This article was downloaded by: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] On: 6 June 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 911999733] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Review of History: Revue europeenne d'histoire

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421386

Slavery, freedom and citizenship in classical Athens: beyond a legalistic approach

Kostas Vlassopoulos a a School of History, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Online Publication Date: 01 June 2009

To cite this Article Vlassopoulos, Kostas(2009)'Slavery, freedom and citizenship in classical Athens: beyond a legalistic

approach',European Review of History: Revue europeenne d'histoire,16:3,347 363

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13507480902916852 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13507480902916852

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2009, 347363

Slavery, freedom and citizenship in classical Athens: beyond a legalistic approach

Kostas Vlassopoulos*
School of History, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK (Received November 2008; nal version received March 2009)
Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

While there was a categorical and simple division between slave and free in Athenian law, in social practice the situation was different. It is often impossible to tell whether an individual was free or slave; even more, there are many examples of citizens accused of being slaves. The explanation of this bifurcation between law and reality should be sought in the social content of Athenian citizenship. In Athens the privileges of citizenship extended to the lower classes of peasants, artisans, and shopkeepers. Slaves and freemen exercised the same professions; this overlap made it impossible to differentiate status solely on the basis of profession or living conditions. Thus, many slaves were in a position to take advantage of this blurring of identities to escape detection and create better conditions for themselves. Keywords: citizenship; slavery; Athens; democracy; orators; blurred identities

In a seminal article written over four decades ago M.I. Finley made the memorable statement that one aspect of Greek history is the advance, hand in hand, of freedom and slavery.1 Finley explained that Greek communities, and in particular places like Athens, passed during the archaic period through a process whose endpoint was a social division into two exclusive categories, the slave and the free. It was not that the distinction between slave and free did not exist in earlier periods or in other, earlier or contemporary, societies. But earlier Greek communities, and the older civilisations of the Near East, usually incorporated this distinction within a wider spectrum of statuses, with varying degrees of freedom and dependence from the monarch at the top to the lowest slave at the bottom. It was only in certain Greek communities that the intermediate statuses were abolished and the social body divided into two polar opposites. Finley offered his own interpretation for this unique development. It was the result of a struggle between the aristocracy and the peasantry during the archaic period, in which the lower classes were victorious and destroyed the bonds of dependency on the aristocracy by political means: the lower classes were incorporated into the body politic as citizens with equal rights. Athens was, for Finley, the case par excellence in this development. The legislation of Solon in the early sixth century BC cancelled previous debts and prohibited the enslavement of Athenian citizens for debts incurred.2 This created a signicant manpower problem for the elite, which could no longer count on exploiting the peasants to produce the necessary surplus. The solution was quickly discovered. Chattel slavery existed in archaic societies, but it played a rather marginal role, mainly that of personal attendance

*Email: konstantinos.vlassopoulos@nottingham.ac.uk
ISSN 1350-7486 print/ISSN 1469-8293 online q 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13507480902916852 http://www.informaworld.com

348

K. Vlassopoulos

and service. But in the aftermath of these political struggles there emerged a massive importation of chattel slaves, who now took the role of providing the elite with labour and surplus. Thus, the political gains of the lower classes and the creation of an egalitarian political eld could be safeguarded through the exploitation of thousands of chattel slaves. In truth freedom and slavery had progressed hand to hand through the expansion of citizenship.3 Finleys view that the growing importance of freedom and citizenship had as its corollary the growth of chattel slavery has been widely accepted by ancient historians in the last few decades.4 There is no denying that there is a signicant element of truth in it. But there are many elements of the social and political history of classical Greece that this analysis leaves without account. I shall conne myself in the present context to a re-examination of the relationship between slavery and citizenship in classical Athens. My argument, briey, can be summarised as follows. While there was a categorical and simple division between slave and free in Athenian law, in social practice the situation was very complicated. In many cases it is simply impossible to tell whether the individual involved was free or slave; even more, there are cases in which citizens are accused of being slaves or the children of slaves. This blurring of identities was recognised by contemporaries themselves as a signicant phenomenon, as we shall see. The explanation of this bifurcation between law and reality should be sought in the function of the Athenian economy and the social content of Athenian citizenship. In Athenian democracy the privileges of citizenship extended to the lower classes of peasants, artisans, shopkeepers and wage labourers. Slave and free exercised the same professions and this meant that it was often necessary to accord slaves an extensive freedom of movement and initiative. At the same time, this overlap made it impossible to differentiate status solely on the basis of profession or living conditions. Thus, a number of slaves were in a position to take advantage of this blurring of identities to escape detection, avoid maltreatment and create better conditions for themselves. From a legal perspective the distinction between slave and free was manifested in a number of ways.5 To start with, there were activities which were permitted only to freemen, while strictly prohibited to slaves. For example, only freemen had the right to own property, while the law categorically denied this right to slaves.6 Activities that were essential to the Greek sense of identity, like participation in gymnastic activities, were strictly forbidden to slaves:
Your fathers, when they were laying down laws to regulate the habits of men and those acts that inevitably ow from human nature, forbade slaves to do those things which they thought ought to be done by free men. A slave, says the law, shall not take exercise or anoint himself in the wrestling-schools.7

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

Moreover, penalties for law-breaking were clearly differentiated according to the status of the individual:
Indeed, if you wanted to contrast the slave and the freeman, you would nd the most important distinction in the fact that slaves pay for all offences with their body, while freemen, even in the most unfortunate circumstances, can protect their persons. For it is in the shape of money that in the majority of cases the law must obtain satisfaction from them.8

Finally, in terms of legal procedure, a slaves testimony was admissible in court only if taken after torture; on the contrary, judicial torture was impermissible for freemen, except under very special circumstances which involved religious sacrilege or treason.9 Thus, the establishment of an individuals status was considered necessary for the proper function of the legal procedure.

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

349

The legal picture seems clear enough. Many of the legal procedures were based on the assumption that all people belonged to either the category of the free or the category of the slave; establishing the identity of a person was a necessary precondition of the function of the legal system. It goes without saying that the distinction was even more pronounced when the distinction was not simply between free and slave, but between citizen and slave. The citizen of the Athenian democracy was particularly privileged: he could vote on all essential issues of his community, he could not be maltreated without vengeance, and he had many means of protecting himself against abuse of power by the magistrates. The list can go on; against this, the impotence of the slave as regards legal protection could not be drawn more starkly. So far, Finleys picture seems to hold good. Actual social practices, to judge from the Athenian law court speeches, may have been somewhat different from the legal theory. There is little doubt that any attempt to read reality as a simple reection of statements found in these speeches is mistaken. These speeches narrate a number of facts which are always presented from the perspective of a conict between the two plaintiffs.10 When we attempt to use these speeches as sources of social history and turn the various statements found in them into historical facts, we have always to take seriously into account the rhetorical aims of the speakers and the ways in which they deliberately omit or expand certain facts in order to suit their case.11 Let us start with the more elementary cases. These are cases in which it is disputed whether a certain individual is slave or free. Usually, the argument arises out of the fact that slaves can be tortured to give evidence, while freemen and freedmen cannot. It is thus in the interest of the speaker to argue in favour or against a persons free status, depending on whether he claims to be in favour of settling an issue by exacting evidence from a slave through torture. Thus, in Demosthenes speech 29, the issue turns on the status of Milyas, and whether he can be legally tortured to exact his testimony.12 Demosthenes argues that Milyas was manumitted by his father on his deathbed and accordingly Milyas cannot be tortured in order to provide evidence.13 In fact, Demosthenes reads a deposition in which he claims that his opponent admitted that Milyas is free (32). Precisely the opposite argument occurs in the dispute between Apollodorus and Timotheus in a speech of the Demosthenic corpus:
Now, as to the bowls and the mina of silver, which he borrowed from my father when he sent his servant Aeschrion to my father in the night, I asked him before the arbitrator if Aeschrion was still a slave, and demanded that he be put to the test in his hide. He answered that Aeschrion was free, so I desisted from my demand; but I required him to put in a deposition made by Aeschrion as being a free man. He, however, neither provided a deposition from Aeschrion, as being free, nor would he deliver him up as a slave that proof might be had from his body; for he was afraid that, if he produced a deposition from him as being free, I should bring suit for false testimony . . . and if, again, he should deliver him up for the torture, he was afraid that Aeschrion would state the truth against him.14

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

A speech by Isocrates covers a dispute between the speaker, a son of a potentate in the Kingdom of Bosporus in the Black Sea, and the banker Pasion, a former slave himself.15 According to the speaker, Pasion had defrauded him of his money which was deposited in Pasions bank and spirited away Cittus, the slave who was in knowledge of the transaction.
But Menexenus found the slave here in the city, and having seized him demanded that he give testimony under torture about both the deposit and the charge brought by his master. Pasion, however, reached such a pitch of audacity that he secured the release of the slave on the ground that he was a freeman and, utterly devoid of shame and of fear, he claimed as a freeman and prevented the torture of a person who, as he alleged, had been stolen from him by us and had given us all that money.16

350

K. Vlassopoulos

According to the speaker, when Pasion subsequently accepted that the man was a slave and surrendered him for torture, he did not allow an actual torture, but only a verbal interrogation (17). Later on, the speaker claims that Pasion refused to sail to the Black Sea and settle the issue, as he had promised, but sent instead Cittus, the slave, who claimed to be a freeman and a Milesian by birth (51).17 Another speech by Isaeus concerns the property of Nicostratus, an Athenian who died abroad. There were many claimants to the inheritance, but one pair made a particularly interesting claim:
Ctesias of Besa and Cranaus at rst asserted that Nicostratus had been condemned to pay them a talent; when they could not prove this, they pretended that he was their freedman; they were no better able to prove their statement.18

Apparently, it could be imagined that a person like Nicostratus, who had lived abroad for 11 years and had amassed a fortune of two talents, could have been a freedman. A dispute in a speech by Lysias revolves around a slave woman who, according to the speaker, was bought in common by the plaintiff and the defendant. Both of them were injured in a brawl over the woman, and the defendant claims that evidence should be extracted through torture from the woman who was a witness. But the plaintiff refused to allow it, claiming that the woman was actually free, i.e. she had been manumitted.19 Another speech of Lysias also concerns a brawl, but this time over a young man (meirakion) called Theodotus.20 Theodotus is described as a young man from Plataea (5), a Boiotian city close to Athens and with strong links to it. At the time that this speech took place Plataea had been destroyed by Thebes because of her alliance with Athens and all Plataeans had been granted Athenian citizenship as a reward for their unwavering loyalty.21 The plaintiff argued that he had a contract with Theodotus to pay him 300 drachmas for his sexual favours and accused the defendant of seducing the boy away from him (22). The defendant denied the existence of such a contract and explained that the boy was living with him (32). The actual status of the young man is impossible to tell. At a certain point the defendant alludes to the theoretical possibility that the young man might testify against him through torture (33). This would imply that the young man was a slave, since no free person could be tortured for evidence.22 And yet, if Theodotus was indeed a slave, there is no reference to his master, who could presumably settle the issue by determining whether Theodotus had a contract with either of the opponents.23 It would be possible to interpret these passages by arguing that they simply reect the cynical manipulation of slaves by their masters in their feuds and disputes; we could also claim that they are evidence of the precarious status of freedmen in classical Athens, where the absence of an obligatory registration of the manumission meant that it could often be challenged by the former owner or by other persons.24 But there is a great deal of remaining evidence which shows that the uncertainty of status which we have encountered in these cases is only an aspect of a wider phenomenon. In other words, claims that a certain slave was actually a freedman, or that a certain free person was actually a slave, were believable because of a wider background of contested claims of status. Slave owners were certainly able to manipulate the status of slaves and freedmen because there was inequality of power. But the process may have had a number of different sides, one of which was the exact opposite: slaves and freedmen could manipulate this state of uncertainty for their own benet. Let us start with cases in which this lack of distinction of status is just taken for granted and is part of the background and not the main contested issue of a speech. In two passages from speeches of Demosthenes the speaker casually comments on how easily a slave boy could be taken for a citizen boy:

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

351

More than this, as they were neighbours and my farm adjoined theirs, they sent into it in the daytime a young boy who was an Athenian, and put him up to plucking off the owers from my rose-bed, in order that, if I caught him and in a t of anger put him in bonds or struck him, assuming him to be a slave, they might bring against me an indictment for assault.25 And not only did they go off with my furniture, men of the jury, but they were even on the point of taking away my son, as though he were a slave, until Hermogenes, one of my neighbours, met them and told them that he was my son.26

But the lack of distinction did not simply concern little boys. In another speech included in the Demosthenic corpus, the speaker accuses Stephanus of certain malicious activities:
For not only did Stephanus seek in this way to bring us to ruin, but he even wished to drive Apollodorus from his country. He brought a false charge against him that, having once gone to Aphidna in search of a runaway slave of his, he had there struck a woman, and that she had died of the blow; and he suborned some slaves and got them to give out that they were men of Cyrene, and by public proclamation cited Apollodorus before the court of the Palladium on a charge of murder.27

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

Apparently it was believable that a couple of slaves could be presented as citizens from another Greek city and have them testify in court. They must have spoken very good Greek, at the very least.28 Another interesting example is presented in a speech by Isaeus. According to the speaker, Euctemon was a rich man who owned a tenement house managed by a freedwoman who was formerly a slave of his. This freedwoman had bought a slave prostitute by the name of Alce, who exercised her profession there for many years. When she grew old, she was given charge by Euctemon of another tenement house of his. Alce had two children by a freedman called Dion. She then developed a relationship with Euctemon, who was very old by then, and convinced him to introduce her eldest son to his phratry, thus accepting him as his legitimate child and ultimately making him eligible for citizenship. Despite a quarrel with his relatives, who objected to the introduction, Euctemon carried the day and managed to have Alces son recognised, though, according to the speaker, under the restriction that he should only inherit a single farm.29 It is of course impossible to verify the speakers claims that the two children were indeed the offspring of Alce and not of another wife of Euctemon, as they claimed, or that they were the children of the freedman Dion and not actually of Euctemon. What this case shows is the possibility that interaction between citizens, freedmen and slaves could create relationships that freedmen and slaves could use for their own benet and to enhance their position. Another example can be found in the case of Pittalacus, an individual mentioned in Aeschines speech against Timarchus.30 Aeschines presents Pittalacus as a public slave at the time of the events described, and he does not even allude that he might have been manumitted at that point in time; nevertheless, it is revealed that Pittalacus was afuent and had his own house, where he organised cock ghts, from which presumably he reaped a considerable prot. Aeschines argues that Pittalacus had a sexual affair with Timarchus, the defendant and a scion of a wealthy Athenian family. The situation allegedly went sour when Timarchus left Pittalacus to go and live with Hegesandrus, a minor Athenian politician at the time. Pittalacus was enraged, and as a punishment for his complaining he was brutally beaten by Hegesandrus and Timarchus, who also ravaged his house and killed his beloved cocks. Aeschines claims that Pittalacus brought a legal action against Timarchus and Hegesandrus. Given that he is presented as a public slave, he had no right to bring an action; therefore, either he was already a freedman at the time of the events described, or he had to nd some citizen to introduce the action on his behalf.31 In order to bar Pittalacus from bringing the action, Hegesandrus claimed that Pittalacus was his own

352

K. Vlassopoulos

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

slave. Nick Fisher has proposed an ingenious explanation of how this claim might have arisen. He has suggested that Pittalacus might have been a slave of the genos of Salaminioi, a body with public functions to which Hegesandrus belonged. The genos was in charge of the temple of Athena Skiras, which was possibly a centre of gambling, and this could explain Pittalacus association with gambling. This hypothesis could thus explain both why Pittalacus is described as a public slave and how Hegesandrus could plausibly make a claim that Pittallacus belonged to him.32 Whatever the truth, Pittalacus was able to nd a citizen to defend him by bringing a process known as aphairesis eis eleutherian, which aimed to ensure that a freeman was not falsely captured as slave, but was taken by a third party into freedom. From these details it seems probable, though by no means certain, that Pittalacus had been manumitted by the time these events were taking place. Thus, we would have to assume that Aeschines presents him as still being a public slave for rhetorical reasons, in order to further emphasise the gravity of Timarchus having a passive sexual affair with a public slave.33 Even if we grant this, the fact that Hegesandrus tried to claim that Pittalacus was his own private slave shows the uncertainty of establishing personal status in Athens.34 But the fact that Pittalacus was able to nd a citizen to defend him through a judicial process testies again to the importance of links between slaves, freedmen and citizens. A similar case appears in a fragmentary speech of Isaeus.35 The speaker, who must be a wealthy Athenian since he had served as a trierarch, has initiated a similar procedure, asserting the liberty of the freedman Eumathes. The speaker claims that Eumathes was rio ), but the claim was manumitted by Epigenes through a judicial procedure (en dikaste disputed by the heir to Epigenes property.36 The speaker states that he had rendered services to Eumathes on a former occasion as well, and explains his willingness to support a freedman as a result of Eumathes honest behaviour as a banker:
As a result of this conduct, when I returned safe home, I became still more intimate with him, and, when he established his bank, I provided him with capital, and afterwards, when Dionysius tried to enslave him, I asserted his liberty, being well aware that he had been liberated by Epigenes in court.37

But asserting the freedom of a slave could have serious consequences, as another speech included in the Demosthenic corpus shows:
Theocrines here owes ve hundred drachmas, as his father did not pay the supplementary ne he owed for claiming that Cephisodorus slave was a free woman . . . . Read, please, the law which declares that anyone who is adjudged to have wrongfully asserted the freedom of a slave shall pay half the sum assessed into the public treasury.38

This example shows conclusively that it was not merely the owner of a slave who could argue that his slave was actually free when it suited him; in fact, anybody could present such a claim for the slave of another person. Unfortunately, we are not given a motive for Theocrines father making such a claim, but this case is important in establishing that a slave could count in certain circumstances on a citizens help for disputing his/her status as slave. It is possible for example that there was a dispute between Theocrines father and Cephisodotus, and that he tried to harm Cephisodotus by claiming that the slave was actually a free woman; or we can assume that there was a dispute between the woman and Cephisodotus, and the woman took advantage of an enmity between Theocrines father and Cephisodotus to ask for his help in claiming her freedom; or we might even imagine that there was a relationship between the woman and Theocrines father which induced him to claim that she was free. Whatever was the reason, it must have been strong enough, for Theocrines father initiated a risky procedure that in the end cost him dear.39

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

353

But let us now move in the opposite direction and look at the issue from a different perspective: that of slaves and freedmen as active agents following strategies to enhance their position. In his masterful collection of characters, Theophrastus presents the portrait of the slanderer:
The slanderer is one who, when asked who so-and-so is, will reply, in the style of genealogists, I will begin with his parentage. This persons father was originally called Sosias; in the army he came to rank as Sosistratus; and, when he was enrolled in his deme, as Sosidemus. His mother, I may add, is a Thracian of good family. At all events, she is called ,. , and they say that such ladies are esteemed noble in their own country. Our friend himself, as might be expected from his parentage, is naturally a criminal with a tattoo.40

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

According to the slanderer it was possible for a former slave to assume the role of the citizen; and he presents the former slave as following a conscious strategy to obliterate the stigma of slavery and enhance his position in society. But for the time being let us explore whether the calumniations of the slanderer were a gment of Theophrastus imagination, or whether they illustrate a widespread phenomenon. In fact, ancient sources offer a number of real cases of such challenges and pronouncements. That these challenges were taken seriously and were followed closely can be seen by a speech which concerns an inheritance dispute. At the centre of the dispute is the question of whether a certain unnamed woman had a legitimate marriage with Pyrrhus, the deceased, and whether Phile, the offspring of this relationship, was a legitimate child that could properly inherit his property. The speaker, Pyrrhus nephew, denies the claim arguing that on the basis of probability it would be impossible that his uncle would have married such a woman. One of his main arguments is that the woman came from a family of disputable origin:
Further, would our uncle have thought of marrying the sister of a man, who, when he was accused of usurping the rights of citizenship by a member of the deme to which he claimed to belong, obtained those rights by a majority of only four votes?41

We should start by explaining the procedure that Isaeus refers to. Every Athenian was a member of a deme, one of the approximately 140 local wards into which Attica was subdivided. Membership in a deme was hereditary, and depended not on the actual place where a citizen resided, but on where ones ancestors were resident when the initial registration took place with the reforms of Cleisthenes in 508 BC. On reaching adulthood, every Athenian had to be accepted by the assembly of the deme to which his father belonged in order to become a citizen.42 The deme assembly had thus the right to reject a candidate, though the rejected candidate could then appeal to a popular court. In addition, phiseis, a procedure in which the deme assembly the Athenians periodically held diapse voted whether to accept or reject the citizenship claim of every single deme member. The individual in the speech above had his citizenship conrmed, even if just barely, but others were not so lucky. Aeschines narrates one more shameless act of Timarchus, whom we have already encountered:
In consequence of this experience so great became his contempt for you that immediately, on the occasion of the revision of the citizen lists, he gathered in two thousand drachmas. For he asserted that Philotades of Cydathenaeon, a citizen, was a former slave of his own, and he persuaded the members of the deme to disfranchise him. He took charge of the prosecution in court . . . and though he swore by the usual gods of oaths and called down destruction on his own head, yet it has been proved that he received twenty minas from Leuconides, the brotherin-law of Philotades, through Philemon the actor . . . . And so he broke his oath and abandoned the case.43

phisis, after Thus, Philotades claim to citizenship was rejected in one such diapse the proposal of Timarchus.44 But how exactly could that happen? This story could

354

K. Vlassopoulos

be interpreted in a cynical manner as one more example of the incessant feuding among Athenian citizens. If we believe Aeschines, Philotades was indeed a citizen, and Timarchus denounced him as his own freedman either because of enmity and/or because he wanted to prot nancially from the act. But how could he persuade the members of the deme that one of their own deme members was actually a former slave? For certainly, given the dominant assumptions about the division between the free and the slave in modern scholarship, this attitude is difcult to grasp. The best way to account for it is to accept that there were indeed freedmen or slaves who tried to or succeeded in passing off as citizens. There are indeed many instances of citizens accused of being slaves or freedmen. Lysias 30 is a speech against a certain Nicomachus. Nicomachus became a commissioner for the transcription of the Athenian laws in the last years of the Peloponnesian War and in the immediate aftermath of Athens defeat. At that point he must have been a citizen. The speaker argues that Nicomachus father was a public slave and accuses him of becoming citizen instead of a slave, rich instead of beggar, lawgiver instead of under-clerk.45 A similar accusation was levelled against Agasicles in a fragmentary speech by Dinarchus. Agasicles was charged with bribing the citizens of the deme of Halimous to enrol him in the citizen register. According to the speaker, he was the son of a Scythian measurer, born among public slaves and was himself a measurer up till now in the market, and you regularly receive the corn from him.46 Another speech by Lysias concerns a denunciation (endeixis) against Agoratus for the murder of Dionysodorus.47 The accusation was that Agoratus had testied that Dionysodorus and other important citizens, who were opposed to the Athenian surrender to Sparta, were conspiring against Athenian interests; their conviction and execution led the way to the assumption of full power by the Thirty Tyrants and the subversion of democracy in 404 BC. According to the speaker, Agoratus was a slave and a son of slaves (18), the son of Eumares, who was the property of Nicocles and Anticles (64). Consequently, he was liable to be tortured to exact his testimony (27). On the other hand, the speaker admitted that Agoratus had exercised citizen rights by bringing public prosecutions and speaking in the assembly (65 6). How did he become a citizen? According to the speaker, Agoratus claimed that he had killed Phrynichus, one of the leaders of the oligarchic revolution of 411, and was subsequently rewarded with citizenship by the Athenian people (70).48 The speaker denied strongly Agoratuss involvement in the murder of Phrynichus, claiming that it was only Thrasybulus of Calydon and Apollodorus of Megara who participated in the act and got Athenian citizenship as a reward; consequently, he accused Agoratus of falsely assuming Athenian citizenship (71 3). By a rare piece of luck the decree for the killers of Phrynichus that Lysias cited is still extant.49 It appears that Apollodorus and Thrasybulus were considered responsible for the act and were granted citizenship and other privileges. Agoratus is indeed mentioned among other benefactors (euergetai) in the same inscription, which seems to imply that he was connected in some way to the act, but not closely enough to merit the same honours. Agoratus and the other benefactors were granted some scal privileges, but certainly not citizenship. Thus, the speaker seems justied in accusing Agoratus of falsely assuming Athenian citizenship. It is of course possible that Agoratus gained citizenship after the extant decree was passed, either because the Athenians later awarded citizenship to the other benefactors as well, or because he gained it in a subsequent circumstance, for example through his participation in the democratic forces who overthrew the Thirty Tyrants.50 We thus reach one more case where it is impossible to decide what the precise status of the individual involved was.

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

355

In the same speech the orator also mentions Aristophanes of the deme of Cholleidai, who was arrested in connection with the same events and whose fate was debated in the assembly:
Some, indeed, desired that Aristophanes should be put to the torture, as one who was not of pure Athenian stock, and they prevailed on the people to pass the following decree . . . . Well, after that the persons who then had control of affairs came to Aristophanes and appealed to him to save himself by a denunciation, and not to run the risk of the extreme penalty by standing his trial on the count of alien birth (xenias). But he said Never!51

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

So Aristophanes was one more citizen who was accused of falsely assuming citizenship. In another Demosthenic speech52 the orator accuses Aristogeiton, a citizen with active involvement in public affairs, of not being a freeman (79) and relates how his mother was sold when she was convicted of defrauding her emancipator (65). Demosthenes also accuses the politician Androtion of denouncing citizens in such a manner:
Then do you suppose that all these men are his inveterate enemies merely because he collected this money from them? Is it not rather because he said of one of them, in the hearing of all of you in the Assembly, that he was a slave and born of slaves and ought by rights to pay the contribution of one-sixth with the resident aliens; and of another that he had children by a harlot; of this man that his father had prostituted himself; of that man that his mother had been on the streets . . . slandering them all in turn?53

But Androtions calumnies were not a rare occurrence. In fact, one of the most impressive facts about Athenian politics is that many Athenian politicians of the rst rank were accused of falsely assuming citizenship and of being slaves, or children of slaves. In a fragmentary speech, the orator Andocides makes the following claim about Hyperbolus, one of the most important politicians in the nal years of the fth century BC: Hyperbolus I blush to mention. His father, a branded slave, still works at the public mint; while he himself, being a foreigner and a barbarian makes lamps for a living.54 Demosthenes made similar accusations about his chief political opponent, Aeschines:
I am at no loss for information about you and your family; but I am at a loss where to begin. Shall I relate how your father Tromes was a slave in the house of Elpias, who kept an elementary school near the Temple of Theseus, and how he wore shackles on his legs and a timber collar round his neck? . . . Only recently recently, do I say? Why it was only the day before yesterday when he became simultaneously an Athenian and an orator, and, by the addition of two syllables, transformed his father from Tromes to Atrometus.55

Aeschines replied with the same coin, calling Demosthenes more slave than freeman, all but branded as a runaway56 and claiming that Demosthenes mother was of Scythian origin57 and thus Demosthenes did not qualify to be a citizen, since both his parents needed to be of Athenian parentage. In the case of the fourth-century politician Pytheas we have evidence that all these accusations were not mere idle talk. Pytheas was prosecuted for illegally assuming citizenship:
For who does not know that this man, when, under the obligation to serve you, he was entering upon public life, was being hounded as a slave and was under indictment as an alien usurping the rights of a citizen and came near being sold by these men, whose servant he now is?58

It is very unlikely that the accusations against Aeschines, Demosthenes or Hyperbolus had any factual basis. We know enough about the families of these politicians to be able to say that they were established for quite some time.59 Aeschines attack on Demosthenes is the best example of how such an accusation could be used for rhetorical ends. For Aeschines loosely calls Demosthenes almost a slave and stresses the foreign origin of his mother. Since the issue at hand in the speech is neither the status of Demosthenes nor his right to exercise citizenship, the accusation must play a different role. As Josiah Ober has shown,

356

K. Vlassopoulos

the main purpose of such accusations was to dispute the intentions of the public speaker and the appropriateness of his giving advice to the community: a slave was a natural enemy of the political order, and he could be presumed to hate the system that maintained his servile status.60 Thus a slave could not be expected to have gratitude towards the Athenians and his advice could not be trusted. Accordingly, we can see how the accusation of falsely assuming citizenship could be used to attack a fellow politician, even if there was little factual basis in it. But the habit of attacking political leaders as slaves or of servile origin would have never emerged, if such accusations were not possible about the rest of the citizens. We have to interpret the accusations of politicians in the light of the wider phenomenon that we examined. All of these accusations assume a pattern in which a slave, a freedman or the child of former slaves tried to assume the identity of citizen or even actively exercise citizenship rights, often by changing his own name or the name of his parents and thus hiding his links to the past. Let me summarise the argument so far. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen, free and slave, was far from clear and indisputable; claims to individual status and identity in Athens could be and were challenged; even the most important politicians could be accused of being foreigners, slaves or children of slaves. I have presented both speeches which argue that an accusation is false and speeches which strongly support such accusations. We do not have to, and in most cases we cannot, determine whether any of these accusations and challenges was indeed true. It is obvious that accusations and challenges could be used in the service of private and public enmities and feuds with little factual support or even as outright calumnies. It is also clear that the precarious state of Athenian bureaucracy and the rudimentary nature of Athenian documentation of such important acts as marriage, adoption or manumission made it relatively easy to advance all sorts of spurious claims.61 But the phenomenon is widespread enough to require a more general explanation. Unless a signicant number of freedmen, free foreigners and even slaves were able to hide their status, claim they were citizens, or even exercise citizenship rights actively, it is impossible to understand otherwise how such claims could be so easily and so often presented or challenged. Once we have reached this conclusion, a more difcult question emerges: how was this ever possible? How could freedmen, foreigners or slaves ever assume the role of citizen? There are in my view two answers to this question which are closely connected. The one is economic and social, the other is political. In contrast to many other societies based on slavery, Athenian society did not make distinctions based on status, when it came down to labour and professions. In other words, in almost every single profession one could nd citizens, free foreigners, freedmen or slaves exercising it.62 It was not even the case that slaves tended to exercise the less skilled professions, while freemen or indeed citizens reserved for themselves the more lucrative ones. It is of course true that the professions with the worst working conditions were often exercised by slaves. Mining, probably the profession with the most appalling working conditions, was almost exclusively reserved for slaves.63 But slaves could be found in all lucrative professions, and some of them, for example banking, were almost exclusively exercised by slaves or freedmen.64 Judging from their names, many slaves or freedmen must have worked as painters of the exquisite Athenian vases; yet, despite the fact that these artefacts are evidence of a very high level of craftsmanship and expertise, it is impossible to differentiate between the work of slaves and the work of free painters. This fact had an important repercussion. Thousands of slaves were not serving their masters in their households, but were treated as a source of income.65 These slaves, usually

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

357

skilled, were rented out or worked on their own, thus providing their masters with a share of their prots and with a standard income. Many slaves worked and lived on their own, and their only contact with their master was the weekly or monthly meeting in which they would pay a xed amount as a return. Also the fact that the slaves exercised all sorts of professions meant that they needed a free hand to deal with the issues and problems arising from it.66 To give only a single example, the three slaves of Athenogenes presented in a speech of Hypereides ran a perfume workshop on such a scale that they had incurred debts of ve talents.67 The requirements created by such social arrangements are nicely illustrated by a fth-century author traditionally called the Old Oligarch:
If anyone is also startled by the fact that they let the slaves live luxuriously there and some of them sumptuously, it would be clear that even this they do for a reason. For where there is a naval power, it is necessary from nancial considerations to be slaves to the slaves in order to take a portion of their earnings, and it is then necessary to let them go free. And where there are rich slaves, it is no longer protable in such a place for my slave to fear you. In Sparta my slave would fear you; but if your slave fears me, there will be the chance that he will give over his money so as not to have to worry anymore. For this reason we have set up equality of speech between slaves and free men, and between metics and citizens.68

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

Thus, the requirements of the Athenian economy created a substantial mass of slaves, freedmen and free foreigners (metics), who exercised the same professions with the lower classes of the citizen population, lived in the same areas, and in general could be distinguished with difculty from them.69 The Old Oligarch provides an eloquent description of this phenomenon:
Now the slaves and metics at Athens are most licentious; you cant hit them there, and a slave will not stand aside for you. I shall point out why this is their native practice: if it were customary for a slave (or metic or freedman) to be struck by one who is free, you would often hit an Athenian citizen by mistake on the assumption that he was a slave. For the people there are no better dressed than the slaves and metics, nor are they any more handsome.70

The key to understanding the above passage is the position of the lower classes among the citizens. Athenian citizenship could be exercised without any exclusion based on wealth, profession or appearance. The Athenian citizen body comprised people who were rich, comfortably well-off, struggling to make ends meet, poor, even destitute; it comprised the aristocrat and the landowner together with the wage labourer, the artisan, the shopkeeper and the merchant. The upper-class reactionary could not maltreat lower-class people randomly, because those of the lower classes who were citizens had political power and would not accept maltreatment stoically. But since it was impossible to differentiate who exactly was a citizen and who was a foreigner, a freedman or a slave, it was prudent to abstain from aggressive behaviour in general. Thus, the unintentional effect of democratic citizenship was that slaves, freedmen and foreigners were often protected by association, simply because it was impossible to differentiate them from the citizens. On the other hand, this was precisely the condition that made it possible for certain foreigners, freedmen or even slaves to assume the identity of the citizen and even exercise it actively. That this was no idle rhetoric can be shown through two examples. The rst shows in detail how the difculty in distinguishing between slaves, freedmen and poorer citizens could lead to challenges to ones claim to citizenship. The second shows how a slave or a freedman could take advantage of this lack of distinction in order to avoid mistreatment, enhance his position and claim a title to citizenship. Euxitheus, the speaker of Demosthenes 57, was disfranchised by his deme in a phisis and was trying to convince the jury to reinstate him as a citizen.71 Euxitheus diapse marchos, chief was by then in his middle years and he had previously served as de

358

K. Vlassopoulos

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

magistrate of his deme (63), and phratriacrhos, chief of his phratry (23). He was thus no stranger to his fellow citizens. In fact, Euxitheus attributed his difculties to a family enmity with Eubulides (8), the citizen who proposed his disfranchisement, to the illegal manner and the irregular conditions under which the vote was taken (9 14), and to marchos for trying to collect debts enmities which he incurred during his service as de owed to the deme (63). Thus, if we are to believe Euxitheus viewpoint, we should adopt the cynical model and view the accusations of falsely assuming citizenship as the result of feuds and enmities among the citizens. But the situation is much more complicated, as the evidence presented by Euxitheus himself shows. Although never explicitly stated, it seems that the accusation against him was that he was either a child of slaves and thus not eligible for citizenship, or even the illegitimate child of parents with doubtful credentials.72 The accusations concerned both his father and his mother. As regards the father:
They have maliciously asserted that my father spoke with a foreign accent. But that he was taken prisoner by the enemy in the course of the Decelean war and was sold into slavery and taken to Leucas, and that he there fell in with Cleandrus, the actor, and was brought back here to his kinsfolk after a long lapse of time all this they have omitted to state . . . they have made his foreign accent the basis of a charge against him.73

But the accusations against his mother were even more serious.74 Not only was she accused of selling ribbons in the marketplace (31), which was not considered a proper employment for an Athenian woman, but even more she had worked as a wet nurse, the profession par excellence of a slave woman:75
Some time after this, when by now two children had been born to her, she was compelled . . . to take Cleinias, the son of Cleidicus, to nurse. This act of hers was, heaven knows, none too fortunate with reference to the danger which has now come upon me (for it was from this nursing that all the slander about us has arisen).76

Thus, the speaker concludes by stressing the difculty of distinguishing between citizens and slaves based on profession or labour:
Many are the servile acts which free men are compelled by poverty to perform, and for these they should be pitied, men of Athens, rather than be brought also to utter ruin. For, as I am informed, many women have become nurses and labourers at the loom or in the vineyards owing to the misfortunes of the city in those days, women of civic birth, too; and many who were poor then are now rich.77

We cannot of course know if Euxitheus is telling the truth, since we do not even have the speech of the opposing side. But if he is, it is indeed the lack of distinction between the lives and employments of his parents and those of slaves and freedmen, which gave place to calumnies that eventually secured his disfranchisement. There were thousands of citizens who led lives similar to those of Euxitheus parents.78 Obviously, it was Euxitheus success in political life which brought the question of the true legal status of his parents to the centre of attention. For the majority of ordinary citizens this would have rarely become an issue. Let us now look at this phenomenon from the opposite direction: how could slaves or freedmen exploit this lack of distinction for their own benet? The speaker in Lysias 2379 explains that having certain grievances against an individual called Pancleon he decided to prosecute him. Believing that Pancleon was a metic, he went to the fullers, where Pancleon was working, and summoned him to the court of the Polemarch, who was the magistrate in charge of suits involving metics. Pancleon countered that he was indeed a Plataean by origin, and therefore, since the Athenians had granted citizenship to all Plataeans, a citizen (2). Therefore, he could not be summoned to the Polemarchs court.

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

359

The speaker then relates how he tried to ascertain whether Pancleon was indeed a Plataean, only to nd out that no Plataean had ever heard of him. The only exception was a Plataean who claimed that he had a slave by the name of Pancleon (78). The next thing narrated is an event in which Pancleon is confronted by a man who claims that Pancleon was indeed his slave. What saved Pancleon in these circumstances was the people whom the speaker loosely describes as those present (911). These bystanders stood surety for Pancleon claiming that he had a citizen brother who would vindicate his freedom through the process of aphairesis eis eleutherian. Next day in the court no brother of course appeared, while a woman came forward to claim Pancleon as her own slave; but according to the speaker Pancleons supporters just carried him off by force and went away. Finally, in a last piece of investigation, the speaker claims to have found out that Pancleon lived for a certain time as a metic in Thebes. Given that Thebes was the city that had destroyed Plataea, it was highly unlikely that Pancleon would have lived there if he was truly a Plataean (15).80 Here we have an individual whom his opponent takes as a metic, others claim as their slave, while he insists that he is a citizen. It is of course impossible to be certain today what was actually the truth, though the speaker seems to have a good case that Pancleon was a metic, if not a slave or former slave. Even more, when challenged to declare his deme, Pancleon stated that he belonged to the deme of Decelea. Given the fact that Decelea was profoundly disturbed during the Peloponnesian War a few years earlier, and the problematic relationship between membership in the deme of Decelea and membership in the oikos of the Deceleans, there is a possibility that Pancleon deliberately chose this particular deme in order to make detection more difcult.81 How could a person like Pancleon nd out about this blind spot of Athenian institutional history? Can we suppose that he acquired this knowledge from his citizen friends, who were ready to rescue him? Thus, it may not just have been the lack of distinction between slaves, freedmen and foreigners on the one hand, and the lower-class citizens on the other, which facilitated the blurring of identities in classical Athens. It was also the case that the shared experiences of working and living together allowed slaves and freedmen to muddy the waters about their status and even assume citizen identity.82 The orator Isaeus gives us a nal piece of evidence to consider regarding the connection between subaltern communities and the blurring of identities is in place:
Next consider, in the rst place, what motive our father could have for lying and for having adopted Euphiletus as his son, if he were not really so. You will nd that all those who do such things either have no legitimate children of their own, or else are constrained by poverty to adopt aliens in order that they might receive some assistance from them, because they are indebted to them for their Athenian citizenship.83

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

To return to Finleys initial pronouncement: precisely where the distinction between slave and free was most clearly made, it also seemed very difcult to decide the status of many individuals. This was the result of the interlinking of two different factors. One factor was the social content of Athenian democratic citizenship: the fact that the Athenian lower classes, the peasants, the artisans and the traders, possessed signicant political rights. The other factor was the economic structure of Athens and the lack of distinction between free and slave in most professions. As the Old Oligarch commented with fury, one had better avoid assaulting a badly dressed person for fear of assaulting a lower class citizen rather than a slave or freedman. It was the combination of the political rights of lower-class citizens and the impossibility of distinguishing them from many freedmen and slaves which created this blurring of identities. Many slaves and freedmen like Pancleon took advantage of the impossibility of distinguishing between free, citizen, slave and freedman on the basis of profession or living conditions, in order to enhance their position, avoid

360

K. Vlassopoulos

detection and even escape slavery. On the other hand, this blurring of identities could be variously used to challenge somebodys citizenship or freedom, to attack a political opponent, or to acquire money through bribery or extortion. Slavery, freedom and democracy were linked together in more ways than Finley supposed.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz, Niall McKeown and Virginia Hunter for their help.

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

Notes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Finley, Economy and Society, 115. But not debt bondage: see Harris, Did Solon abolish debt bondage? Finley, Ancient Slavery, 67 92. But see the modications suggested by Rihll, Origins and establishment. Hunter, Introduction, 5 15; Todd, Shape of Athenian Law, 167 200. Harrison, Law of Athens, 236. Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 138. All translations are adapted from the Loeb Classical Library, unless otherwise stated. Demosthenes, Against Androtion, 55. hrung; Gagarin, Torture of slaves; Mirhady, r, Beweisfu Andocides, On the Mysteries, 43; Thu Torture and rhetoric; Hunter, Policing Athens, 154 84. See Johnstone, Disputes and Democracy, 46 69. See e.g. Fisher, Independent slaves. r, Der Streit u ber den Status. Thu Demosthenes, Against Aphobus, 25 6. Demosthenes, Against Timotheus, 55 6. See Trevett, Apollodorus, 1 9. Isocrates, Trapeziticus, 13 14. r, Komplexe Prozessfu hrung. Thu Isaeus, On the Estate of Nicostratus, 9. Lysias, On a Wound by Premeditation, 12. Lysias, Against Simon. Osborne, Naturalization II, 11 16; Kapparis, Athenian decree. But see Cairns, Civic status; Todd, Commentary, 333 4. Todd, Commentary, 279 81. For the precariousness of the freedom of other free foreigners in certain circumstances, see the case in Dinarchus, Against Demosthenes, 23, where a miller is executed for keeping a free boy from a foreign city as a slave. Demosthenes, Against Nicostratus, 16. Demosthenes, Against Evergus and Mnesibulus, 61. Ps-Demosthenes, Against Neaira, 9. For the problems in interpreting this passage, see Worthington, The mysterious Cyreneans. Isaeus, On the Estate of Philoctemon, 19 24. Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 54 64; Fisher, Aeschines, 189204. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not Wholly Free, 298; Hunter, Pittalacus and Eucles. Fisher, Aeschines, 357 62. Fisher Independent slaves, 12. See also the comments of Todd, Shape of Athenian Law, 192 194. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not Wholly Free, 293 94. In another fragmentary speech of Isaeus it is stated that an unnamed person cast Hermocrates into prison, alleging he was a freedman, and did not release him until he extracted 30 drachmas: Isaeus, fragment 13. Isaeus, fragment 16. Demosthenes, Against Theocrines, 19 21.

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

361

39. See also Lysias, fragment 437 (Carey). 40 Characters, 28.2 3; translation from Diggle, Characters. 41. Isaeus, On the Estate of Pyrrhus, 37. 42. Whitehead, Demes, 97 109. 43. Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 114 15. 44. For problems with this story, see Fisher, Aeschines, 25355. 45. Lysias, Against Nicomachus, 2; Jacob, Esclaves publics, 180 3. 46. Dinarchus, fragment 16.4. See Jacob, Esclaves publics, 119 21. 47. Lysias, Against Agoratus. 48. See the article by Marc Kleijwegt in this issue for the Roman connection between political services, manumission and citizenship. 49. For the text see Osborne, Naturalization I, 28 30. 50. Osborne, Naturalization II, 16 21. 51. Lysias, Against Agoratus, 59 60. 52. Demosthenes, Against Aristogeiton I. 53. Demosthenes, Against Andorion, 61. 54. Andocides, fragment 5; See Brun, Hyperbolos. 55. Demosthenes, On the Crown, 129 30. 56. Aeschines, On the Embassy, 79. 57. Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 171. 58. Demosthenes, Letter III, 29 30. 59. See Davies, Athenian Propertied Families. 60. Ober, Mass and Elite, 270 1. 61. Scafuro, Witnessing, 173 4. 62. Randall, Erechtheum workmen; Schumacher, Sklaverei, 91 238. 63. Lauffer, Bergwerkssklaven. 64. For the important role of slaves in banking, see Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society, 61 110. 65. Perotti, Esclaves choris oikountes. 66. Cohen, Athenian Nation, 130 54. 67. Hypereides, Against Athenogenes, 9 10. 68. Constitution of the Athenians, 1.11 2; Klees, Sklavenleben, 35578. 69. Klees, Sklavenleben, 64 74. 70. Constitution of the Athenians, 1.10. See Cataldi, Akolasia. 71. Demosthenes, Against Eubulides; Lacey, The family of Euxitheus. 72. Humphreys, Kinship patterns, 60 2. 73. Demosthenes, Against Eubulides, 18. 74. See also Cohen, Women, property and status, 58 61. bler, Fleissige Thrakerinnen, 37 43. 75. Ba 76. Demosthenes, Against Eubulides, 42. 77. Demosthenes, Against Eubulides, 45. 78. See also Silver, Slaves versus free hired workers. 79. Lysias, Against Pancleon. 80. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not Wholly Free, 296 98. 81. Rhodes and Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 38 9; Jones, Associations, 83 6. 82. Vlassopoulos, Free spaces, 39 47. 83. Isaeus, On behalf of Euphiletus, 1 2.

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

Notes on contributor
Kostas Vlassopoulos is Lecturer in Greek History, Department of Classics, University of Nottingham. He is the author of Unthinking the Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History Beyond Eurocentrism (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Bibliography
bler, Balbina. Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen. Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen Ba ologische Hinterlassenschaft. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1998. und ihre archa

362

K. Vlassopoulos

ation dune le gende noire. Dialogues dhistoire ancienne 13 Brun, Patrice. Hyperbolos, la cre (1987): 183 98. Cairns, Francis. The civic status of Theodotus in Lysias III. Emerita 70 (2002): 197 204. Cataldi, Silvio. Akolasia e isegoria di meteci e schiavi nellAtene dello Pseudo-Senofonte: una riessione socio-economica. In Lopposizione nel mondo antico, edited by M. Sordi. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2000. Cohen, David. Women, property and status in Demosthenes 41 and 57. Dike 1 (1998): 53 61. Cohen, Edward E. Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. . The Athenian Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Davies, John K. Athenian Propertied Families, 600 300 B.C. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Diggle, James. Theophrastus: Characters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Finley, Moses I. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto & Windus, 1980. . Economy and Society in Ancient Greece. London: Chatto & Windus, 1981. Fisher, Nick R.E. Aeschines: Against Timarchus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. . Independent slaves in classical Athens and the ideology of slavery. In From Captivity to Freedom: Themes in Ancient and Modern Slavery, edited by C. Katsari and E. Dal Lago. Leicester: University of Leicester Press, 2008. Gagarin, Michael. The torture of slaves in Athenian law. Classical Philology 91 (1996): 1 18. Harris, Edward M. Did Solon abolish debt-bondage?. Classical Quarterly 52 (2002): 415 30. Harrison, A.R.W. The Law of Athens, Vol. I: The Family and Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Humphreys, Sally C. Kinship patterns in the Athenian courts. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986): 57 91. Hunter, Virginia J. Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420 320 B.C. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. . Introduction: Status distinctions in Athenian law. In Law and Social Status in Classical Athens, edited by V. Hunter and J. Edmondson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. . Pittalacus and Eucles: Slaves in the public service of Athens. Mouseion 6 (2006): 1 13. ` Athe ` nes. New York: Arno Press, 1979. Jacob, Oscar. Les esclaves publics a Johnstone, Steven. Disputes and Democracy: The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. Jones, Nicholas F. The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Kapparis, Kostas. The Athenian decree for the naturalization of the Plataeans. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 36 (1995): 359 78. Klees, Hans. Sklavenleben im klassischen Griechenland. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998. Lacey, William K. The family of Euxitheus (Demosthenes LVII). Classical Quarterly 30 (1980): 57 61. Lauffer, Siegfried. Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1955/6. Mirhady, David C. Torture and rhetoric in Athens. Journal of Hellenic Studies 116 (1996): 119 31. Morris Silver. Slaves versus free hired workers in ancient Greece. Historia 55 (2006): 257 63. Ober, Josiah. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology and the Power of the People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989. n, 1981. Osborne, Michael J. Naturalization in Athens. Vol. I, Brussels: Palais der Academie n, 1982. . Naturalization in Athens. Vol. II, Brussels: Palais der Academie Perotti, Elena. Esclaves choris oikountes. In Actes du Colloque 1972 sur lesclavage. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1974. Randall, Richard H. The Erechtheum workmen. American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953): 199 210. Rhodes, Peter J., and Robin Osborne. Greek Historical Inscriptions 404323 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Rihll, Tracey. The origin and establishment of Ancient Greek slavery. In Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, edited by M.L. Bush. London and New York: Longman, 1996.

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

 enne dhistoire European Review of HistoryRevue europe

363

Downloaded By: [Vlassopoulos, Kostas] At: 23:30 6 June 2009

Scafuro, Adele C. Witnessing and false witnessing: Proving citizenship and kin identity in fourthcentury Athens. In Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, edited by A.L. Boegehold and A.C. Scafuro. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Schumacher, Leonard. Sklaverei in der Antike: Alltag und Schicksal der Unfreien. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2001. r, Gerhard. Komplexe Prozessfu hrung. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Trapezitikos (Isokr. 17). Thu ge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by In Symposion 1971. Vortra hlau Verlag, 1975. H.J. Wolff. Cologne and Vienna: Bo hrung vor den Schwurgerichtsho fen Athens: die Proklesis zur Basanos. Vienna: . Beweisfu sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977. Verlag der O ttenleiters Milyas (Dem., or. 29). In Demosthenes. ber den Status des Werksta . Der Streit u Wege der Forschung, edited by U. Schindel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987. Todd, Stephen C. The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. . A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Trevett, Jeremy. Apollodorus, the Son of Pasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Vlassopoulos, Kostas. Free spaces: identity, experience and democracy in classical Athens. Classical Quarterly 57 (2007): 33 52. Whitehead, David. The mysterious Cyreneans in [Demosthenes] 59.9. Classical Quarterly 56 (2006): 317 21. Worthington, Ian. A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in later Fourth-century Athens. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Rachel. Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World. Leiden: Brill, 2005.