXa <£i:H  [ ] vacat [ ' ]ra [----— 'l/'M [OIK $ta:H] vacat 10-12 lines missing (?)  -28-  Joss  Text of the Stele (English) Face A Column I 23 lines  ST0ICH.16  missing  ]v  25  30  35  40  ...phiale w e i g h t : 1 0 0 ] w ] resid ent[ ] escapes from ] atou phiale w]eig(ht):100 in] Peira(eus) resident]escapes from vw k]udos T phiale we]ig(ht):100 .in] Kolly(tos) resident]escapes from ]rato ]Synk ] kra La]mpt ] rat about 28 lines  70  75  ]resident ]escapes from ]pol phiale] wei (gh.tj : 100 in Kol]ly(tos) resid e (nt) [ ] escapes from .. . o] kratos phiale] weig(ht):100 ]beiou P ] resid (ent) escapes fr (om) [ ] okratos about  92  missing  [ [  12 lines  • • ] le ] escapes (from)  missing  -29-  Joss  [ ] n son of Olymp 95 [iodoros of A]gryle phia(le) wei(ght):100 [ ]wool (worker) in Kyd(athenaion) [resident] escapes from v Lysidikos son of Lysistratos of Acharnai phia(le) wei(ght):100 100 [K]ittos iri Pei(raeus) resident smi(th) escapes from w Dionysios isoteles phiale weight:100 vw Mnesithea{n}in Pei(raeus) res 105 ide(nt) wool(worker) escapes from Dionysios isoteles phiale weight:100 vw Satyros in Hagnous resid(ent) farmwor(ker) escapes from w 110 Kephisios son of Kephisodemos of Palle(ne) phia(le) wei(ght):100 [K]allia<s> r e t a i l ( e r ) in Pe i ( r a e u s ) resident escapes from w [ ] i n son of Polyeuktos of 115 [ phiale] wei(ght):100 [vacat] Fragment published by Lewis in 1968 Ag. No. I 4763 two lines  5  10  illegible  [ ] e escapes from [Ari]st[an]dros [ ] [ . ] i s of Eu[o](nymon) p h i [ a ] l e [weight:100] [ E ] l p i s in M [ e ] l i ( t e ) [ r e s i d e ( n t ) ] [ f l ] u t e g i r l escapes fr o (m) Leippo [ s ] in M e l i ( t e ) resid(ent) and joi nt contributors [with...] ontok[ ] p h i a [ l ] e [weight:100vw] lacuna  -30-  Joss  Column II  11 lines 128  t  130  [  ]ou phial(e) wei]ght:100 ]r in K  ..resident] escapes  135  140  145  from  from  Lukis son of Bion of [Acharnai] phial(e) weight: 100 Philonike woo(lworker) [in] Leuko(nion) resi  155  v  ]son of Demostra tos of Phrea]rr(hioi) phial(e) wei(ght):100 ]os in Kyda(thenaion) res iden(t) [go]ldsm(ith) escapes from [Eu]thyphron son of Euthykl es of Cholle(idai) phia(le) wei(ght):100 Bion in Mel(ite) residen(t) sign etengr(aver) escapes from Chairippos son of Chairede mos of Halai together with joint contrib utor(s) with Chairip pos of Halai phial(e) wei(ght):100 Ophelion in Kolly(tos) res iden(t') bedma(ker) escapes from Eupolemos son of Eupolem os of Agry(le) phial(e) weigh(t):100 Moschion in Peir(aeus) resi den (t). mercha(nt) escapes  150  (dent)  escapes  190  195  fr(om)  Demosthenes [ ] los of Phyle [phial(e) weig(ht):100] Adous [ios ] About 28 lines  185  missing  missing  pleph[ ]i n Kol[lytos resident phia(le) wei(ght):100] Menippe [ ] woolwor(ker) escapes from Demotion son of D[emon] of Phrearrhi(oi), Dem[ ] of Demon of Phrea[rrhi(oi), [Dem] ohilos son of Demo[n of Phre] arrhio(i) phiale [weig(ht):100] Onesimos A[lope(?)] reside n(t) cook [escapes from]  -31About 11 lines 207 210  215  220  225  230  Joss missing  [L]ukisko[s son of Diodotos] of Epike(phisia) phia[le weig]ht:[100] Manes ampho[r](abearer) in Kol[l](ytos) resi(dent) escapes from vw Oeniades son of Oenokleos of Hamaxan(teia) phial(e) weig(ht):100 Philiste woolwo(rker) in M el(ite) reside (nt) escapes fro(m) Epicharides son of Lusipp os of Lampt(rai) phia(le) weig(ht):100 Aristomenes in Mel(ite) res(ident) shoem(aker) escapes fr(om) Thrasymedes son of Kedeidos of Leukono(ion) phia(le) wei(ght):100 Onesime sesamesell(er) <in> Alop(eke) reside(nt) escapes fr(om) Philon Phili[.... Al] ope(ke) resid(ent) phi[al(e) weig(ht):100] Poseidon[ios....]i n Kolly(tos) reside (nt) [escapes fro(m)] Hygiain[on ] son of chos of Ank[yl(e) phia(le) weig(ht):100] Sima[ ] woolwor[ker escapes from] Arch [ ] son of os of P h a [ l e r ( o n ) p h i a ( l e ) w e i g ( h t ) : 1 0 0 ] vacat  -32Column III 8 lines  241  missing  [Stro]mbich(?) son of Theom[nest(?)] [Ol]ynthi(os) phial(e) wei[g(ht):100] Pistokles in Me[l](ite) resid e (nt) sandalmak(er) escapes f(rom)  245  Kallippides son of Kall[i] os of Aphid(na) phial(e) weig(ht):[100] Dionysios in [S]ka(mbonidai) resi de (nt) farmwork(er) escapes from  250  255  260  [A]gnoni[d]es son of [Pe]isis[t] ratos of Kephi(sia) phia(le) wei(ght):100 Polytimos in Kolly(tos) reside(nt) shoemak(er) escapes fr(om) Kallias son of Kalliados of Paiania phial(e) weig(ht):100 Lampris in Skam(.bonidai) resi de(nt) nurse escapes fr(om) Aristophon son of Aristi on of Aphid(na) phial(e) weig(ht):100 Eupeithe serv(ant)/nurs(e) in Sk(ambonidai) reside(nt) escapes fr(om) Aristophon Ari[s]ti on of Aphidn(a) phial(e) wei[g(ht):100] Eum[...]s in Ko[ll(ytos) resident] 53 lines  missing  '.] escapes fr(om) ] dos phial(e)] weig(ht):100 in Me]li(te) resident  317 320 .i  ] escapes fr (om)  son of A]pollodo ros...phial(e)] weight:100 3 lines  327  missing  [. .]0[ ] Lyde Alopeke [resident] woolwork(er) escapes fr(om)  330  Theophilos An [ '.] Euonym{e}(on) phia[l(e) weig(ht):100] Menios in [ ] waiting(man) escapes from  Joss  -33335  Diogen[es. pos of Er[  Joss  ] .phia(le) wei(ght):100 About 10 lines  missing  Column IV 5 lines  missing  ]p phial(e) weig(ht):]100  335  ] resident ww]wv ]LULO phial(e) we]ig(ht):100 ] in Me(lite) 360. resident [. . . ] escapes fro (m) ]os of Pal ;iene p h i a l ( e ) w e i g ( h t ) : ] 1 0 0 ^escapes' from  ] ]  365 e[  ...]  io[ p h i a ( l e ) weig(ht) :100] Dor[ ] f r a n k i n c e n s e s e [ 1 1 ( e r ) escapes f(rom)] 370 S t r [ . . ] in P[eir(aeus) reside(nt) phia(le) we(ight):100] Lys [ ] wo[oolwork(er) escapes fr(om)] D[ .]o phial(e) weig]h(t):100 375 [ [ in] Me [l(ite) reside (nt) .. .escapes fr(om)..]w [ o]sv [...phial(e) weig(ht) : ] lOOw in S ]ka<m>bo 380 [ [n(idai) reside(nt) ] escapes (from) [ de]mos of Kyth [eros phia(le) w]eig(ht) :100w [ in Sk]a<m>bon(idai) res ] ik escapes f(rom) 385 ide (nt) [ [ de]mos of Kyth [eros phia(le) w]eig(ht):100v [ in] Pei(raeus) resi dent [....]• escapes fro (m) v ] demos of Kyth 390 [ [eros phia(le)] weigh(t):100  395  400  405  410  -34[.... ] f a r m ( w o r k e r ) i n He [ p h a i ] resident escapes from [ ] AR ( ?) . . dano [ phi]al(e) weig(ht):100  [ h] iredwork(er) Alo [pek(e) resi(dent)] escapes fro(m)vw [ ]des A[r]i[s]tar [chos My]rr(hin?),Gorgatho(s) So [sistr]atos of Kydathe(naion)v [phiale] weigh (t) : lOOvwv [ ]s pinesplit(ter) [ ]n residen(t) escapes fro(m) [ ]n son of Philon of Pa [ ]olos of Iphisti [ad(ai) ]doros Meid [ ] OINDI Apo [11 jeinios [ phial (e) we (ight) : 100 [ i]n Ko [lly(?) reside (nt) ] wv  15 lines 427 430  435  445  450  missing  [ ] ne wool [work (er) in] Kolly(tos) reside(nt) escapes fr(om) Andron son of Alkimachos of [P] aiani(a) Kallippide[s] son of Timonax Paian ia phiale weight[:100] Tyres flutema(ker) in Ky dathe (naion) residen(t) escapes from Leo[ ] M[- - phial(e) wei(ght):100]  5 lines 442  Joss  missing  [ ]os of Sph [ettos phial (e)] weight:100w [ wo] olwork (er) in K [...reside(nt)] escapes fr(om) [ ]thykle [ ] phia(le) weig(ht):100 [ ] ironwor(ker) in [ ] residen (t) escapes fro (m) [ ] son of Lysanios [ ph]ial(e) weig(ht):100  -35-  455  Joss  ] gluebo(iler) Alo pe(ke) resid(ent)] escapes fro(m)vw ]arnes son of Aristo ...(?) Chol[le] phia(le) weig(ht):100 ] cobbl(er) in S ka(mbonidai) ] residen(t) escapes fro(m)vw ......] son of Polyretosv ] phia(le) weig(ht):lOOw  vacat Column V 460  [  ident  465  470  475  in] Pei(raeus) res  escapes fro  (m)wwvw  [Cha]rias son of Charonidos of Eu onymo(n) phial(e) weigh (t) : lOOw Philon secreta(ry) inTh[o] rikos residen(t) escapes fromv Pherekleides son of Pherekle. os of Perithoi(dai) phial(e) wei(ght):100 Rhodia woolwork(er) in Thori kos resi(dent) escapes fro(m) Pherekleides son of Pherekle os of Peritho(idai) phial(e) weig(ht):100 Kordype domestic servant in Th orik(os) resid(ent) escapes fr(om) Phere[kl]eides son of Phere[kle] os of [Perith]oi(dai) [phiale weig(ht):100] K[ ]na[ ]  3 lines 480  485  490  missing  [ n]ne[r in Mel] it(e) reside (nt) escapes fr(om)w Saurias son of Athenippos of P eiraeus <and> Spoudias son of Thea[i] tetos of Cholar(gos) phia(le) weig(ht):100 Epikerdes Oe resid(ent) vinedres(ser) escapes fromv De[m]ophilos son of Demophanos of Paiani(a) phia(le) weig(ht):100vw Herakleides in Me(lite) resi d(ent) retail(er) escapes fromww Menedemos in Me(lite) resid en(t) phial (e) weig (ht) : lOOwwvw  STOICH. 17  -36495  500  505  510  515  520  525  Thraitta retail(er) in Me(lite) resid(ent) escapes fr(om)ww Menedemos in Meli(te) resi dent phial(e) weig(ht):100 Itame woolspin(ner) in Pei(raeus) res id(ent) escapes fr(om)wwv Chairippos son of Timoklei dos of Acharnai phia(le) weig(ht):100 Epigonos merch(ant) in Pe(iraeus) resi (dent) escapes fro (m) w w w Ktesias son of Kteson of Th orikos phial(e) weig(ht) : lOOwv Demetr[ia] cythara-pla(yer) <in> Epikephi[si]a resi(dent) esca(pes from) Athenodoros son of [Th]eodoros of Melite <and>. Theodoros son of Theo doros of Melit(e) phia(le) weig(ht):100 Philon saltfish-dea(ler) in Ko lly(tos) resi (dent) escapes fromw Chairophilos son of Pheidonos of Paia(nia) phial (e) weigh (t) :100w Chrysion domestic serv(ant) of Herakl es in Xyp(ete) resi(dent) escapes fro(m)v Phormion son of Eumachos of Rhamn [ous] phial(e) weig (ht) : 100 w w w Olympias woolwork(er) in K yda(thenaion) resid(ent) escapes fro(m)v Archeda[m]as son of Archedem os of Halai phial(e) weig(ht):100^ Hestiaios sandal-ma(ker) in Skambo(nidai) res(ident) escapes from [E]uthymachos son of Eudikos of [X] [ype]te phial(e) weig(ht)[:100v] [....] woolworker [in] K[...]  2 7 lines 544  550  Joss  missing  [ ]to[s] son of Eufkra] [t]es of Epike(phisia) phia(le) we[i(ht):100] [S]ote[r]ides donkey-dr(iver) [in] Diomei resident escapes fr(om) Antimenes son of Pistokl[e] os of Kephisia phia(le) weight:[100] Sostrate domestic serv(ant) in [K] [eram]eis resi(dent) escapes fr(om) Antimenes son of Pistok[le] os of Kephisi(a) <and> Hagnon son of Eu[thy]  -37kros of Kydathen(aion) phia(le) weight:[100] 555 Plaggon woolwor(ker) in [K] yda(thenaion) resid(ent) escapes f(rom) Autokles son of Androkleos of Euonymon phial(e) weight:[100] Pamphilos mulet(eer) [in L] 560 aki(adai) resident escapes fromv Theochares son of Ergochar(os) of Prasiai phial(e) weig(ht)[:100] Nikias frankincense(seller) in [P] ei(raeus) resii<d>ent escapes fromw 565 Philokrates son of Epikratos of Eleusis and joint contrib utors with Theoph rastos son of Bathyllos of Choi argos phial(e) weig(ht):[100] vacat  Joss  -38Face B Column I [-  10  15  20  NON STOICH.  3  and joint- contributors[  5  Joss  ]  clothes-mender in Keiri(adai) [resi(dent) phia] le:100 Tydeus son of Lamachos of Oe [- - -] n baker <in> Alopeke reside nt phial(e):100 Euangelos son of Theangelos of Cholle(idai) Momos tanner in Kydath(enaion) resident phial(e):100 Polystratos son of Polystrat{at} of Ep ikephisia Sosias farm-worker in Hephaistia resident phial(e):100 Antigenes son of Epig.<e>nes in Meli(te) residen (t) Mnason sanda<l>mak(er) in Me [li(te)] resid(ent) phiale:<100> [Pa]nkalos son of Athenados proxenos [Ar]chon son of Tachydemos from Koile [...]ian domestic-ser<va>nt in Peira(eus) resid(ent) phiale:100  [Pankalojs son of Athena[dos proxenos]  8 lines 30  •  missing  ]phi  ale:100]  35 36  40  vacat ]IEGRO.OU - - - - in P]eir(aeus) residen(t) [phia(le) : 100] - - -]machos son of K]allimachos of Marathon - - - -]a(t) Peir(aeus) <res>id(ent) saltfish deal(er) phi(ale):100 - - -machos son of K]allimachos of [Maratho(n)] - - -]ephane domestic servant in Peire(aeus) res(ident) phiale:]100 - - -machos Ka]Hi [m] achos of Marath(on) - - - - - - -]in Peir(aeus) resi(dent) [phia(le):100] -] j Mara[th] (on)  2 lines 45  missing  • ]demo[- - -]  -393 lines 50  55  60  65.  70 71  95  97  100  missing  - - - - - - - - - - - - ]res(ident) ]no[ - -] ] Naus[ -] - - - - -vin]e-dress[er- - -] - - - - - -]n Phiostrat[- - -] - - - - - - ] i n Kydath[en](aion) resi(dent)[phial(e):100] ..]sippos son of Er[...]s P[a]ll[ene] Tachis ta w[ool-wor]k(er) in Ky[dath(enaion) resi(dent)] phialerlOO Thymad[es - - - - - - - - - - -]ipp[e] wool-work(er)[- - - - - - - -resi(dent) phialerlOO] Timotheos son of Meni[- - - - - - - ] s o f An[t]igon farm-worker in Pa(llene)[- - - - - - resident phia(le)r100] .atro]kles son of An[- - -ca.6 - - -]s of Xypet(e) Eu]koles tape[- - - - - - - - -resi(dent) phia(le)r100] .]atrokles son of Ah[- - -ca.6 - - -]s of Xypeft] (e) ...]ote [ - - - - - - - - -]resi(dent) phia (le) [r100] .atr]okl[es son of An - - - s] of Xypet[- -] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ res]id(ent) phia(le)[rlOO] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] Epikephis(ia) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -re]sident phi(ale):100 - - - - - - - - - - - - -th]e[s] Apo[..] - - - - - - - - - - - - i]n Pei(raeus) resi(dent) [phi(ale: 100] - - - - - - - - - - - -]thes Apo[...] - - - - - - - - - - - -]don resi(dent) [phi(ale)r100] - - - - - - - - - - - - ] o n res[- - -]  2 7 lines 91  Joss  missing  [- - -]one horse-tend(er) in [- -] [- - resi(dent) phi]a(le)r100 [Th]ersippos son of Antiphanos [-----] [. . ] irtinion mulet(eer) in P(eiraeus) resi (dent) [phia(le): 100] Thersippos son of Antiphanos[- - - - -] Simon domestic-servant in P(eiraeus) resi(dent) phia(le)[r 100] [..]mares Alopeke resi(dent) Lept[..] ..]n in the work at Kyn(osarges) resi(dent) phia(le)r[100] . ...]s isoteles Meson wool-(worker) [Alo]peke resi(dent) phialerlOO ..]mostratos son of Polycharmidos - -]1 Pheidestratos gold-smith in] K<y>dath(enaion) resi(dent) phialerlOO ..]krates son of Euxenos of Palle(ne)  -40-  Jos  105  Nikoxenos son of Hegesios of Erchi(a) , Demostratos son of Demostratos of [P]all(ene) Okimon wool-(worker) in Hephai(stia) resid(ent) phiale:100 [KJleoxenos and kurios Ktesoni 110 des of Oe Eukles in Kol(lytos) resi(dent) farm-(worker) phial(e):100 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Attas pulse-dealer in K(?) resid(ent) phial(e):100 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Mai 115 thake wool-worker in K<ei>r(iadai) resid(ent) phiale:100 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Plaggon domestic-servant in Kei(riadai) resid(ent) phi(ale) 100 119 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) 120 Moschon domestic-servant in Kei(riadai) resid(ent) phi(ale) 100 121 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Aristonike domestic-servan(t) in Ke(?) resi(dent) phia(le): 100 vacat Column II About 8 lines 131  /[ M[ Ept 0M[ 135 EptArch[ Ept ,rt [ 140 [[__  ] ] ] ] ] ] ] j ] ]ou phi(ale):]100 9 lines  151  missing  . .oi[ ] Lusichare[s - - - - - - - - ] and joint contr(ibutors - - -] resid(ent) [phia(le):100]  missing  -41About 50 lines  Joss missing  205  [ - - - - - - - - - -.-]antho[.] [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ res]id(ent) dem(?) phi(ale):100 [------ -Jolemos of Eleu(sis) Achyrio [------ res]id(ent) farm-(worker) phia(le):100 [----- -Jos son of Chairedemos of Halai 210 [...] I\[..A] lopeke resid(ent) mill(er) phi(ale):100 [...]ias son of Aristokritos of Aphidn(a) [.]ityra in P(eiraeus) resid(ent) flute-(girl) phi(ale):100 [E]picharinos son of Epicharinos of Leuk(onoion) [EJchon wool-worker in Pa(llene) resid(ent) 215 phia(le): 100 [Njeoptolemos son of Antikles of Melit(e) Demeas carpenter in [- -] resid(ent) phi(ale):100 [...] I |OIG [ ] 220 [ ]e [ ]v [ ]i 7 lines 230  missing  L[ ] phia(le) [:100] Auto[krateS'Ag - - - - - - - ] Ariste[- - - - - - resid(ent) phi(ale):100] Autokrat[es Ag - - - - - - -] 235 Simalon domestic-[servant - - - resid(ent)] phia(le):100 Autokrates son of A g [ - - - - - - -] Nikariste domes(tic-servant - - - resid(ent)] phia(le):100 . 240 Phylaxias son of Pan[ios of Anagyrous] Glykera wool-w[ork(er) - - - - resid(ent)] phia(le):100 Euboulos son of K e [ - - - - - - - - ] merch(ant) Mosch[- - - - - - - - - ] vacat  -42-  Joss  Column III About 5 lines 250  255  260  265  270 272 275  [ - - - - - - - - - ] o s of Euon(ymon) [---------] vacat [ - - - - - - - - -]1 resid(ent) barber phi(ale):100 [Nikeratos son of Ni]keratos of Melit(e) [Pheidippos] son of Sosidemos of Xyp(ete) [-----] in Melite resid(ent) signet-en(graver) tphi(ale):100] [Nikjeratos son of Nikeratos of Meli(te) [Phe]idipposson of Sosidemos of Xyp(ete) [...]non domestic-servant in Me(lite) resid(ent) phi(ale):100 Nikeratos son of Nikeratos of Melit(e) Pheidippos son of Sosidemos of Xype(te) Stratonike in Me(lite) resid(ent) wool-(worker) phia(le):100 Nikeratos son of Nikeratos of Melit(e)' Pheidippos son of Sosidemos of Xypet(e) Prianthe in Me(lite) resid(ent) wool-(worker) phia(le):100 Lysides son of Chion of Alopek(e) Sostrate wool-work(er) in M(elite) resid(ent) phi(ale):100 [K]allias son of Kallikrates of Aphid(na) [..]stos in Kolly(tos) resid(ent) donkey-(driver) phi(ale): 100 [ ]kles son of Aristophanes of Achar(nai) [- — ] in M(elite) [resid(ent) wool-w]ork(er) phi(ale):100 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] o s of Leu(konoion) [ ] phi(ale):100 About 50 lines  326  330  335  missing  missing  on[ ] phi(ale):[100] Antis<th>en[es son of Antisthenes of Ky] ther(os) Antiphan[es son of Antisthenes] of Kyther(os) Strato[- - - - - - - ] Agryl(e) resid(ent) phi(ale): [100] Nikostrat[os - - - . - - - ] of Achar(nai) Kleo[- - - - - - - ] wool-wo(rker)[- - - - - - - phia(le):100] Misgolas [son of Naukrates of Kolly(tos)] Naukl[es son of Naukrates of Kolly(tos)] [ ] resid(ent) phia(le):100  -43340  345  Misgolas son of Naukrates of Kol ly(tos) Naukles son of Naukrates of Kol(lytos) Hediste domestic-servant i<n> Skam(bonidai) resid(ent) phi(ale):100 Timostratos son of Smikrios of Sphet(tos) ...]maios wa[11]-builder Sphettos resid(ent) phia(le)]:100 - - - - - - - - son of P]amphilos of Phyle - - - - - - - -]s son of Zophilos of Phyle - - - - - - - - res]id(ent) wool-(worker) phi(ale):100  ---------]  vacat  350  ]ta  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ]±n M(elite)  resid(ent) phia(le):100] vacat 10-12 lines  missing  (?)  Joss  -44Chapter 1  Joss  LEGAL ISSUES  As stated in the Introduction, the entries on the Manumission Stele are the results of fictitious trials for abandonment, called dikai  apostasiou.  They are considered legal fictions because every  entry records an acquittal, resulting in the complete release of every slave on the document. These Attic manumissions all date within a small time frame of not more than twenty years and appear to be 'an isolated event, since there are no such inscriptions extant  from  before  or  after  this  period.17  This  system  of  manumission registration appears to have been introduced suddenly at Athens and then just as suddenly abandoned.  For a detailed  explanation of the real action, we must rely on the ancient lexographer Harpokration, whose definition survives as 'the most complete' of its kind:  It is an action against freedmen which is given to those who have freed them if they (the freedmen) should ever abandon them or register another as. prostates and not do the things which the laws bid. For those convicted, they must (again) be slaves, but those who are successful, already being free, must become so completely.18  Although the trials on the Manumission Stele were feigned, they. 17  18  Tod,  1 9 1 - 9 2 and n o . 41 a n d Lewis  Harpocrationis  Lexicon  (1959)  in decern oratores  238.  Atticos,  s. v. "apostasiou":  SiKn TIC  Kara TC3V O(7TEAEU6SPCO0EVTCOV SESOUEVII TOIS dnEAEu6Epcooaoiv lav d^iarcovTai TE dn'auTcov f\ ETEpov E7Tiypd<t>covT0(i TTpooTaTriv Kctt a KEXEUOUOIV OI vouoi UT\ noicoaiv. TOUS UEV dXovTas 5E7 SouAous EIVOI, TOUS 5E viKrpavTas TEXECOS riSn EXEU8EPOUS. A l t h o u g h i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t H a r p o k r a t i o n was r e f e r r i n g t o A t h e n s when d e s c r i b i n g s u c h p r o c e d u r e s , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o s a y w h e t h e r he was r e f e r r i n g t o C l a s s i c a l o r H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s . EOTI  -45-  Joss  give evidence of a process that was necessary to protect former masters when their former slaves abandoned them, or failed to fulfill their paramonai Harpokration  stated,  agreements once they had been freed. among  the  conditions  imposed  upon  As the  freedman, was the legal requirement that he have his former master as his prostates.  He further states that if the freedman was found  guilty of failing any of the conditions of his agreement, he would immediately revert to his former status as a slave. If found innocent, he would obtain apolusis his paramonai  obligations.  and be freed "completely" from  Because of Harpokration's wording  where he deals with the result of acquittal,19 we know that the defendants  in these cases had already been released and were  therefore living-apart {khoris  oikountes)  There is very little evidence for  in a quasi-free state.20 paramonai  agreements at  Athens. Literary evidence is scarce and is only found in two In Xenophon's Oeconomicus  authors.  there is one dubious reference  to paramone:  . •  Then what, he s a i d , i f I show you b e s i d e s t h a t i n households i n which a l l t h e s e r v a n t s a r e f e t t e r e d , so t o speak, t h e s e f r e q u e n t l y run away but i n households i n which they a r e u n f e t t e r e d , t h e s e a r e w i l l i n g t o work and remain? (3.4)  Although Xenophon uses the verb Trapa|i£vstv in the l a s t l i n e of t h i s passage, i t i s almost certain that here he i s referring 19  20  to  He w r i t e s : rjSn iAEuSepous.  There has been much debate as to whether these freedmen were actually free. Although they had been manumitted and were therefore in a freer state than they had been previously (ie. they were not full-fledged slaves), they were still under paramonai agreements and thus remained obligated to their former masters. Because of the intermediary nature of the freedman's status, it is not difficult to understand why there would have been confusion among writers. See Harrison, 167 and no. 5.  -46slaves who were not khoris This reference  should not,  Joss  oikountes,  and c e r t a i n l y not freedmen.  therefore,  be used as evidence  for  paramone agreements. Better evidence i s found in P l a t o ' s Laws: The former master may i n d i c t t h e freedman, i f he does not a t t e n d t h o s e who freed him, or does not do so s u f f i c i e n t l y . And such tendance s h a l l c o n s i s t i n t h e coming of t h e freedman t h r e e times per month t o t h e home of t h e man who freed him; and he must undertake t o do whatever i s n e c e s s a r y which i s j u s t and w i t h i n h i s a b i l i t y . (11.915a)  Interestingly,  t h i s same idea of attendance after  liberation,  and punishment for f a i l u r e to do so, i s found in i n s c r i p t i o n s from Delphi, many of which contain clauses such as the following:  A  (The  said freedman) must abide by (the said master) for the duration of his (the master's) l i f e , carrying out every duty as far as he i s able.  If  he does not do t h i s ,  (his master)  penalize him for doing as he wishes.' 2 1  has the power  to  These acts cover the years  between 201-100 BCE and t o t a l nine-hundred and seventy-four. 22 In the absence of epigraphical evidence for paramone agreements at Athens, we cannot be sure that  such agreements as the ones  i l l u s t r a t e d in the Delphic i n s c r i p t i o n s were practiced there but when compared to the passage from Plato, which i s comparable to 21 Fouilles de Delphes: Les Inscriptions du Theatre. Cf. for example, nos. 35, 50 and 51 for such paramonai (trapavieivdrco) clauses.  22 Cf. Garlan, 8 1 . C o n d i t i o n a l manumissions become more numerous as u n c o n d i t i o n a l manumissions began showing a gradual i n c r e a s e i n c o s t throughout t h e y e a r s . Garlan (80) e x p l a i n s the apparent growing r e l u c t a n c e for m a s t e r s t o u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y f r e e t h e i r s l a v e s as a consequence of Roman o c c u p a t i o n , which was making i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t for Greek m a s t e r s t o a c q u i r e foreign s l a v e s .  -47the  agreements  from  Delphi,  the  Joss possibility  for  there being  similar Athenian agreements is certainly viable.23 In light of this, it cannot be said that the defendants on the Manumission Stele were being released from paramonai as would  be the case  in the  real  trials  Harpokration, but only that this document was a government  posting, resulting  as  agreements,  illustrated by  (and related stelai24)  from some, sort  of legal  process, which acted as public evidence of the freedman's release. Manumission agreements were often made in private,  as there was  no required legal procedure for a master to free his slave.25 By publishing the slave's release, any challenge to his liberation would be difficult. Garlan states that the situation of freedmen was  "precarious" because  they  *ran the risk  of having  their  liberation challenged.'26 Perhaps it was for this reason that the state saw it necessary to publish such manumission documents in an effort to avoid any confusion over the freedman's status. l.l Payment of the  Phialai  For each entry, there was a payment of 100 drachmas in the form of a phiale  (a silver bowl). The phialai  fees, perhaps, as Lewis  acted as registration  suggests, imposed by  a Lycurgan Law  documented by the fragment IG II2 1560.27 This fragment, dated ca. 23  It must be noted that Plato does not use the verb TTapaueveiv in Laws but rather SepaiTEUEiv. u Lewis (1959), 235 states that there are 17 in total. He later adds one new fragment (1968), making a total of 18. 25 It was not uncommon, however, for a master to desire publicity for his action. Often manumissions occurred in courtrooms or at the theatre. Announcements at the theatre, however, were banned in the mid fourth-century because of the frenzy they caused. 26 Garlan, 82. 21 Lewis (1959) , 237.  -48-  Joss  330, gives a law in column A related to the payment of something by weight (TO araQ\i6v is clearly legible at line 7), and column B is a list of manumissions along with payments of phialai,  identical  in formula to the entries on Face A of the Manumission Stele. These phialai  do not appear to be commemorative offerings to  Athena, as has been suggested.28  In fact, they do not appear to be  dedications  the  at  all, .as were  manumission stelai.29 the phialai in  320/319 BCE.30  from  the  Delphic  Rather, these bowls are often referred to as  exeleutherikai,  the Athenian  payments  the likes of which were accounted for  treasurers'  financial  These record the phialai  reports  for  exeleutherikai  321/0 and as having  been melted down and made into large silver hydria of varying weight.. Since the list dates from approximately the same time period as the Manumission Stele, it is very tempting to think that the phialai  named in the treasury report might actually have been  the same ones listed on the Manumission Stele. This would then date the stele just prior to the Athenian financial reports. That the phialai  were actually payments to the state rather  than dedications to a god gains further support from fragments studied  by  Lewis  in his  fragments, IG II2 1575, phialai  later  publication.31  On  one  of the  payments resulting from manumission  procedures were listed on one side of the opisthographic fragment while liturgies  were listed on the other. Presumably, these two  types of transactions were listed back to back because both were 28  Garlan, 82. Payments d e d i c a t e d t o A p o l l o a r e l i s t e d i n Fouilles de Delphes: Les Inscriptions du Theatre. See f o r e x a m p l e n o . 3 5 . 1 9 - 2 0 : Tav 5E m p a v (covav) [EIS T] 6 lEpov TOU ' ATTOXXCOVOS EVExapai;ct|J6V. n o . 5 2 . 9 : Ti0Eyai Tav covav Kara TOV vopov, xav \iev EV TO kpov TOU ' ATTOXXCOVOS E [ vx 3 apneas • 30 IG 112 1469, Face A column I . 31 (1968), 376.  29  -49-  Joss  coming to the. state as payments. It is difficult to tell who paid for the phiale,  the master or  the freedman. There are two stelai on which erasures concerning the case of the phiale  occur and these have been used by Lewis to  argue for who made the payment:32 IG II2 1569, which lists the former slaves as the active agents, like Face A of the Manumission Stele, and Ag.I 5656, which lists the former masters as the active agents, like Face B. phialai  On the basis of the cases in which the  were reentered - not all the endings had been reentered  but all had their endings erased - Lewis regards it as certain that the case of the phiale  was changed in order to clarify who  made the payment. In the case of IG II2 1569, it appears that the case of the phialai  was being changed from the accusative into the nominative.  Lewis argues that this change indicates that the former slaves were not to be mistaken as having paid for the phialai, shared the same case. Conversely, the  former masters paid  since both  for Ag.I 5656 Lewis argues that  for the phialai,  since here we see  opposite cases, the former masters as the active agents and the phialai  as the objects. According to this logic, on the stelai on  which the former slaves and the phialai  share the same case and  those on which the masters are the active agents and the the objects, the masters paid for the  phialai  phialai.  Since no erasures occurred on the Manumission Stele, nor on the majority of the extant manumission stelai, we cannot deduce on the basis of the two anomalous cases in which they do occur that the payment was made by the master on Face A, where both the slaves 32  Lewis (1968) , 369-71.  -50and the phialai  Joss  are in the nominative. Furthermore, on Face B both  the masters' names and the phialai  are in the nominative, a  combination which Lewis' model does not explain. I am not convinced that the case of the former slaves' and masters' names had anything to do with that of the phialai.  On  Face A, the former slaves, who are in the nominative with the accompanying participle dcTro^uycov/oGoa, seem to correspond to their former masters who are in the accusative (eg. Elpis escapes from Leippos) . On Face B, where the masters are in the nominative and the slaves in the accusative, the meaning appears to be the same but with defeated  the masters by]  Elpis).  as the active The  nominative  agents case  of  (eg. Leippos  [is  the phialai  is  constant throughout the entire stele and appears to be a separate clause (Payment: 100 drachmas). Even if we are to accept Lewis' theory concerning the fragments in question and the assumption that the case of the slaves and masters had something to do with the payment of the phiale,  it still remains very unclear who made  the payment in the majority of the remaining evidence.33 It is definitely plausible that since slaves were presumably required to buy their own freedom - and they could indeed make money, as seen in the Erechtheion building accounts34 - those who were living apart and likely able to accumulate more funds than they would in their masters' oikoi,  would have been required, and  no doubt willing, to pay for the phialai  as registration fees for  the publication of their complete release. Further, and more convincing, evidence can be found in the 33  Westermann (94) presupposes that for the formula on Face A the verb "has deposited" was assumed for the slave but oddly not on Face B when it would have related to the master. 31 Randall, 199-210.  -51presence of the eranoi  Joss  on the Manumission Stele. Such contributors  are found five times, thrice on Face A, at lines 141 and 566 and on Ag.I 4763 line 7, and twice on Face B, at lines 2 and 153. Face A, they are listed in conjunction (kai)  On  with the master, with  someone named each time as the head of the contributors {meta + name). At A.141, the master is named as the head of the eranoi  but  at A.566 and Ag.I 47 63.7, men other than the masters are named. At B.2 and 153, the eranoi  appear to be listed without a head  contributor, perhaps because particular  writer  of  Face  he was also the master B,  who  was  much  more  and the prone  to  abbreviations compared to the writer of Face A, did not deem it necessary to repeat his name.35 Who were the eranoi  and how do they relate to the Manumission as ya society of subscribers to a  Stele? The LSJ describes eranoi common  fund,  contributed specifically  a  club.' Therefore,  money apply  to  a  to  certain one  who  an  eranos  cause; helped  was  the  someone who  term  pay  for  does  not  someone's  manumission. Some historians have thought that slaves named with eranoi  were in the possession of an eranos-society, which would  then be the manumittor.36  There are serious problems with this  theory: first of all, why would some slaves who had the help of eranoi  also  be  listed  with  a  supposedly owned by the eranoi,  separate  master  if  they were  such as the one at A. 567-70?  Furthermore, the Manumission Stele is too early to have anything to  do  with  so-called  eranos-clubs,  for  which  the  earliest  epigraphical evidence comes from the mid third-century.37 35  See below, no.40. This is discussed by Finley, 104-105. This evidence is assembled by Poland, 28-33. 37 Ibid. 36  -52-  Joss  There is only sparse literary evidence for eranoi manumission.  This  is . found  in  Demosthenes  as related to Neair.  59  29ff.  According to Demosthenes, Neaira was given permission to purchase her freedom from her masters, who were marrying other women. then went about collecting money from various eranoi,  She  asking one  of them to take all the money she had collected and purchase her freedom from her masters; she could not do this herself because she was a slave, inherently having no legal rights.  This man  would then have been named as the legal collector, although she had actually done the collecting herself.38  If we are to assume  that this procedure was the same at Athens, then it was this man who was the legal collector who would be eranoi..  named as the head of the  In the absence of proof for the procedure at Athens,  Demosthenes'  account  at  least  gives  evidence  that  Neaira's  manumission was recognized there and perhaps gives us a clue as to the role of the eranoi,  and of the head contributor in particular,  in the case of the Attic manumissions. . The answer to who was responsible for the payment, former master or slave, may well be found at A. 141. Here the former master is named as also the head of the eranoi  - although the second time he  is listed, only his name and deme are repeated - and possibly also in the two entries on Face B where a head of the contributors is lacking.  If the former master had always paid for the  phiale,  there would have been no distinction made by adding other named contributors, nor would he specifically have been named as such if he was  assumed  to be a contributor. Thus,  collected his own eranoi 38  the  slave  likely  - as illustrated by Demosthenes - of whom  These points are discussed by Finley, 105.  -53-  Joss  his master could doubtless be one, and the head contributor was named on the document as having helped secure for him the payment.  1.2 The Formula  Each entry records the freedman, his technitikon  (to be  discussed in Ch 3), domicile, the former master, and the payment of a phiale.  The arrangement of the details varies, however,  between Face A and Face B. On Face A we have in every instance the defendant's name in the nominative, followed by the oikon formula  (metic designation for domicile), a technitikon  participle apophugon  en  and the  (^acquitted from'), followed by the plaintiff  in the accusative. The oikon  en formula and occupation are often  inverted but the order stated here is the most common. On the other hand, the author of Face B has reversed the order of the defendant  and _ plaintiff,  nominative, technitikon  then  the  and the oikon  naming  defendant  first in  the plaintiff  the  accusative,  in the his/her  en formula.  The reversal of formula from Face A to Face B is difficult to explain.  Lewis reasons that the two sides were inscribed at  different times and by different people.39 There is evidence that Face B was inscribed later based on prosopographical information (see the Introduction) and the hasty manner in which  it was  inscribed suggests that it was not planned as carefully, making it appear to be a later addition.  The evidence that it was inscribed  by a different hand, however, is convincing: Face A was carefully planned 39  and  executed  Lewis (1959), 233.  in  stoichedon,  there  are  no  major  -54-  Joss  abbreviations, no spelling mistakes and the script was drawn by a careful hand.  stoichedon  Alternatively, Face B is not written in  and is rife with spelling mistakes and extreme abbreviations.40 A difference in hand, however, does not explain the departure from the more common formula with the defendant's name in the nominative.  Lewis does discuss two other stelai which have the IG II2 157.8. IG II2 1566 is  reversed formula, IG 112 1566 and  opisthographic like the Manumission Stele, but oddly it suddenly changes formula on the same side from the common apophugon type to the  more  uncommon  nominative. The  formula  other  with, the  fragment,  IG  master's  inscription  written  before  in  the  II2 1578, is even more  anomalous as it lacks all reference to phialai, earlier  name  the  appearing to be an institution  of  such  payments.41 Lewis does not venture a new theory as to the reason for these reversals. Rather, he combines the theories of Tod and Kahrstedt,42 inferring that since Face B and the comparable IG II2 1566 both seem  to  have  been  inscribed  at  a  later  responsibility for the payment of the phiale  period,  the  legal  may have changed at  some time from freedman to former master. Perhaps, more simply, the reversal was due to a formulaic modification which occurred at the request of the former masters wanting to be named first, although  this  is  a  hypothetical  suggestion.  Realistically,  although we know that manumissions were occurring on both sides of the document as evidenced by the continuous payments for every 10  Often the words abbreviations are abbreviation does 11 See above, p 14 12 (1959) , 238.  okcov and <t>idAr| degrade to simply o'iK<J>ior <^>ia. Although commonly found on epigraphical documents, this degree of not appear on Face A. for a fragment with the possible institution of this law.  -55-  Joss  entry, there is so little evidence for this procedure as a whole that these reversals cannot be explained adequately. On  the  Manumission  Stele  there  can  be  identified  three  title  isoteles  (A.103 and B.99), privileged foreigners with the title  proxenos  categories of metics: those with  the honorary  (B.17) and the most common kind identified simply by the oikon formula  and  the  lack  of  patronymic  (one metic  does  en  have a  patronymic at B.14, but this is uncommon).43 The metics' oikon  en  designation is generally thought to be an indication of domicile, doubtless because they were usually registered in city demes where they likely worked, such as Melite or the Peiraeus.  This differs  from the citizen's demotic, which,, because hereditary, was not always an indication of domicile. Like the metic, however, the citizen's demotic had been the residence of the original citizen under Kleisthenes' reforms. The honorific character of both emphasized by the lack of the oikon  isoteleia en  and proxenia  is  formula and the common  inclusion of a patronymic - although on the Manumission Stele,'the recipient of isoteleia,  Dionysios (A. 103), is listed without one.  What is most telling of the level of honour it was to be an isoteles  or a proxenos  is the fact that the metic gave the title  pride of place before citizenship in another city.44 Unlike an isoteles, could simply be a xenos the Athenians.  a proxenos  did not have to be a metic.  He  who was given the title as an honour by  He could also be an Athenian citizen who was given  the title by another city-state.  There is one proxenos,  Pankalos,  on the Manumission Stele (B.17-21), who is listed in conjunction ,3  See below, p 65ff, for a discussion of this designation. " Whitehead, 34.  -56-  Joss  with Archon, an Athenian citizen. It is impossible to say for sure whether this man was an Athenian citizen who was given the title by another city-state or whether he was a metic who was honored by the Athenians. The fact that he was freeing his slaves in Athens, however,  would  indicate  that  he  probably  lived  there  and  was  therefore a metic.  1.3 Comparison with IG 112 1045  Since IG II2 10 and the Manumission Stele are often spoken of in conjunction with each other, I feel it prudent at this point to give  a  brief  discussion  outlining  their  similarities  and  differences. At first glance, there is good reason to compare the two inscriptions: both are long lists naming slaves (although this designation is in dispute for IG II 2 10, see below), accompanied by various humble  occupations,46 who appear to have undergone  sort of emancipation.  some  Furthermore, both types of inscription are  very uncommon, the only other comparable one being the Erechtheion Building accounts, on which slaves are also present and listed with  their occupations.47 This  latter  inscription  is of a very  different type than the first two, however, since, .like slaves, metics and citizens were also listed with their occupations for the self-evident purpose of accounting for the work performed on the building. This latter list, therefore, does not figure in the present discussion and will not be spoken of further here. 45 16 11  For the following section, I referred to Osborne's text (1981). Discussed in Ch 3. Randall, 199-210.  -57-  Joss 2  I referred above to the recipients on IG II 10 as slaves. This designation is up for debate, since the word in question only retains the obviously  last  two  letters  -oi.  Since  the recipients were  not citizens, as indicated by their lack of patronymic  and demotic, as well as their being listed with occupations, which is exceedingly uncommon  for citizens, we are left with three  choices for their status: xenoi, Their being xenoi believe  that  metoikoi,  douloi.48  or  is quickly rejected, since it is difficult to  there  would  foreigners employed  have  in Attica  been  such  a  great  number of  at one time performing  various  menial occupations and, furthermore, that these men would have risked their lives fighting to overthrow the Oligarchy for a state in which they did not wish to become permanent residents.49 were they metoikoi,  Nor  for why too would these men wish to risk their  lives in such a pursuit? Their status would presumably remain the same under either rule. would  stand  to gain  freedom.  Furthermore,  Thracian  origin  of  We are left, therefore, with douloi,  the most both some  precious  their of  lowly  their  of all  things; their  occupations  names  who  attests  and  the  to . this  designation.50 Even though the men on IG II2 10 appear to have been slaves, this inscription was apparently not a manumission document in the truest sense, although emancipation surely must have come part and parcel with the grant of isoteleia.  Assuming that the procedure of  manumission was the same in the fifth century as in the fourth, 18  For discussions of this document, see Peter Krentz, Phoenix XXXIV (1980), 298-306; M.J. Osborne, v.II; David F. Middleton, CQ XXXII (1982), 298-303; Ph. Harding, ZPE LXVII (1987), 176-82.  50  None of these men were listed as mercenaries. See Harding (1987), 177.  -58-  Joss  the slaves' masters would probably have been listed5" and there would likely be some proof of . dike  apostasiou  apophugon  (the  formula) which resulted in an acquittal for the defendants, all of which are seen on the Manumission Stele.52  The purpose of IG 112 10  is different from the Manumission Stele; it is to honour the recipients for performing an important role in the overthrowing of the Oligarchy and the subsequent reinstitution of the democracy. Judging from the structure of the inscription, which lists the recipients under tribal headings only,53 it is clear that they were either naturalized or given isoteleia,  both of which required  membership in tribes.54 The former is easily rejected, since there was  no  assignation  to  Kleisthenes' reforms. isoteleia,  demes,  which  was  essential  after  We are left, then, with the grant of  the likes of which is attested by literary evidence  (Xen.JJell. 2.4.25) . Although these recipients would have had to become metics in order for their new title to make sense, they presumably were not designated as such, namely with the oikon  en formula, not only  because this would have been assumed but also because the purpose of the decree was to honour the recipients with isoteleia,  not to  formalize their new status as metics, as was the case on the Manumission Stele.  Furthermore, the title of. isoteles  displaced  the common metic designation.55 51  These are not public slaves, as seen by their occupations, which are very similar to those on the Manumission Stele. 52 Although the Manumission Stele is about eighty years later than this document, we have no other Attic manumission documents to compare it to. 53 The heading for the first category is missing but the space available suggests that these recipients were listed under tribal headings like the rest. See Harding (1987), 176 no. 7. 51 Osborne, 33. He further argues for citizenship for the first group of recipients, but this is conjecture and not based upon epigraphical evidence. 55 See above, p 55.  -59-  Joss  There is much more to be said about IG 112 10, but this is not the place for such a discussion. It is similar to the Manumission Stele only its most general appearance regarding slaves listed by their  occupations,  emancipations  had  which taken  are place,  similar, although  and the  in  the  fact  purposes  of  that the  documents are doubtless very different. The occupations listed on IG II 2 10, however, are much the same as those on the Manumission Stele, meriting its revisitation in Chapter Three.  -60-  Joss  Chapter 2 THE DEMES  Both Tables 1, representing Face A, and 2, representing Face B, are written in alphabetical order according to the former masters' demes (the Tables are given at the end of this chapter, pp 70-73) .. The word  'New' written beside a line number indicates that the  entry is from the fragment published later by Lewis in XXXVII, Ag.I  4763.  Hesperia  The 'C under 'Status' stands for 'citizen'  and the 'M' for 'metic' and each letter stands for a different man.  Groups of '(B)'s signify brothers. The freedmen are listed  with their demes, genders and occupations. In the case that a slave was joint-owned, each of his/her masters are named. I have also included maps to illustrate the demes of both the masters and freedmen (also located at the end of this chapter, pp 74-75) : Map A refers to Face A and Map B to Face B. For these, the map from J.Traill's publication (1975) was used. Below, section one is concerned with the former masters in relation to their statuses and demes, while section two focuses on the freedmen' s demes.  The last section will correlate the demes  of the former masters and their slaves. The freedmen's occupations will be discussed in the next chapter. Before beginning a study of the former masters' demes, however, some clarifications should be made. First of all, at B.69 Lewis has filled in 'ATTO-' for the deme, based on B.71 which probably refers to the same man. That he considers the 'A' as being the first letter of a name is apparent by his capitalization of it,  -61-  Joss  and, judging from the placement of the word, it is the name of a deme. He would not have capitalized the first letter if he thought it simply composed the preposition  ^CXTTO'  , in which case he would  have also added the accent. The problem with a deme beginning with X  ATTO' ,  however, is that there is only one, Apolloneis, and this ca.  deme was not created until  200.  If Apolloneis was indeed  present on this document, Face B would have to be dated no earlier than 200, at the inception of this new deme, about 120 years later than  the  presently  accepted  date  for  the  document.  Based  on  prosopographical information (discussed in the Introduction), this late date is impossible. his  assessment  capitalization Considering  of of  Since Lewis makes no comment regarding  these the  X  A'  letters, at  I  both  must  B.69  and  conclude 71  is  that in  his  error.  that the letters are clearly legible at B.71, they  must have composed the preposition  A  CXIT6'  , followed by a deme name  which is now missing. The spelling of two other demes may cause some confusion. At B.110 there is written Oif)0ev. ^Oi' both have nus,  OIVOE  Since the only demes beginning with  and OTov, they cannot be possibilities in  the inscription because of the inclusion there of a theta  for the  ablative.5* This must be a mistake for the deme ' Ofj, seen previously at B.5 and written there correctly as' OfjSEV and also at A. 485 as'  Of\o\. At B.13 is inscribed ' H4>aicrria and the abbreviated form' H(j>ai is seen at B. 107 and also at A. 392-3. ' H<t>aiOTia is simply a corruption of the name ' l(J)iOTia5ai - which does, in fact, appear at A.405 56  The vowel, or rather diphthong, is seen at B.110 but must be assumed at B.5 because of local damage to the stone. For this use of the ablative, see Smyth, no. 342.  -62-  Joss  resulting from the regular process of "iotacism". As Lewis states, ' H4>aicrria is the version used commonly in the manumission stelai.57 Furthermore,  at.  B.98,  the  deme  for  the  apparent. Lewis judges that there  is only room  before *uv' and edits the locale as  X  phrase  to  for one  is  not  letter  spy ETTI KUV OIK' , amending  y  k< TCOV spy ETTI [I]ouv OIK',58 Lewis further expands  Tod's earlier text the  EK TCOV  freedman  4K  TCOV  spy [a^opEycov] ETTI Kuv[oaapyEt]  oiKfouvTa]' .D9  According to his suggestion, the freedman was apparently employed at Kynosarges, but this is not a deme so it cannot be his demotic. As suggested by Lewis, since Kynosarges was close to the former master's metic,  deme  the  of  residence, Alopeke,60  freedman  could  have  been  and, because registered  in  he was a his  former  master's deme. Regarding the name of the locale, Lewis sees a kappa  as the  first letter and argues for it having been an abbreviated form of Kynosarges, based on his assertion that there is only space for one letter before ^uv'. Conversely, Tod sees a sigma  and suggests  that the deme was Sounium, abbreviated to ^louv' . I would like to suggest a combination of these two theories: since every other freedman is listed with a deme, it seems unlikely that here the deme would have been omitted. If Lewis' assertion that there is only room for one letter before *uv' is true, the writer of Face B, clearly more hasty and careless in comparison to the writer of Face A, could have erroneously 57  Lewis  (1959),  228.  Cf.  IG I I 2  misspelled the deme-name, writing  1570.82.  58  Lewis (1959), 2 3 1 . In h i s r e s t o r a t i o n of t h e i n s c r i p t i o n , he wrote xev' b u t ' i n h i s commentary he wrote ^ K ' . The former must be a m i s t a k e , s i n c e i t does not make grammatical s e n s e . 59 Cf. M.N. Tod, 12-13 for o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 60  Lewis ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 2 3 1 . For l o c a t i o n , s e e H e r o d . 5 . 6 3 : Km 'AyxnioXiou ei'CM xa<j)cu rfis ' ATTIK% 'AXoTTEKfjoi, dyxou xou 'HPCXKAEIOU TOU EV KuvoodpyEi.  -63-  Joss  'luv' instead of 'louv' . Lastly, I have not included Peiraeus in my assessment of city demes, although it is recorded as such by Garland and Traill.61 Garland,  however,  refers  to  the  Peiraeus  as  its  own  city,  distinguishing it from the city of Athens, a reference that is in line with classical authors.62 an  entity  unto  its  own,  Peiraeus was by the fourth century  consisting  of  an  enormously  diverse  metropolitan population rivaled nowhere else in Attica, including the  Asty.  Because  of  the  port's  incomparable  commercial  advantages, it attracted a great number of foreigners, who were needed to fill the many jobs the busy port required.  Considering  the ample opportunities for employment in the Peiraeus, it is not surprising  that  many  metics  Therefore,  in  henceforth  keep Peiraeus  adherence  to  were the  separate  registered classical  in  this  deme."  tradition,  from my calculations  I  will  of city  demes.  2.1 Former Master' s Demes  The total demes represented for the former masters are thirtythree for Face A and twenty-two for Face B; these totals refer to all the legible demes. For two entries on Face A, only the first letters are legible, ten are missing isoteles, 61  written without  a deme.  altogether  On  and one  is an  Face B, nine demes are  Traill (1975), 52; Garland, 2. 62 Cf. Aris't.Pol. 5.1303b. 12 and Thuc.2.13.7, 2.94.1 and 8.92.7. 63 For example, Garland (59-61) states that the bustling Peiraeus offered unrivaled opportunities for employment that simply did not exist in the countryside. He states further that sixty-nine of the metics whose demes are known are in Peiraeus, a number rivaled only by Melite at seventy-five. On the Manumission Stele, Melite has the most freedmen at twelve followed by Kollytos at ten and then Peiraeus at eight. Face B has eight in Peiraeus and seven in Melite.  -64-  Joss  missing, seven because of damage to the stone and two because the honorary titles proxenos  and isoteles  displaced the deme-names.'64  Out of the thirty-three demes on Face A, eight are coastal (24%), nine are inland (27%), and sixteen are city demes (48%). There 'are four metics represented, three of whom are in city demes (1-Alopeke and 2-Melite) . six are coastal  Out of the twenty-two demes on Face B,  (27%), seven inland (32%) and nine city (41%).  There are four metics in total on Face B, two in city demes (1Alopeke, 1-Melite) and two are named without a deme, one being an isoteles  and one a proxenos,  as mentioned above.  On Face A, the most former masters are from city demes (47%), then  a  number  from  inland  (31%)  and  coastal  demes  (22%).  Comparable to Face A, Face B has the most from city demes (42%), then there are a number from inland (33%) and a few from coastal demes  (25%). As mentioned earlier, some deme-members would not  necessarily live in their deme, as membership was hereditary for citizens, but the pattern on the 'Manumission Stele lends some credence to the notion that many deme-members did indeed dwell in their deme's locale. It makes more sense that most of the masters on this stele would have lived in or close to the city where such a document would have been published.  Conversely, it does not  seem likely that someone who lived further away would have had such an opportunity, nor be interested, in publishing his slave's release on a document in the city, far from where he lived, unless, of course, he had a second home in or near the city where he employed his slave. On Face A, six masters released more than one slave (1% of the 64  For visual references, refer to Maps A and B and Charts 1 and 2 at the end of this chapter.  -65total).  Joss  Four out of the six were citizens but two out of the four  metics also released more than one slave. On Face B, however, there are no extant metics who released more than one slave, but there are six citizens (1.4%) who released multiple slaves, two pairs releasing jointly-owned slaves. Some of these masters appear to be more affluent than the ones on Face A, with one pair releasing four slaves and one man releasing five, whereas the most slaves released by one master on Face A was three.  2.2 Freedmen's Demes The official metic designation oikon with the freedman," (with  metoikos  and  en,  combined in every entry  is seen in its embryonic form on IG I2 329.14 possibly  thereafter, the word ^metoikos'  oikon  en)66,  dated  to  414/3;  appears to have been dropped.67 By  the late fifth century, we see only the oikon  en formula and this  designation endures until the last quarter of the fourth century. The Manumission S-tale records the most instances of oikountes  en.  Does the designation of domicile indicate that metics were members of demes? Logically, one could not belong to a deme without belonging to a tribe.68 Whereas a citizen, when he wished to pursue a matter in court, would go to the four judges of his tribe, metics were required to go to the Polemarch who would then distribute their cases among the tribes. This judicial process is 65  With the exception of B.98. See below, p 33. See Whitehead, 28 and no. 4. 67 Whitehead, 63 no. 30 notes an exception, IG II2 1951, which has not only the oikon en formula but also the abbreviation metoi. He suggests that this may be evidence of deme changing. 68 Enrollment into a deme, phratry and tribe was essential for citizenship after Kleisthenes' reforms. Cf. Osborne (1972) for the procedure.  66  -66-  Joss  described by Aristotle:  Only p r i v a t e c a s e s a r e handled by him (the Polemarch), which concern t h e o r d i n a r y m e t i c s , as well as isoteleis and proxenoi. He must, upon t a k i n g and d i v i d i n g them i n t o t e n p a r t s by l o t , p l a c e a share with each t r i b e , and then t h e t r i b e must render j u r y men t o t h e A r b i t r a t o r s . He himself p r o s e c u t e s a c t i o n s for both apostasios and aprostasios (an a c t i o n for not having a prostates) , both a p p o i n t i n g and a s s i g n i n g by l o t c a s e s concerning m e t i c s . Namely, o t h e r kinds of m a t t e r s 6 9 which t h e Archon h a n d l e s for c i t i z e n s , t h e Polemarch handles, for m e t i c s . (Ath.Poi.58)  The fact that metics were required to go elsewhere for help would indicate that they did not belong to t r i b e s . light,  legal  In t h i s  the deme was merely a functional umbrella which gave them  legal s t a t u s .  There i s no evidence that metics'  residence in  t h e i r demes was immutable, as was the c i t i z e n s ' , but rather to the' contrary.  Presumably, unless the phrase oikon en i s nonsense, if a  metic changed domicile, his deme would change. He was therefore not  x  of  a deme, l i k e a c i t i z e n , but rather ^residing in' a deme.  Furthermore, the formula i t s e l f  i s non-honorific,  appearing only  on formal documentation and i t s usual lack of patronymic 70 further emphasizes i t s non-honorific q u a l i t y . I t never appears in l i t e r a r y sources, nor in private i n s c r i p t i o n s , such as tombstones. The freedmen's deme-distribution represent a much less varied picture than that of the former masters' . This i s not surprising since  metics  were  usually  registered  in  city  demes  or  the  69 Except ones involving homicide, which would be tried in the Palladium. Cf. Rhodes, 655. 70 A.223 is unusual. Cf. Whitehead, 64 no. 39.  -67-  Joss  Peiraeus, where they were more likely to be employed, rather than inland or coastal demes.  On. Face A, there is a total of sixteen  different demes represented, twelve of which are city demes. Thus, 75% of the freedmen's demes on Face A are city demes, as opposed to 48% for the former masters. actual  distribution  of  Furthermore, if we look at the  people,  registered  forty-nine in  of  demes, and  sixty-two  freedmen  (79%) were  Peiraeus  (13%), whereas out of fifty-five former masters, only  twenty-six were in city demes (47%).  city  out  eight  in  Not surprisingly, there is a  wider deme-distribution for former masters than freedmen. On Face B, there are ten demes for the freedmen, eight of which are city demes. demes, with  Here, 80% of the demes represented are city  twenty-six  (76%) and eight  out of thirty-four  in Peiraeus  (24%).71  freedmen registered  This contrasts with the  twenty-two demes for the former masters, nine of which are city demes (41%). Furthermore, fifteen out of thirty-six former masters are in city demes  (42%) . Again we see a higher percentage of  metics in city demes as opposed to former masters, although there is still a large number of former masters in city demes. 2.3 Deme Correlation Between Former Masters and Slaves  On both Faces, it is uncommon for the freedman to be registered in the same deme as his former master.  There are only three  occurrences of this on Face A and all three times the former master is a metic. 71  There are five metics in total and the  I assume that the single letters XM' and 'P' inscribed by the writer stand for the common demes 'Melite' and 'Peiraeus'. Cf. For 'M' B.268, 273 and 'P' B.212 and perhaps 214.  -68-  Joss  remaining two could very well have had their former slave in their deme - in one case, the deme cannot be read because of damage to the stone and in the other instance, the deme-name is displaced by the title  isoteles.  There are six cases of common demes between former masters and freedmen on Face B, four of which form a group of slaves released from the same master - two of the masters are metics and two are citizens. The case of the citizen who shares his deme Melite with his four freedmen does not appear to be such an anomaly because Melite registered several freedmen on the Manumission Stele and it is known to be a common deme for metics.72  Sphettos, on the other  hand, is a little more difficult to explain. It is an inland deme, appearing  only  twice,  here  (B.343)  and  once  at  A. 443.  Unfortunately, at A.443 the stone is damaged and the freedman's deme is illegible. Thus, out of a total of eighty-nine entries for both Faces for which the demes of former masters and their freedmen can be correlated, there are only nine cases of deme-sharing, including the four slaves released by the same master. In light of this, deme-sharing appears to be exceedingly uncommon. When it does occur, four times out of six the former master is a metic (here I have counted the master who released four slaves only once). It is difficult to say why it is the case that freedmen were not usually registered in their former citizen-masters' demes whereas meticmasters appear to share their demes with their former slaves. In most cases, citizens are not in common ^metic' demes, so it would appear that this is the reason why freedmen were not registered in 72  Although there are two citizen brothers at A. 508-9 who did not have their freedmen registered in their deme Melite.  -69-  Joss  in the same deme as their former master. Usually when a citizen was a member of' a deme such as Melite at A. 508-9, or Peiraeus at A.483,  however, the freedman was  registered  in another deme,  although many of his counterparts on the document were registered in Melite and Peiraeus. In these cases, the masters probably resided in their former slaves' demes but, because demes were hereditary, they were registered elsewhere.  -70-  Joss  TABLE 1: FACE A LIME 99 95 147 223 228 246 258 262 484 137 455 566 208 545 3(New)  331 4 62  558 141 521 212 405 250 549 553 186 400 554 383 386 390 216 220 7(New)  491 493 508 509 399 254 430 431 488 513 111  STATUS MASTER DEME C C C M C C C  Acharnai Agryle Agryle Alopeke Ankyle Aphidna Aphidna  tl  it  C  c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c  Cholargos Cholleidai Cholleidai Eleusis Epikephisia Epikephisia Euonymon Euonymon Euonymon Euonymon Halai Halai , Hamaxanteia Iphistiadai Kephisia Kephisia  II  ii  c c c c  Kollytos Kydathenaion Kydathenaion Kytheros  II  II  II  II  c c M M II  C (B) C (B)  C C C C C C C  Lamptrai Leukonoion Melite Melite II  Melite Melite Myrrhinous/outta': Paiania Paiania Paiania Paiania Paiania Pallene  FREEDMAN DEME Kydathenaion Kollytos Alopeke Kollytos Melite Skambonidai Skambonidai Melite Kydathenaion Alopeke Peiraieus .Alopeke Peiraieus Kydathenaion Melite Kydathenaion Kollytos Skambonidai Diomeia Kerameis Alopeke (as line 553) Skambonidai Skambonidai Peiraieus Melite Melite Melite Melite Melite Epikephisia ii  (as line 400) Kollytos Kollytos (as above)  Oe Kollytos Hagnous  M/F OCCUPATION F -  M F M M F F F M M M -  F F M F M F M M M M F -  M -  F F M F M F F  Wool-worker Bed-maker Sesame-dealer Sandal-maker Nurse Servant/Nurse Goldsmith Glue-boiler Frankincense-dealer Wool-worker Wool-worker Signet-engraver Wool-worker Amphora-bearer Pine-splitter. Farm-worker Donkey-driver House-servant Hired-labourer Wool-worker Shoe-maker Flute-girl Retailer Retailer Harper  II  n  M F  Shoe-maker Wool-worker  II  II  M M M  Vine-dresser Salt-fish dealer Farm-worker  -71-  Joss  TABLE 1: FACE A  362 371 483 467 468 472 232 133 190 191 192 155 562 516 443 504,  524 194 392 34 73 263 410 433 320 376 30 100 104 113 433  C M C C  Pallene Peiraieus Peiraieus Perithoidai  II  II  II  II  C  Phaleron Phrearrhioi Phrearrhioi Phrearrhioi Phrearrhioi Phyle Prasiai Rhamnous Sphettos Thorikos Xypete  c C (B) C (B) C (B) -C  C C C C C  -  -  c -  c c c M  M  ? -  T ? (isoteles)  ii  II  456 '  c c c  448  —  —  Melite  II  11  n  II  II  II  F M M  Wool-worker Muleteer  -  -  Melite Thorikos Thorikos Thorikos -  K  -  M M F M F F F M F  -  ?  Leukonoion Lakiadai Xypete -  Peiraieus Skambonidai Alopeke Iphistiadai Kollytos Kollytos Kollytos Kollytos Kydathenaion Melite Melite Peiraieus Peiraieus Peiraieus Peiraieus Kydathenaion Skambonidai —  M M M M M -  M F -  M M F M M M M  Frankincense-dealer  Wool-worker? Secretary Wool-worker House-servant Wool-worker -  Wool-worker  Servant of Herakles  Merchant Shoe-maker Cook -  Flute-maker -  Smith Wool-worker Retailer Flute-maker Cobbler Iron-smith  Joss  -72TABLE 2: FACE B LINE 272 333 97 267 240 211 270 69 8 207 12 67 105 252 210 18 335 339 336 340 112 114 117 119 121 328 329 213 34 36 39 14 217 253 257 260 264 5 110 110 55 104 106 346  STATUS MASTER DEME C C M C C C C C  c c c c c c c c C(B)  Acharnai Acharnai Alopeke Alopeke Anagyrous Aphidna Aphidna Apo_? Cholleidai Eleusis Epikephisia Epikephisia Erchia ,Euonymon Halai Koile Kollytos ii  Kollytos C(B) C II  II  Kydathenaion  it  C(B) C(B) C  Kytheros Kytheros Leukonoion Marathon  M C C  Melite Melite Melite  c c c c c c c  Oe Oe Oe Pallene Pallene Pallene Phyle  FREEDMAN DEME Melite Melite Peiraeus Kollytos Peiraeus Kydathenaion Iphistiadai Iphistiadai Alopeke Peiraieus Skambonidai (as line 335) (as line 339) Keiriadai Keiriadai Keiriadai Keiriadai. Keiriadai Agryle (as above) Peiraeus Peiraeus Peiraeus Peiraeus Melite Melite Melite Melite Melite Alopeke Kollytos (as above) Kydathenaion (as line 105) (as line 105)  M/F OCCUPATION F Wool-worker F Wool-worker • M Building-worker F ' Wool-worker F Wool-worker F Flute-girl M Donkey-driver M M M F F M M F  Tanner Farm-worker Farm-worker Wool-worker Barber Miller House-servant  F  House-servant  M F F F F  Pulse-dealer Wool-worker House-servant House-servant House-servant  F M F  Wool-worker Salt-fish dealer House-servant  M M M F F F M M  Shoe-maker Carpenter Signet-engraver House-servant Wool-worker Wool-worker Bread-dealer Farm-worker  F  Wool-worker  Wool-worker  -73-  Joss  TABLE 2: FACE B 347 343 61 254 258 261 265 100 54 103 19 33 3 52 91 93 96 235 236  C C C C  Phyle Sphettos Xypete Xpete  ii  II  •i  II  II  II  M C. C  (isoteles)  M(?)  (proxenos)  -. -  -  II  II  -  (as above) Sphettos -  (as line 253) (as line 257) (as line 260) (as line 264) Alopeke Kydathenaion Kydathenaion (as line 18) Peiraeus Keiriadai -  Peiraeus II  M. Wall-builder M  F  Wool-worker  -  -  M F -  M -  M F F F  Gold-smith -  Clothes-mender Vine-dresser Horse-tender Muleteer House-servant House-servant House-servant  -74-  Joss  Deme Map A: Face A  O ' NAME • Appraxmate location, few rafflM* O  NAME 1 » Deme-site. name uncertain  For the corresponding modern locations see tort  NB: The question-marks i n d i c a t e e i t h e r a s p l i t or divided deme, for which only the f i r s t half of the name has been recorded on the Manumission S t e l e .  Former S l a v e s : GREEN | Former M a s t e r s : RED I Both: BLUE  C  -75-  Joss  Deme Map B: F a c e B  Q* NAME -Aoprojumate location, few O NAME 1 - D e m e - l i t e , name uncertai For the correspondng modern locations see text  NB: The q u e s t i o n - m a r k s i n d i c a t e e i t h e r a s p l i t or d i v i d e d deme, for which only t h e f i r s t h a l f of t h e name has been r e c o r d e d on t h e Manumission S t e l e .  Former S l a v e s : GREEN | Former M a s t e r s : RED | Both: BLUE  -76-  Joss  Chapter 3 Slave Occupations  In the words of the Cambridge scholar M.I. Finley, 'with little exception,  there  was  no • activity,  productive  or  unproductive,  public or private, pleasant or unpleasant, which was not performed by slaves at some times and in some places in the Greek world.' The exceptions for Athens, of course, were politics and warfare.73 Finley's statement is borne out . in the Manumission Stele, which includes  a  high  degree  of  diverse  occupations  involving  agriculture and industry, among others. Since slaves doubtless took part in almost every aspect of the Athenian work  force, to what degree were  from the citizen body?  homogeneous  agriculture,  and  differentiated  Cohen states, perhaps a little too broadly  but nonetheless effectively, that remarkably  slaves  in  craft  'the residents of Attika were  appearance  without  and  worked  differentiation  in of  commerce, status  or  compensation. In daily life, individuals would have little or no knowledge  of  the  "status" of  the  persons  with  whom  they  had  contact, and virtually no way of determining to which of the three groups a person belonged.'74 Although there would likely have been apparent differences in slaves 13  newly  acquired  from other  nations  (ie. in  language  and  A rare case in which Athenian slaves were employed for military service is found in Xen. Hell. 1.6.24, who says that along with freemen, slaves and knights, who were also not usually liable for' military service, were put aboard ships to fight in the battle of Arginusae in 406. For their bravery, the slaves were granted citizenship, which was also a very rare occurrence. This grant, no doubt, was to encourage the slaves to perform in a patriotic manner. There is also a reference to this battle in Arist.Frogs 33, where Xanthias the slave asks his master Dionysos mournfully: Ti ydp syco OUK evauudxouv; - in which case he would have been free. 14 Cohen, 105.  -77-  Joss  manner of dress), for second-generation slaves such differences would have been minimal, if at all apparent, as these individuals would have been assimilated into Athenian culture from birth.  In  fact, it has been commented on in Classical literature how alike Athenian slaves looked in comparison to citizens, so much so that it became necessary to enact a law against anyone hitting a slave because he might have actually been a citizen mistaken for a slave, although this is probably an exaggeration.75 Although Cohen's statement of individuals having no knowledge of  the  status  of  those  with  whom  they  dealt  is  generally  questionable, since presumably foreigners would have stood out to native Athenians and there is also evidence that slave-women wore a discernible style of clothing,76  the stress here must be placed  upon whether they would have particularly cared; since slaves were so deeply woven into the fabric of almost every aspect of Athenian life,  surely  their  constant  presence  was  unexceptional  to  citizens, who were accustomed to dealing with them on a daily basis.  For instance, when a citizen wished to have his shoes  mended, it is doubtful whether he would have specifically asked for the services of someone of a particular status to perform the task - he simply would have approached a cornier, not a metic,  or  trained.77  slave,  to perform the task  for which  citizen,  he had been  There is no reason to think that the handiwork of  slaves was inferior to that of citizens. Athens was not self-sufficient, requiring rather large imports 75  pse.udo-Xen.Const.Ath. 1.10. As apparent from stelai depictions of slave-women wearing xgandys', a type of slave garment (Cf. Babler). 77 In fact, an Eleusinian inscription, IG II2 1672.190, records a citizencobbler as having made shoes for the slaves working on the project. 76  -78-  Joss  •of grain to feed her inhabitants. 7 8 Her enormous s i z e , 2,500 km2, as well as her hefty population, estimated to be around 300,000, made her the a n t i t h e s i s of a often  been  reportedly  x  face-to-face'  attributed. 7 9 between  317  Moreover, and  307  society, a term which has a  census  numbers  approximately half that of the politaiso  taken  the  at  Athens  foreigners  at  and the Athenians believed  t h e i r s e r v i l e population to exceed that of the free. 8 1 In l i g h t of this,  a great mingling between Athenians and resident  foreigners  would have taken place. Furthermore, between  the  there  three  appears  groups;  people of a l l s t a t u s e s ,  the  to be no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n state  indiscriminately  working side-by-side to perform  of  pay  employed similar  tasks for similar compensation. Rather than pay having been based on s t a t u s , i t appears to have been based upon the work done.82 Even in the smaller s e t t i n g of the oikos, alongside each other,  carrying  members seem to have worked  out similar  tasks. 8 3 I t must be  noted, however, that there i s no evidence for the daily wages of everyday workers of most occupations,  regardless of s t a t u s . The  only evidence we have i s from monumental structures 8 4 and various occupations serving the s t a t e , such as j u r o r s , bouleutai, and ekklesiastai.*5 78  archons  I t cannot be assumed that the wages of workers  In t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , Athens r e q u i r e d an e x t r a 720 000 medimni of g r a i n t o feed her p o p u l a t i o n . This number i s almost twice t h e 402 000 medimni of g r a i n t h a t A t t i k a produced a n n u a l l y , meaning t h a t Athens needed t o import g r a i n t o feed approximately h a l f of her p o p u l a t i o n . Cf. Harding (1988), 68 and (1995), 108 n o . 20. 79 Cohen, 12-13 and 104. 80 Hansen, 93. 81 Isager and Hansen, 16-17. 82 Cf. Erechtheion accounts, Randall, 207-9. 83 For example, Iskhomakhos' wife is found in Xen.Oec.7.6 performing the same task of wool-spinning as the servants. This must not be mistaken for social equality, however, since it was the wife's primary function to oversee and delegate work to the slaves. Cf. Xen.Oec. 6.35-36; Cohen, 37-38. 84 Randall, 199-210; Eleusis,- IG II2 1672-3. 85 Arist.Ath.Pol.62.2.  -79on  state-governed  reflection  of  elsewhere.  the  monumental average  Joss  structures  daily  would  wage, for  These figures do, however,  have  such .work  been  a  performed  give evidence for  there  being equality among the statuses regarding payment for the work performed. Because there were s t r i c t laws governing the r i g h t s of c i t i z e n s and metics, slaves, 8 6  contrasting  with  the  near  absence  rights  for  i t i s often supposed that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n of s t a t u s was  a constant presence in the l i f e of the individual. was l i k e l y a much more fluid than i s often highly  of  assumed;  cosmopolitan  foreigners  resulting  In fact,  relationship between the  there  statuses  in an e n t i t y such as Athens, which was  and accustomed from  her  to  constant  ever-bustling  i n t e r a c t i o n s between residents of a l l place, with no real d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  the  influx  port,  of  daily  s t a t u s e s would have taken  of tasks between them; very  unlike North American slavery which i s often inaccurately compared to ancient slavery. Slaves appear to have been allowed a rather l i b e r a l role in their  business  Constitution  affairs;  we  of the Athenians  find  in  the  pseudo-Xenophontic  a good explanation for t h i s equality  between free persons and slaves:  '  If your s l a v e f e a r s me, t h e r e w i l l be a danger t h a t he w i l l give you t h e money i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n so as not t o be a t r i s k himself. ( 1 . 1 1 ) 86  There was p r o t e c t i o n for t h e s l a v e a g a i n s t murder and sexual a b u s e . Cf. A n t i p h . 5 . 4 8 ; S c h o l . A i s k h i n . 2 . 8 7 ; H a r r i s o n , 171; Cohen, 158ff; Dem.21.47. Furthermore, o u t s i d e t h e oikos, s l a v e s were under no o b l i g a t i o n of s u b s e r v i e n c e . Cf. MacDowell, 8 1 . There i s a l s o no evidence for a s l a v e having been abandoned by h i s master i n o l d age, but r a t h e r t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Cf. Cohen, 146 and n o . 7 9 .  -80-  •  Joss  Since slaves were often in the position of having to deal with large sums of money as bankers, 87  they necessarily would have had  to have some autonomy; i t would be a problem if slave employees f e l t the need to defer to free customers, in which case the bank i t s e l f would have been in danger. depicted  further  in  Demosthenes  Such e g a l i t a r i a n dealings are (52.5),  when  a  slave  banker  d e r i s i v e l y asks a prominent c l i e n t who's pressing a claim,  'And  what business i s i t of yours?' Like bankers, merchant-slaves would have also required some degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as the  'legal  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ' of t h e i r master's property. e e This 'uppityness' but  was  nonetheless  i s often griped about by ancient writers, 8 9 tolerated  and  for  good  reason;  banausic  occupations were required if the Athenian residents were to enjoy the luxuries they so desired,  although such  generally i n t o l e r a b l e to the c i t i z e n .  'slavish'  work was  This was due, in p a r t ,  to  the p o l i t i c a l and social pressure to play an active role in c i t y affairs.  Xenophon,  for  instance,  gives  banausic work i s held in disdain among the  several  reasons  why  politai:  The i g n o b l e a r t s , as they a r e c a l l e d ,  are  spoken a g a i n s t , and a r e , n a t u r a l l y enough, h e l d i n u t t e r d i s d a i n in our s t a t e s . For they s p o i l t h e b o d i e s of the. workmen and foremen, f o r c i n g them t o s i t s t i l l and l i v e i n d o o r s , and i n some c a s e s t o spend t h e day a t t h e f i r e . The s o f t e n i n g of t h e body i n v o l v e s a s e r i o u s weakening of t h e mind. Moreover, t h e s e s o - c a l l e d l i b e r a l a r t s l e a v e no s p a r e time for a t t e n t i o n t o o n e ' s f r i e n d s and c i t y , so t h a t t h o s e who follow them a r e r e p u t e d bad a t d e a l i n g with f r i e n d s and bad defenders of t h e i r c o u n t r y . (Oec.4.2-3) 97  Slaves were p r e f e r r e d over t h e f r e e i n such o c c u p a t i o n s because of t h e need for c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and continuous s e r v i c e . 88 Westermann, 16. 69 See e s p e c i a l l y pseudo-Xenophon 1 . 1 0 - 1 1 .  -81-  Joss  The Athenians' had an innate loathing for repetitive work and the reliance upon an employer for a living. This stemmed from the importance  the Greeks placed  sufficiency.  Although  upon personal  ideally  every  freedom and self-  citizen  would  have  been  completely • self-sufficient, not having to rely on anything but husbandry to keep himself and his family, in reality, many had to supplement their living by producing an excess of goods to sell to the public.90  Some  even  took  employment, but  only  for short  durations, as this was considered by some writers an abhorrent expedient.91 It must be remembered, however, that this disdainful attitude towards such work was promulgated by political theorists who thought that the politai  should spend more time in the pursuit  of the ideal state. A great number of freedpersons did in fact take part in these so-called banausic  professions (see below),  as  has aptly been pointed out by Ehrenberg,.for example: The distinction between 'banausic' professions and those carried on by 'liberally educated people', which was inherited from the period of aristocracy, had more importance in literature than in real life.52  Still, a large part of industry was worked by slaves in various ergasteria.  Ergasterion  is often translated as  ^workshop', but  this term can be misleading as it, at least in the modern sense, suggests an actual building industrial  pursuits.  archaeological 90 91 92  In  set up and used specifically for fact,  or literary evidence  Xen.Afem.2.7. Dem.57.45; Isoc.14.48 Ehrenberg, 144.  there  is  no  conclusive  for separate buildings as  -82-  Joss  workshops. It appears, rather, that industry usually took place in the owner's domestic dwelling and that the term ergasterion specifically  applies  Demosthenes,  for  to  a  example,  work-force in  property, records two ergasteria  a  rather  deposition  than of  his  a  more shop."  father's  left by his father but mentions  only the slaves employed and the raw materials; he does not mention a separate building for the workshops but he does record the worth of his father's house {Aphob.1.27.9; cf. also 27.32). He later describes the slaves as having been left in the house by his father (27.24). In another speech, Demosthenes clearly states that industry worked by slaves took place at the owner's residence (48.12-13). Based on this evidence, and the lack of archaeological evidence for buildings used specifically as workshops, it can thus be presumed that most industry took place in the  oikos.  Businesses required employees to perform regular, repetitive service. As Cohen  states,  *in Attika, .free persons were not  available for "employment"'.94 An explanation of this comes from Aristotle who states that xit is the nature of the free man not to live under the control of another.'95 Because of this work-ethic, which . stressed self-sufficiency and self-employment, there was a great demand  for labour. This demand provided ample work for  slaves, who did not have the luxury to be so discriminating. Sometimes business-owners would purchase their own slaves to work as their employees but it was also possible for slave-owners to x  rent out' their slaves for such service; these slaves were called  93  Fischer-Hansen, 91-120, in agreement with the perception that classical workshops were not physically separate from dwellings, gives a study of archaeological evidence for ergasteria in Western Greece. 94  95  Cohen, 1 4 2 . A r i s t . Rhetoric  1 3 6 7 a 3 2 : EAeuBspou yap TO pr| npos d'XAov £fjv.  -83andrapoda  misthophorounta  Joss  or douloi  no doubt, also be khoris  misthophorountes,  who would,  oikountes.  Certain businesses would have required the slave to live-apart from his master: a slave who was managing a bank would have to be living-apart in order to keep his customers' assets separate from his master's, which  would  also  release  the master  from any-  personal liability.96 Certain other businesses, like smithing or tanning,  or  Hyperides,97 residences.  multiple would  businesses  also  likely  such be  as  the  operated  perfumeries  out  of  of  separate  Furthermore, if a slave became of great economic  benefit to his master's oikos,  as could happen in ancient Athens  as a result of the employment opportunities and training which could be provided for slaves,98 there would no doubt have been tension between his master and him if he was to remain in a servile position within the household.  For a slave-owner who was  able to *rent out' his slave, the enterprise would have been a good investment, both profitable and easy. He could have his slave out making money for him - his slave would be required to hand over part of his earnings - and not have to worry about taking care of any of his needs, as such slaves would likely be providing • for themselves and, perhaps, their family. On the contrary, manumission was not profitable for slave. owners Athens,99  -  for paramonai  agreements at  nor was there a continuing patronus-cliens  relationship  there  is  as Rome later had100 96  Cohen, 151. Speeches 3.6, 9-10. "' Cf. Cohen, Ch 5. 99 See p 46ff. 100 Cohen, 145. 97  little  proof  - so a khoris .  oikon arrangement was a good way  -84-  Joss  for an owner to make . money and i t provided the slave with the means to perhaps  one day pay for  own manumission.101 Even  his  without the insurance of complete l i b e r a t i o n ,  being permitted to  operate one's own oikos would have provided enough incentive  for  promising  the  slaves  to  work hard  to  release  themselves  from  demeaning position they held as resident in t h e i r owner's Such  an  arrangement  gave  the  slave  many of  the  oikos.  benefits  of  manumission but did not cause the owner to lose income on account of manumitting his slave. Although manumission does not appear to have been exceedingly common at Athens, i t did indeed take place, manumission invaluable mind,  stelai. 1 0 2 evidence  however,  that  The Manumission for  as a t t e s t e d by the  Stele  slave occupations.  such documentation  It  cannot  provides  us  must be kept  with in  be viewed as a  cross-section of the t o t a l slave population; a l l of the slaves on the s t e l e were c h a t t e l , none were state-owned. The occupations are not those which public slaves, or demioi,  would be involved in,  such as mining, coin minting, policing and other services which aided the public c o l l e c t i v e l y .  Rather,  the slaves'  main purpose  was to serve t h e i r individual masters. Moreover, t h e i r occupations can be used as evidence for t h e i r masters' own livelihoods and income; slaves would often be trained in 101  their  master's  profession.  On  the  Erechtheion  building  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , Xenophon gives many i n c e n t i v e s t h a t should be provided for s l a v e s t o improve t h e i r work but does not mention manumission as one of them. See Oec.5.16, 9.12, 12.6 (a s h a r e i n t h e p r o f i t s of t h e oikos), 13.10 (decent c l o t h i n g ) and 13.9 (decent f o o d ) . Furthermore, although manumission i s not a l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a m a s t e r , t h e r e may have been s o c i a l p r e s s u r e t o free a s l a v e once he or she had earned enough money for h i s / h e r manumission. Cf. Westermann, 18-19. 102 I t could have taken p l a c e more f r e q u e n t l y than we know but t h e p r o c e s s may have been more informal, t h u s l e a v i n g us with no o t h e r e p i g r a p h i c a l e v i d e n c e . I f t h i s was t h e c a s e , however, then one would expect t h a t t h e r e would be more l i t e r a r y evidence for manumission.  -85-  Joss  accounts, for example, almost every slave followed the profession of  his master,  with  profitable venture  three  possible  exceptions.103  It was a  for a skilled citizen or metic artisan to  purchase an unskilled, and therefore cheaper, slave, train him as an apprentice and then have him working in his own shop or hire him out.  The most logical trade to train a slave in would be a  skill which was in continual demand, such as the ones seen on the Manumission Stele.  I.t is interesting to note, however, that no  sculptors or pot-painters  are seen on either  the Manumission  Stele, nor on IG 112 10. The term banausoi  is often applied to much of the work done by  slaves. It originally referred to furnace-workers (ie. potters and smiths) but it was eventually used for all manual workers.104 The word had a strong pejorative connotation, likely because of the Athenians' negative views of technai  but also presumably because  there was a great number of slaves performing such occupations, so that  this  type  of  work  eventually  became  perceived  of as  'slavish'. In Euthydemus' conversation with Socrates, for example, he clearly states that most of the people involved in the  banausic  arts are slavish.105 Some crafts were disdained because the job was unsavory by nature; these would include smithing and tanning, both of which will be discussed below. The occupations on the Manumission Stele can be roughly divided into seven categories: Industry, Retail, Entertainment, Transport, Domestic, Agriculture  and General  however,  were  103 101 105  that  slaves  Randall, 204. Flaceliere, 119. Xen. Mem. IV. 2 . 2 2 : Oi ydp TTXEIOTOI  TCOV  Work.  It must  not necessarily  ye xa roiaOra  ETTIOTCCHEVCOV  confined  be noted, to such  avSparroScoSeis elaiv.  -86-  Joss  categories and occupations; they have here been categorized simply for the purpose of loose organization. As Jameson suggests,106 only the rich would have had their slaves working at one occupation, whereas the average slave-owner likely would have put his slave to a variety  of tasks. The occupations  listed  on  the Manumission  Stele therefore likely indicated only the major function of the slaves,  who  presumably  liberation. The  following  continued  their  occupations  section will be a discussion  upon of the  "seven categories as they relate to the stele.  3.1  Industry  Smithing  3.1a  On the Manumission Stele there are four smiths: two gold-smiths (A.135, B.102), one smith all male.108 such  as  and one iron-smith  (A.448),  Because of their craft, smiths were exposed to dangers  inhaling  process.109  (A.101),107  poisonous  gases produced  during  the  smelting  They were also in danger of serious accidents, such as  burns from pouring molten metals and working with hot irons. In depictions on red-figure vases, smiths are often shown half-nude, no doubt because of the heat associated with the furnaces, and there is usually a jar standing close by, which could indicate that smiths always had water on hand to quench their thirst.110  A  good example of a crippled smith is seen in Homer's depiction of 106  Jameson, 137 and n o . 7 8 . xa^KE^S o r i g i n a l l y a p p l i e d only t o bronze-workers but l a t e r was used for a l l m e t a l - w o r k e r s . Cf. ABSA VIII 203 and Tod, 12. 108 The stone has only oiSnpo, so t h e word could have been aiSrpoTTcoAns, oiSnpoupyos or oiSrpoKOTTOs , among o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Cf. M.N. Tod, 9. 1Q9 Burford, 72. 110 F l a c e l i e r e , 133. 107  -87the  smith-god  Hephaistos  as  a  Joss  limping  buffoon.111  Although  his  deformity was caused by an event unrelated to smithing, the fact that this god, whose occupation was arguably the most dangerous of all the banausic  arts, was just as widely known to be crippled,  might perhaps suggest a connection between deformity and smithing. Tanning  3.1b  Tanning, also an unsavory occupation, was disdained because of the  terrible  smell  associated  with  working  with  dead animals.  This occupation is mocked by Aristophanes who twice comments on the stench of leather.112 A later writer describes the tanner as annoying everyone because he smells so bad, forcing him to have his  shop  far  from  town.113  In  classical  Athens,  however,  the  evidence shows tanners who were registered in city demes;114 this is the case with the one tanner on the Manumission Stele, who was registered in the city deme Kydathenaion (B.9). The evidence would then indicate that some tanners, at least, practiced their trade in the heart of the city.  3.1c  Wool-working  Wool-working  is  the  most  common  of  all  the  industrial  occupations listed for both sides of the stele. I agree with Tod's 111 112  Iliad  VIII.410ff.  Knights 8 9 2 : OUK ES Kopaicas aTTo^BepEl, fiuparis KCXKIOTOV O£COV; (GO t o t h e c r o w s , you B r u t e , s t i n k i n g m o s t h o r r i b l y of l e a t h e r ! ) ; Wasps 3 8 : o£ei Kaicio~rov TOUVUTTVIOV fJupons aaTTpas (Your dream s m e l l s most h o r r i b l y of p u t r i d l e a t h e r ) . 113 A r t e m i d o r o s Oneirokritos 1.51. 111 Burford, 80.  -88translation of TCxAccaioupyos as  Joss  Vool-working'  rather than  ''wool-  spinning' because the task need not be confined to just spinning, but probably referred to spinning, carding and weaving.115 total  of  forty-six  industrial  workers,  twenty-four  Out of a are  wool-  workers (52%): eleven out of twenty-seven (41%) of those on Face A (and a probable one more, which would make a total of 44%) 116 twelve out of nineteen  and  (63%) on Face B are wool-workers. All of  these are women. Wool-working is the main feminine activity for both sides: the women average 4 6% wool-workers on Face A and 4 6% on Face B. Thus, out of fifty women recorded for both sides of the stele, 46% were employed at wool-working. In most cf the cases, the name or gender of the participle makes it certain that the wool-workers were female. There is no reason to think that men took part in this employment; when woolworking is mentioned in literature it either clearly applies to women117 or else the gender is uncertain.118  It is never clearly  stated that the workers were male so there is no reason to believe that this was the case. Until evidence should be. found to firmly support men having been wool-workers as well as women, it can be considered a feminine occupation. Furthermore, if I may draw a parallel between Classical and Mycenaean Greece, Mycenaean women most commonly were involved in textile  production.  This  is  seen,  in  part,  by  the  textile  inscriptions from Knossos, which state that women in Phaistos were allotted a fixed quota of wool to work, after which they would 115  M.N. Tod, 10. At A.480, o[up]y has been restored, but the worker is obviously a female, .as confirmed by the gender of the participle. 117 Plato Ion. 540c; Xen.Mem.2.7. 118 Cf. M.N. Tod, 10-11. 116  -89-  Joss  send on the finished product to Knossos.119  Since there was indeed  a sizable work-force of wool-workers at the palace's disposal, it appears  that  there  would  have  been  a  rather  large  excess  of  finished Mycenaean cloth intended for export. Further evidence for this trade is gleaned  from depictions on Egyptian documents of  Mycenaeans holding out lengths of cloth as offerings.120 exported  textiles  were  probably  more  elaborate  Of course  than  ordinary  cloth, which was produced in all ancient societies, in order to make it a desirable commodity. Combining the tablets from Knossos and Pylos, also documented by Chadwick,121 the workers were very likely slaves. This is evidenced by some indication of provenance and the fact that they always lived near the palaces and were continually employed, with about two-thirds located near Pylos.122 Further evidence for a Bronze Age textile industry, presumably for trade, is carefully and convincingly laid out by Killen.123 In the Linear B tablets from Knossos dealing with sheep  (Series D ) ,  some list only sheep while others list both sheep and wool. Killen concentrates mainly on the former in which only sheep are listed. On these tablets, there is an inordinately high number of rams. He suggests that these flocks were not used for breeding but rather for  wool-production,  in  which  case  the  rams  would  have  been  wethers; normal flocks used for breeding would not have had such a large number of uncastrated rams. He parallels such flocks with records  from Medieval  England, where  it was principally  wether  flocks, prized for their wool-production, which provided a good 119 120 121 122 123  Chadwick, 151. Kantor, 58f; Chadwick, 150-1. Chadwick, 79. Ibid., 152. K i l l e n , 1-15.  -90part  of  the  conclusion  economy  by  of  comparing  the the  Joss  time.  He  ratios  of  further ewes  to  enhances rams  his  for  the  Pickering Manor in Yorkshire to the records of Pylos and Knossos;124 the ancient  records' ratios bear a  striking  similarity  to the  those of the Medieval manor, whose flocks were primarily involved in wool-production. Concerning the Manumission Stele, a quarter of all the workers were employed in wool-working. This number is not seen for any other  occupation  workers  were  not  perhaps producing from  Mycenae,  listed, just  which  leads  producing  me  wool  for  for export. According  textile  production  was  to  think  local  that  use  but  to the palace a  centralized  these were  accounts industry,  worked by slave women who lived near the palace. Although we know that the slaves on the Manumission Stele were chattel, there is no reason to think that these women were working solely for the usage of their masters or the local residents. Rather, they could have been producing  cloth, at least  in part, for export, much  their earlier Bronze Age counterparts.  like  Furthermore, as with the  Mycenaean workers, the workers from the Manumission Stele resided near the city, or rather, the area of centralized control which had  supplanted  the more  archaic  palace  structure  of Mycenaean  Greece, if I may make such a comparison. Although recognized,  Athenian  textile  trade  trade  has  in not  wine been  and  olives  sufficiently  is  widely studied;  taking into account the Bronze Age evidence for industrial woolproduction and trade, there is no reason to believe that such an industry did not exist in Athens, but rather to the contrary. This 12<  Killen, 6.  -91-  Joss  document provides some indication that there was an industry in wool-production which was not confined to just local consumption and furthermore, that it was worked, in part at least, by slaves.  Shoe-working  3.Id  There are a number of other industrial Manumission  Stele.  Three  different  activities from the  occupations  working are seen: namely shoe-making  involving  shoe-  (A. 218, A. 252, A. 522,  B.15),  cobbling (A.456) and sandal-making (A.244) . different aspects of shoe-working: a  The first two involve  OKUTOTOHOS  was, literally, a  leather-cutter and a VEupopa<J>os was a shoe-mender or stitcher (from the word for sinew, TO vsupoy and pdtTrrco for stitching).125 Although each  could be separate  likely  that  stages  of shoe-development,  the aKUTOTopos was a  general  shoe-maker  vEupopot(J)os was involved in mending worn shoes.  it is more while the  Since there is also  a mender of clothes, an aKEOTpia, on the Manumission Stele this type of task-delineation is not impossible.126 one  sandal-maker,  which,  general shoe-maker.127  as Tod  states,  (B.3),  There is also  can also  refer  to a  The word is abbreviated to mroSrprroTT, which  could conceivably end with either  -TTOIOS  (or other such variants)126  or - TTCoXris. These three words together, shoe-making, cobbling and sandal-making, demonstrate the great care that was taken to show that the slave's occupations, although similar, were not the same. 125  For other spellings, see M.N. Tod, 8 and 10. Both words could also, of course, simply be the final stage of production, namely the finishing of shoes and cloth. Mending, however, is the more common meaning for these words. 126  127  128 129  M.N. Tod,  Ibid. Ibid.  11.  '  -92-  Joss  Wood-working  3.le  There are also various wood-workers on the stele: a bed-maker (A.145), a pine-splitter  (A.402) a carpenter (B.217) and a flute-  maker (A. 433; first epigraphical appearance in Attica)130 . Possible endings for the bed-maker, since the word is abbreviated to KAIVOTT, are  -Tniyos, and  -TTOIOS,  -Trpicrrns.131 The word  for pine-splitter,  SaiSooxioxTis, has not been found elsewhere; because it very likely refers to someone who makes banausic  torches, I have placed  category. TSKTCOV, usually  especially  a  carpenter  or  it in the  refers to a worker  joiner,  although  it  can  in wood,  also  be  a  general term for any craftsman. Because of the specification seen for other craftsmen on this document and the many variants of the word  which  have  the meaning  ^carpenter',  however,  it  is more  likely that the term was intended specifically to denote a worker in wood.132  3.If  Other  .There  is also a glue-boiler  signet-engravers  (A. 452; a rare word)133 and two  (A.138-9, B.255).  The occupation  A  glue-boiling'  (XoXXsvpos) is only found on this document, but' the word  N  x°M a ''  used in the context of building operations, has been found twice on other epigraphical documents.134  130  Lewis (1959) , 2 2 9 . M.N. Tod, 7 . ' " Cf. L S J . 133 M.N. ' Tod, 8 . 134 IG 112 1 6 7 2 . 6 8 , 1 6 8 2 . 2 8 . Cf. 131  M.N. Tod,  8.  -933.2  Joss  Retail  There there  is  a total  are  of  eight:  a  frankincense-sellers merchant  (501)  On Face  B,  saltfish-seller  male  three are  on t h e  sesame-seller a  male  kapeloi  three:  and  one male  stated  his  as  own w a r e s ,  such  by  auTOTTcoXcovSicopioTat goods  which  scholiast  Kai  others  on  different  TEXVTJS  {Pol.260c);  (510),  (113),  r|  the  a  male  (KCCTrnXts) .  same  metic-  products.  This  is  TCOV KCCTTTIXCOV TZXVT) TT\S TCOV  is  in . h i s  a  . U n l i k e an cxuTOTrcoXris,  meaning t h a t t h e This  KOCTTTIXOI  likewise  stated  explanation  of  the  by  the  the  five  auTOTrcoXou  The word ^KcxnTiXos/KairriXts' was d e r i v e d from t h e a c t i o n of  pouring  wine  6 ayopcx£cov  sell  CXTTO TOU  TTCOXCOV  c a t e g o r i e s of v e n d o r s :  to  others'  who w r i t e s :  Aristophanes,  male  (6).  belonged  a KccuriXos s o l d  produce.  two  and one female  (KCCTIT|XOS)  (A. 490,493)  Plato  (221),  pulse-seller  m a s t e r and p r e s u m a b l y worked i n h i s b u s i n e s s . who s o l d  On Face A  (113-male,490-male,493-female).  a male  were male  stele.  saltfish-seller  (35) and a male b r e a d - s e l l e r  Two of t h e kapeloi One female  vendors  (369,563),  and  there  eleven  KCXTITIXOS 6E  sv TT\ xcopoc sv ?\ r|y6paa6v ( P J u t . 1155) . 135  into  cups  and  only  later  came  to  encompass  r e t a i l e r s . 1 3 6 A kapelos  c o u l d be e i t h e r a w i n e - s e l l e r ,  or a general r e t a i l e r  and a kapeleion  a kapelos  o r , more e s p e c i a l l y ,  hucksters  were  looked  135  Cf.  136  Ehrenberg, 114.  137  Cf.  M.N. Tod, LSJ:  5-6.  TOKarniAElov.  down  as  local  an i n n - k e e p e r  c o u l d be e i t h e r t h e shop of  a tavern.137  upon  all  being  On t h e w h o l e , a l l dishonest  people  such who  -94-  Joss  would do anything to make a buck .from some unsuspecting customer.136 Retailers were also the frequent recipients of abuse, as seen, for example, in the treatment of a bread-seller: Come, stand by me, by the gods I • entreat you. There he is, the one who ruined me, who struck with his torch and threw down from there bread worth ten obols and four to boot. (Arist. Wasps 1388-91)  The poor attitude towards retailers is in direct contrast to that towards another type of retailer, the merchant (A. 501). main  difference  between  the  two  is  that  kapelos  a  The  sold  his  products locally, whereas a merchant was not confined to his own locality  - the term  'InTropos' originally meant  passenger on another man' s ship'. and  they  were  often  wealthy  'one who was a  Being a merchant was profitable and  highly  regarded.  Although  merchants and other retailers in essence had the same occupation, kapeloi  are  practices  likely  were  criticized  inferior  but  more more  harshly likely  not  because  because  they  their were  everywhere and their trading touched more people personally. - As mentioned above, there are two salt-fish sellers on the Manumission salted-fish  Stele. Fish was a staple of the Athenian diet and was  a  common,  albeit  presumably because it was not fresh.139  'little  esteemed'  food,  Salted fish, apparently  cheaper than fresh fish, needed time for its preparation and often 138  Ehrenberg quotes (114 no. 9) from adesp.567: KcmnXov <J)povo(ja. He suggests that the sense of the phrase is not favourable but rather indicates the . retailer's dishonesty. 139 Ehrenberg, 131.  -95-  Joss  came from distant seas. With the possible exception of the bread-seller, who likely made as well as sold his. bread,140  all of the retailers listed were  professionals who bought from producers and resold to the public; in short, they were middlemen.  The only difference between the  general retailers and those who sold specific goods was probably agora  that the former were shopkeepers while the latter sat in the and sold their wares.  Furthermore, men and women are both seen as  working in this type of employment; on the Manumission Stele there are nine men working as vendors and two women. Women as retailers are also mentioned by Aristophanes, in which case the occupation appears  to  have  a  rather  pejorative  nature,  since  vending  is  mentioned in conjunction with mud-wrestling, waitressing and other such occupations.141  3.3 Entertainment >  There are three entertainers on the stele, all female. Two are flute-girls  (A.5[New], B.212) and one a harper  (A.506).  These  women were likely hired out by their masters to perform at various symposia.  The  harper  would  have  sung  as  well  as  played  the  cythara. Such female entertainers are commonly found in classical literature and appear to have been largely  1,0  M.N. Tod,  5 ; A r i s t . Wasps 2 3 8 : t % dpTOTrcoXiSos Xa66vT'  hetairai.112  EKAEVJAJPEV TOV oXpov.  The word  *o\\ios' refers to a table for kneading bread. Cf. LSJ. 141 Arist. Lys. 457-8. 1,2 Ehrenberg, 178; Arist.Wasps 1358,1368; Thes. 1177; Plato Symp. 176e,212d.  Joss  -963.4 Transport  Four freedmen on the document can be described as transporters: two donkey-drivers In Classical  (A. 546, B. 271) and two muleteers  (A.-559, B.94)-.  literature, slaves appear as muleteers and copper  transporters.143 Since men employed in such occupations were acting as legal representatives of their master's property  (or someone  else's,  had  if  they  were  hired  out), they  would  have  to  be  trustworthy.144 Since their occupations would have required a fair bit of freedom.and mobility, it is not hard to imagine that these men were khoris  oikountes  and were likely available for hire to  anyone who required their services.  3.5 Domestic Servants  There descriptions  has  been  TTCUSI'OV  a  fair  bit  of  discussion  concerning  the  (A. 259, 472, 514, 55'0; B. 19, 96,118,120,122, 235, 238,  259,341) and Trais (B.37), the most common occupation after woolworking, and again, dominated by women; over a quarter of them (28%) were employed as servants. Jameson takes the name to mean "no  profession  designations  yet,"145  TTCUSIOV  and  meaning TTCUS  as  that  we  should  literally  understand  denoting  the  "children".  His argument is, in part, that since one slave, who is designated TITOT)  (A.256), is released along with one who is designated  TTOUSI TI'T6  (A.259), the latter should thus be the "child of the nurse". He 1,3  Arist.Thes.491; Plato Lysis " See above, p 79ff. 1,5 Jameson, 135 no. 63. l  208b.  -97-  Joss  also notes that, since in two entries  TTCUSICC  (A.118,120,122  three  and  B.235,238),  and  released along with other slaves  in  are freed together other  entries  are  (B.35,37; 94-96; 255-66) these  could have been family units. Although these arguments are impressive, in the context of the document they do not make sense.  Tod's assertion that traiSiov and  should be taken to mean "servant"146 and that TTOctSi  TTCUS  simply  a  double  designation,  servant  and  nurse,147  TIT6  is  is  more  compelling because it is difficult to imagine that children could have bought their own freedom  (none are mentioned with  eranoi).  Even if the masters did pay for their freedom, it is even more difficult  to  imagine  that  these  children  would  have  been  registered as metics. Moreover, master's were under no obligation to free entire families.  3.6 Agriculture  We do not see the occupational variety amongst agricultural workers that we see for the other categories discussed thus far. We have only farm-workers (A. 109, A.248, B.12, B.208, B.lll) and vine-dressers (A.486, B.52). Considering that Classical Greece was mainly an agricultural society,148 since most Athenians appear to have owned at least a small plot of land,149 and most Athenian households probably owned at least one slave, slavery must have played a significant role in 1,6  M.N. Tod, 9. • The designation xT!T6n' probably meant more specifically ,wet-nurse' . Cf. LSJ for variations of this word. 1.8 Jameson, 124. 1.9 In 403 BCE, only 5000 out of some 20 000 citizens did not own land. Cf. Gomme, 26; Jameson, 125 and no. 13. 1,1  -98agriculture.  Joss  There have been two major arguments posited for the  small number of agricultural workers on the Manumission Stele: the khoris  first is that agricultural slaves were less likely to be oikountes,  and thus were less likely to have the funds to purchase  their freedom.150 For this reason, their numbers are quite small for such documents. The second reason is more compelling and lies in the translation of yscopyos in the context of the other occupations on  the  document.151  perfectly  The  permissible  in  * farm-hand' ,152  translation a  general  context  -  although  especially  one  referring to slaves - may be misleading. As with most of the other slaves on the document, who were very likely undertaking work on their  owner's  behalf,  these  workers  were  probably . employed  as  farm-managers on either their owner's or rented land, in which case they would presumably have earned more money than a general farm-hand and. would thus have been more able to purchase their freedom.153 Moreover, as mentioned above, most Athenians probably owned land, so farm-work would have come part and parcel for all members of the oikos.  It is unlikely that someone would have been named  specifically as having the occupation  x  farm-hand', since all but  the richest citizens would have taken part in agriculture.154 As Jameson slaves"  states, in  Athens  everywhere.'155 150 151 152  153  *if we it  Therefore,  have  trouble  identifying  may  be  part  farm-work  in  would  "agricultural  because have  been  they an  were  assumed  Jameson, 134. Jameson, 135. M.N. Tod, 6.  In Lysias 7.10, there is a metic who rented land, presumably continuing his earlier profession when he was a slave. 154 Jameson, 124. 155 Jameson, 137.  -99-  Joss  occupation for all household members, making it less likely to be listed as a specific occupation. workers  on  positions oikountes  the Manumission on  behalf  of  In light of this, the farm-  Stele  their  likely  owners,  held were  managerial-type probably  khoris  like most of the other workers on the document, and were  therefore able to accumulate the funds to purchase their freedom. The  other  listed  agricultural  occupation, vine-dressing,  required skill. Viticulture was also the most laborious of farming activities in Classical Greece.156 Because of the skill demanded for such work, it is possible that such agricultural experts would have been rented out to work on other people's farms as need demanded.  Moreover, vine-dressers perhaps acted as retailers as  well as producers, selling wine to consumers or inn-keepers.157 Skilled agriculturists would presumably have been less numerous than general farm-hands. By reason of their skill and paucity, they surely were paid more and were therefore able to accumulate more funds than the average unskilled slave, making it possible for them to purchase their freedom. 3.7 General Work  There are nine men who, with the possible exception of one, fall  under  this  amphora-bearer  last  category:  (A.209),  a  a hired-labourer  secretary  (B.344), a female/male? horse-tender  (A.464),  a  (A.396), an wall-builder  (B.91), a building-worker  (B.98), a miller (B.210), a cook (A.195) and a barber(B.252). 156 157  Cf. Jameson, 130 and no. 45. Ehrenberg, 130.  -100At B.344  (wall-builder), Lewis has edited the occupation as  Tod had earlier read it as a[Tt]xicmiv and Lolling as  T[EI]X>OTTIV.  ,"6  T[O]KIOTTIV  Joss  As Lewis states, his interpretation  of the word  would be its earliest appearance, but none of the suggestions are impossible. At. B.91 (horse-tender), Lewis interprets TTOTiKicrrpi "n"  and  second  "s") as  x  an hapax  legomenon  with  (dotting the extraordinary  spelling', positing that the freedwoman was a Horse-tender  (from  the verb vjnixco, meaning to rub down a horse).159 This would be the only instance of 'ITS' found in Attica.160 The type of occupation at B.98 is not clear;  Lewis takes the  man to be a building worker, comparing the occupation to those contracted in 2G_ II2 1665. Tod, along with others, suggests that 'epy' should be expanded to 'epyccarpicDv', so that the meaning of the phrase is 'resident at Sounium from is  a  rather  comparison impossible.  general  with  the  depiction others  on  workshops.'161  the  for  a  the  Granted, this  freedman's document,  occupation  but  it  is  in not  He could have been working on the location of a large  building project. 3.8 Comparison with IG 112 10  The Manumission Stele's list of occupations bears a striking resemblance  to the  late  fifth-century  inscription  IG  II2 10.162  Both have slaves working mainly in retail and industry and there 158 159 160 161 162  Lewis (1959) , 233. Lewis (1959), 231; Cf. LSJ. Cf. Lewis (1959) 231. M.N. Tod, 13. For the locale, refer to p 62. Cf. p 56ff.  -101-  Joss  are a number of the same occupations: tanners, retailers, smiths, merchants, hired-help and farm-workers. There are, however, some notable differences; on IG 112 10 there are more slaves working as retailers  -  Furthermore,  40% as IG  opposed  II2 10  has  to  11% on  neither  the  Manumission  wool-workers  nor  Stele.  domestic-  servants, the likes of which are so dominant on the Manumission Stele.  Since  differences  IG are  II2 10 not  is a  list  surprising,  as  of male  slaves  wool-working  service appear to be feminine occupations.  only, and  these  domestic  As far as masculine  occupations are concerned, however, it appears that chattel slave occupations remained fairly constant during the eighty or so years between the two documents.  -102-  Joss  Conclusion  D.M. Lewis has done a great service for classical scholars by piecing together fragments of this large Manumission Stele. It now stands as the most complete manumission document surviving from ancient Athens and its existence compels us to ask many more questions  than  can  perhaps  be  answered.  We  have  seen  that  manumissions were exceedingly uncommon at Athens as attested by the near absence of literary and epigraphical evidence for such procedures.  Without  contemporary  literary  evidence  for  these  trials, we must rely on Harpokration for a definition of the procedure, even though it is not clear what time period he was referring to when he described it, nor even if he was referring to Athens. paramonai  Furthermore, his definition  relies upon  there being  agreements between master and freedman, for which we too  have very little evidence from Athens and of that only literary. We have seen, however, that Plato's reference [Laws 11.915a) bears close resemblance to the Delphic manumission agreements, lending some  credibility  for  there  being  similar Athenian  agreements  between masters and freedmen. The answer to who paid for the phiale  is equally elusive, as  the document appears to list the payment as a separate clause. We have seen, however, that the presence of the eranoi  may help  resolve the issue, since at A. 141 the former master is also listed as the head contributor. If it was the case that the former masters always paid for the phialai,  it would not make sense to  list this man as also the head contributor, as his role would have been assumed.  It seems much more likely that the slaves were  -103-  Joss  expected to make the payment and, if they were unable, they could collect  a group  of contributors  to  loan them the  funds, as  illustrated in the case of Neaira (Dem.59). The Manumission Stele can also bear evidence to the domiciles of the former masters and slaves.  We have seen that the greatest  percentage of both were from city demes, with an average of 45% of the former masters and 7 6% of the freedmen. Furthermore, it is not surprising that more freedmen were registered in city demes, since we have seen that metics' demes were not hereditary but rather, were indications of domicile, unlike those of citizens'.  Even  though there are few cases of deme-sharing between former masters and their slaves, this could simply be due to the former master's domicile being different  from his deme. His former slave was  probably registered right where he worked, which could well have been the same domicile as his master; it is unlikely that these slaves had worked far from their masters' residence. Another intriguing element of the stele are the many diverse occupations listed, which as a group can tell us a great deal about the socio-economic role of slave activity in fourth-century Athens. Slaves were employed in almost every aspect of daily life, from  industry  to retail to agriculture. As  stated  in Ch 3,  however, these occupations as a whole must not be taken as a cross-section of slave-activity in fourth-century Athens, since all the slaves are chattel and most would likely have been oikountes.  These numbers do not take into account the demioi,  likes of whom probably made  up a fair amount  khoris the  of the slave  population. There must have been a constant mingling of people from all  -104-  Joss  statuses, at times working side-by-side at the same tasks, perhaps receiving the same pay.  The strong presence of slaves allowed  citizens more time to take part in city-affairs, releasing them from many of the repetitive but necessary tasks of daily life. In turn, slave-work enabled both Athenians and resident-foreigners alike to have easy access to goods and services, the fruits of city-living. There are eight instances in which groups of slaves have been released under one master (with the exception of one, B.253-66, where there are two masters) . What can these groups tell us about the masters? In four of these instances, there is more than one slave in the same occupation. In the case of A.489-96, the master, who was a metic, released two retailers, one male and one female. It seems probable here that this metic owned a store and had two slaves running it together, since both were resident in Melite. Furthermore, these slaves were almost surely khoris  oikountes  and  were very likely also a married couple. The other three instances have multiple females being released, all combinations of wool-workers, domestic servants and nurses: at A. 255-262, the two entries record nurses, one with an apparent double-designation (see Ch 3). At B.112-122, one master released five slaves in total: one pulse-dealer, one wool-worker and three domestic servants.  Lastly, at B.253-266, two masters jointly  released four of their slaves: one signet-engraver, one domestic servant and two wool-workers.  With the exception of the group of  retailers, all include at least one wool-worker, nurse or domestic servant. Why do these women, working at such occupations, figure so  -105highly  in  the  numbers  released?  Joss Domestic  servants  (including  nurses) and wool-workers make up 41% of the total workers on the document. In the case of domestic servants and nurses, having no apparent trade with which they might have supported themselves, two questions arise: first of all, since presumably they were not khoris  oikountes,  would  they have accumulated  freedom? undertaken  as most of the others freed evidently were, how  Secondly, upon  what  their  sort  enough  capital  of  employment  release?  I  would  to purchase their would  like  to  they  have  make  some  suggestions in answer to these questions. Since, as suggested in the Introduction, masters might have felt compelled to release slaves in order to contribute capital to the state during this time of emergency, as a sort of liturgy, perhaps some masters did not wish to release slaves who were generating good income working as skilled artisans, shopkeepers or the  like. Instead, they  released  female  slaves who performed  general domestic services. Such slaves, could even have been those described by Hopkins as  A  not producers at all, but consumers,  tokens of their master's wealth.'163 Even though the new metics would owe the state metoikia  payments, these sums probably paled  in comparison to what some masters were making from their oikountes  khoris  slaves. Perhaps the masters even took on these payments  on behalf of their domestic servants; if the khoris  oikountes  slaves were bringing in more money, as presumably they were, it would- be a worthy venture.  Thus, these domestic servants could  have continued in the service of their former masters or else were married off after their liberation. 163  Hopkins, 166.  -106-  Joss  Wool-workers, of course, were producers, but how worthy was their art? Every woman appears to have been taught this skill. Even if wool was being produced for export, such slaves probably did not bring in the amount of money that a . slave at another trade, such as smithing or wood-working, would have. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that these women would have been oikountes. oikos.  khoris  They were more likely working out of their master's  Thus these slaves, along with domestic servants, probably  generated very little income, if any at all, for their masters and were therefore the cheapest to release. After their release, these too most likely continued working in the same manner they had previously, albeit with modified legal status. Perhaps the answer to the purpose of this document lies in its anomalous nature.  As we have seen, there is no evidence for such  procedures from much before or after this period, making it appear that  this  document  is  tied  to  a  contemporaneous  event. The  greatest worry for Athens at this time was Macedon and we know that measures were being taken by Lycurgus' coalition to gather revenue for the inevitable war between the two powers. In light of this,  I  would  like  to  suggest  that  the  purpose  of  these  manumissions was not so much to manumit slaves but was invoked by the state as another way to gather revenue, perhaps after the wealthy had been exhausted of liturgies. Furthermore, there is evidence.that the majority of the masters were city-dwellers, the likes of whom would be more apt to be politically active and perhaps  felt  more  intensely  the  need  to  provide  financial  assistance to the state. In order to make the manumissions legally binding, the state used, or perhaps enacted, these trials, all of  -107which were  legal  fictions  serving  ultimate purpose was to gather phialai  Joss to acquit  the  slaves. The  as revenue, which were soon  after melted together into various hydria,  as evidenced by the  contemporary Athenian financial reports. The new metics would then continue to contribute capital in the form of metoikion  payments  and the male metics would also be liable to fight in the oncoming war; all in all, an excellent resource for Athens during this time of emergency.  -108-  Joss  Appendix: References for Slave Names Found on the Manumission Stele Note - I have included only whole names, extant or restored. The digit  following  instances  in  the  slave's  which  the  name  name  has  records been  the  total  attached  to  number a  of  slave.  Occasionally I have indicated an alternate spelling of the same gender below the appropriate line. As seen below, the names are listed in order of occurrence on the Manumission Stele and I have given the numbers for the names as listed in Osborne's and Byrne's The  Foreign  Ancient  Greece  A. 100  [KjtTTOS  Residents  of  Attica.  {FRA)  and  Reilly's  {SAG).  1 : FRA 7 7 7 4 ;  SAG 1630  A. 104 MvTiai0Ecc{v}  1 : FRA 7 8 6 6 ;  SAG 1908  A. 108 lotTupos  6 : FRA 7 9 8 4 - 8 9 ;  SAG 2 4 6 3 -•68  A. 112  6 : FRA 7 7 4 3 - 4 8 ;  SAG 1547  [K]aAAicc<s>  A. 138 Bicov  1 : FRA 7 5 1 6 ; SAG 5 3 3  A. 144  12:  FRA 8 1 4 7 - 4 9 ;  SAG 3 2 3 7 -•48  A. 14 8 Mooxicov  4 : FRA 7 8 7 1 - 7 2 ;  SAG 1 9 1 4 --16  A. 152  OIXOVIKTI  1 : FRA 8 1 1 1 ;  A. 156  'A5O\JO[IOS]  1 : FRA 7 4 0 9  A. 187  MEVITTTTTI  1 : FRA 7 8 4 9 ;  SAG 1864  A. 194 'OvTiainos  1 0 : FRA 7 9 2 5 ;  SAG 2 1 6 1 - 7 0  A . 2 0 9 Mdvris  1 4 : FRA 7 8 2 2 - 3 4 ;  A. 2 1 3 OiXia-rn  1 : FRA 8 1 0 6 ;  A. 217 'AplOTOpSVTlS  2 : FRA 74 6 7 ; SAG 3 2 1 - 2 2  A. 2 2 1 'Ovnoinn  2 : FRA 7 9 2 3 ;  A. 2 2 5 rFoaEi6cov[ios]  5 : FRA 7 9 6 5 - 6 6 ;  'H^EAICOV  SAG 3128  SAG 1 8 0 9 --11  SAG 3 1 0 9  SAG 2 1 5 9 - 6 0 SAG 2 3 5 0 --53  Slaves  in  -109A. 24 3 rTiaTOKAfJs  1 :  A. 247 Aiovuaios  K?)  A. 251  1 :  TTOXUTIHOS  A. 255 AanTrpi's  1 :  A. 259 EwreiOri  1 :  A. 328  AU5TI  1 :  A. 332  MEVIOS  1 :  A. 433 TupTiv  1 :  A. 4 64 Oi'Xcov  14:  A. 4 68 'PoSta  3 :  A. 473 KopSuTTTl  1 :  A. 485 'EirtKepSris  1 :  A. 489 'HpaKAstSris'  16:  A. 4 93 0patTTa  4 :  0 pat aaa  3 :  FRA 7 9 5 1 ; SAG 2 3 2 0 22:  FRA 7 5 6 8 - 7 0 ;  SAG 7 3 2 - 5 4  FRA 7961; SAG 2345 FRA 7801; SAG 1724  FRA 7 648; SAG 1082 FRA 7808; SAG 1760 FRA 7848; SAG 1863 FRA 8086; SAG 3031  FRA 8120-24; SAG 3157-67 FRA 7977; SAG 2417-19 FRA 7784; SAG 1674 FRA 7589; SAG 922 FRA 7679-88; SAG 1394-1401 FRA 7715-18; SAG 1480 SAG 1477-79  A. 4 97 'ITCCMTI  1 :  A. 501 'Emyovos  3 :  A. 505 Arpr|Tp[ta]  13:  A. 510 Qi'Xcov  see  A. 514 Xpuaiov  1 :  A. 518 'OXuiiTTids  3 :  A. 522 'Eariatos  1 :  A. 54 6 [I]GOTr|[p]i5r|S  5 :  A. 550 IcoaTpatT)  4 :  A. 555 TTXayycov  2 :  A. 559 ndp4>iXos  6 :  FRA 7929; SAG 2187-92  A. 563 NiKt'as  8 :  FRA 7893-94; SAG 2020-26  FRA 7735; SAG 1536 FRA 7587; SAG 917-19  FRA 7551-55; SAG 647-57 above, A.4 64 FRA 8144; SAG 3222 FRA 7919; SAG 2108-2110 FRA 7619; SAG 996 FRA 8055-59; SAG 2878-79 FRA 8048-49; SAG 2802-05 FRA 7955-56; SAG 2325-26  -110Ag.  I  A. 004  Joss  4763 [E]XTTI'S  15:  B . 0 0 9 Mcopos  1:  B.012  19:  Icooiocs  ERA 7 5 8 3 ;  SAG 8 6 6 - 8 8 0  FRA 7 8 8 1 ; SAG 1927 FRA 8 0 4 3 - 4 6 ;  SAG 2 6 5 6 - 7 2  B . 0 1 5 Mvdacov  4 : FRA 7 8 6 5 ;  B . 0 5 5 TaxtOTTi  1 : FRA 8 0 6 6  B.059'Av[T]iycov  1 : FRA 7 4 3 0  B.062  [EU]K6XTI  1 : FRA 7 6 4 0 ; SAG 1058  B.096  ripos  9 : FRA 8 0 0 0 - 0 4 ;  2JJJOV  4 : SAG 2 4 9 0 - 9 3  SAG 1 9 0 2 - 0 5  SAG 2 4 9 4 - 9 6  B . 1 0 2 OetSeaTpaTOs  1 : FRA 8 1 0 0 ;  SAG 3 0 5 3  B.107"nKtlJOV  1 : FRA 8 1 4 6 ;  SAG 3 2 2 8  B.110  1 : FRA 7 6 3 8 ;  SAG 1 0 5 6  EUKATIS  B.112"ATTCCS  1 : FRA 7 5 0 3 - 0 5 ;  SAG 4 2 6  B . 1 1 4 MaA8dcKri  2 : FRA 7 8 1 9 - 2 0 ;  SAG 1 8 0 8  B.118  nXayycov  see above,  B.120  Moayps  B . 1 2 2 'ApiaToviKTi 'AptaTovtKa  A.555  2 : FRA 7 8 7 3 ;  SAG 1 9 1 8 - 1 9  1 : FRA 74 6 8 ; SAG 328 4 : SAG 3 2 4 - 3 2 7  B.214  [Hjxco  1 : FRA 7 6 9 5 ;  B.217  Anitas  2 : FRA 7 5 4 9 - 7 5 5 0 ;  SAG 1418 SAG 6 4 4 - 4 5  B . 2 3 3 'ApiOTTi  1 : FRA 7 4 5 6 ;  SAG 297  B.235  1 : FRA 7 9 9 5 ;  SAG 2 4 8 9  B . 2 3 8 NiKapiaxri  2 : FRA 7 8 9 0 ;  SAG 1 9 8 5 - 8 6  B . 2 4 1 FXuKEpa  3 : FRA 7 5 3 4 ;  SAG 5 7 2 - 7 4  B . 2 6 2 iTpccTOVttai  5 : FRA 8 0 1 8 ;  SAG 2 5 6 1 - 6 5  IipaXov  iTpaTOViKa  7 : SAG 2 5 5 4 - 6 0  -Ill-  Joss  B.266 TTptccven  1 : FRA 7969; SAG 2366  B.268 IcocrrpaTn  see above, A. 550  B.34l'H8iaTT\  2 : FRA 7673; SAG 1371-72 1 : SAG 137 0  'HStOTCX  Some of the names on Face B are of questionable spelling. I have not made any attempt at conjecture but have left them as they appear on the stele. I have, however, made assumptions concerning the gender of some of the names, tending towards the feminine for persons involved in occupations such as wool-working and domesticservice, the most common occupations for female slaves.164 Although the vast majority of the names are Greek, some do give an indication of other ethnicities: at A.209, the name 'Manes' is thought to be of Phrygian origin and occurs fourteen times on epigraphical documents,165 at A. 328 we have a woman simply called 'the Lydian', at A. 433 there is an Etruscan man by the name of 'the Tyrian'166  and at A.493, a woman called 'the Thracian'. The  name 'Chrusios' (A. 514), meaning  'fair-haired', is also a likely  indicator of a foreign slave. There are several names which denote characteristics that the slaves either had or the masters hoped they would come to have: these include names such as 'Assistance' (A. 144), 'Useful' (A. 194 &  221), 'Trustworthy'  (A.243),  'Much-honoring'  (A.251),  'Obeys  Well' (A.259), 'Profitable' (A.485), 'Strong as a Horse'- (A.187), 'Strength' (A.332),  'Quickest' (B.055),  (B.241) and also 'Sweetest' (B.341). 16  ' Cf. Ehrenberg, 173. See also Ch 3. Ehrenberg, 172. 166 Lewis (1959) , 229. 165  'Speedy' (B.107), 'Sweet'  -112-  Joss  Furthermore, the name 'Sosias' (B.012), although originally a name  for  freepersons  as  well,  came  exclusively and commonly for slaves.167 the  case  in reality,  since  to  be  used  in  comedy  This was also apparently  ^Sosias' ranks  as  the most  common  slave name on the Manumission Stele, occurring a total of nineteen times on epigraphical documents.  Ehrenberg, 172.  -113-  Joss  BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED Aristophanes, The Clouds, The Knights, The Wasps, ed. Loeb, trans. Rogers; Harvard University Press,.Cambridge, 1960. - The Frogs, ed. Loeb, trans. Rogers; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961. Aristotle, Athenian Oxford, 1958.  Politics,  ed. F.G. Kenyon; Clarendon Press,  - Politics, ed. Loeb, trans. Rackham; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1959. - Rhetoric, ed. Loeb, trans. Rackham; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1953. Babler, Balbina. rev. of The Athenian Nation by Edward E. Cohen. Bryn Maw Classical Review 2001.05.19 (2001). <http://ccat. sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2001/2001-05-19.html> Burford, Alison, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society; Hudson, London, 1972.  Thames and  Chadwick, John, The Mycenaean World; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976. Cohen, Edward E., The Athenian Princeton, 2000.  Nation;  Princeton University Press,  Demosthenes, Private Orations: VI, ed. Loeb, trans. Murray; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1956. Ehrenberg, Victor, People York, 1962.  of Aristophanes;  Shocken Books, New  Finley, M.I., Land and Credit in Ancient Athens; University Press, New Brunswick, 1951. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias, "Eragasteria  Polls and Politics:  Studies  Rutgers  in the Western Greek World,"  in Ancient  Greek History;  edd.  P. Flensted-Jensen, T.N. Nielsen and L. Reubinstein, Copenhagen, 2000. Flaceliere, Robert, Daily New York, 1965.  Life  in Greece;  The MacMillan Company,  -114Garlan, Y., Slavery Ithaca, 1988.  in Ancient  Garland, Robert, The Piraeus; 1987.  Joss  Greece;  Cornell University Press,  Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., London,  Gomme, A.W., The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC; Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1933. Hansen, M.H., Demography and Democracy; Copenhagen, 1985.  P.J. Schmidt A/S,  Harding, Ph., "Metics, Foreigners or Slaves? The Recipients of the Honours- in IG i m o , " ZPE LXVII, 176-82; 1987. - "Athenian Defensive Strategy", Phoenix  XLII, 68; 1988.  - "Athenian Foreign Policy," Klio LXXVII, 108; 1995. Harrison, A.R.W., The Law of Athens; 1968.  Clarendon Press, Oxford,  Herodotos, Histories, ed. Loeb, trans. Godley; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1963. Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. Murray; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1963. Hopkins, Keith, "Slavery in Classical Antiquity," Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches, 166-77; 1967. Isager, S. and Hansen, M.H., Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century BC; Odense Universitetsforlag, Odense, 1975. Isocrates, Isocrates, ed. Loeb, trans. Norlin; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962. Jameson, M.H., "Agriculture and Slavery in Classical Athens," CJ 73, 122-45; 1977/78. Kantor, H.J., "The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millenium B.C.," AJA li. 1, 58f; 1947. Killen, J.T., "The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age," ABSA LIX, 1-15; 1964.  -115Kirchner, Johannes, Prosopographia Attica, 1901-03. - Inscriptiones  Graecae:  Joss vol. i-ii; Berlin,  Editio Minor; Berlin, 1927.  Krentz, Peter, "Foreigners Against the Thirty: IG 22 10 Again", Phoenix XXXIV, 298-306; 1980. Lewis, D.M., "When Was Aeschines Born?", CR NS VIII, 108; 1958. - "Attic Manumissions," Hesperia XXVIII, 208-238; 1959. - "Dedications of Phialai at Athens," Hesperia XXXVII, 368-9; 1968. Liddel and Scott, Greek-English Oxford, 1997.  Lexicon,  ed. vii; Clarendon Press,  Lysias, Lysias, ed. Loeb,. trans. Lamb, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967. MacDowell. D.M., The Law in Classical Press, Ithaca, 1978.  Athens;  Cornell University  Middleton, David F., "Thrasyboulos' Thracian Support", CQ XXXII, 298-303; 1982. Osborne, M.J., "Attic Citizenship Decrees," ABSA LXVII, 129-56; 1972. - Naturalization in Athens, vol.i-ii, Palais der Academien, Brussel, 1981-2. Osborne, M.J. & Byrne, Sean G., A Lexicon of Greek Personal vol. ii, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. - The Foreign  Residents  of Athens;  Names,  Peeters, Leuven, 1996.  Plato, Ion, ed. Loeb, trans. Fowler; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962. - Laws, ed. Loeb, trans. Bury; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961. Poland, Frans, Geschichte 1909.  des griechischen  Vereinswesen;  Leipzig,  -116-  Joss  Randall, Richard, "The Erechtheum Workmen," AJA LVII, 199-210 1953. Reilly, LX.C, Slaves Chicago, 1978.  in Ancient  Greece;  Ares Publishers Inc,  Rhodes, P.J., Commentary on the Aristotelian Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981.  Athenaion  Politeia;  Smyth, Herbert Weir, Greek Grammar; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1920. Thucydides, Thucydides, ed. Loeb, trans. Smith; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962. Tod, C.S., The Shape of Athenian Oxford, 1993.  Law; Oxford University Press,  Tod, Marcus, N., "Epigraphical Notes on Freedmen's Professions," Epigraphica XII, 3-26; 1950. Traill, John S., "The Political Organization of Attica," Suppl. XIV; 1975. - Demos and Trittys;  Hesperia  The Coach House Press, Toronto, 1986.  Valmin, Natan, Fouilles de Delphes: Les Inscriptions du Theatre; Ecole Francaise d'Athenes, Paris, 1939. Westermann, W.L., "Two Studies in Athenian Manumission," JNES V, 93-99; 1946. r  -Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity; The American Philological Society, Philadelphia, 1955. Whitehead, David, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic; The Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge, 1977. Williams, James Maddox, Athens Without Democracy: The Oligarchy of Phocion and the Tyranny of Demtrius of Phalerum, 322-307 B.C., Diss. Yale University, 1982. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1983. 8310530. Xenophon, Hellenica, ed. Loeb, trans. Brownson; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961. - Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, ed. Loeb, trans. Marchant; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1959.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0090432/manifest

Comment

Related Items