American Journal of Ancient History (Vol 8.1) 9781463206765, 1463206763

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

8.1

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 8.1 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1983 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0676-5

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Ellen MeiksinsWood: AgriculturalSlaveryin ClassicalAthens ..................

1

N.G.L. Hammondand M.B. Hatzopoulos:The Via Egnatia in Western Macedonia

II ..........................................................

48

Myles McDonnell: Divorce Initiated by Women in Rome ........................

54

Robert W. Wallace: The Date of Solon's Reforms

81

Correction

................................

..................................................................................

96

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Ellen MeiksinsWood: AgriculturalSlaveryin ClassicalAthens ..................

1

N.G.L. Hammondand M.B. Hatzopoulos:The Via Egnatia in Western Macedonia

II ..........................................................

48

Myles McDonnell: Divorce Initiated by Women in Rome ........................

54

Robert W. Wallace: The Date of Solon's Reforms

81

Correction

................................

..................................................................................

96

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

IN CLASSICAL

ATHENS •

Despitethe more or lessgeneralagreementamongancienthistoriansthat slaverywas "important"or even"essential"to the classicalAthenianeconomy, there hasbeenlittle agreementaboutpreciselywhere its significance lay. There is even disputeaboutthe extent to which slaveswere used in production,asdistinctfrom nonproductive activities,especiallyin domestic service.One of the mosthotly debatedissuesin ancienteconomichistory is whetherslaveswere employedon a significantscalein Greek agriculture-•clearly a matter of critical importance in this agrarian economy. Opinion has generallytendedtoward the view that slaverywas far lessimportantin agriculturethanin industryandtrade,but new arguments have recently been offered in supportof the contentionthat agricultural

slaveryin classical Atticawassignificant andwidespread. 2 The termsof the debatehavenot been very clear. Everyoneagreesthat some slavesexisted in the countrysideand that someof them sometimes worked in the fields; but it is difficult to determineat what point the incidenceof slavelabourin agricultureshouldbe treatedas significantor widespread.To someextent,the debatemay just be aboutlanguageand emphasis.In fact, it is not even clear what is meant by "agricultural slavery". On the assumption,however, that it meansa permanentstock of slaveswhoseprincipalfunctionis agriculturallabour, and not simply domesticservantslending a hand in the fields now and then, and on the further assumptionthat "significant" and "widespread"mean that large landownerssystematicallyand principallyderivedtheir wealthfrom slave labourand/orthatslaveryextendedfar downthe socialscale,usedregularly andsystematically on ordinarypeasantholdings-•onthesetwo assumptions there is somethingto argue about. Two worksstandout asthe mostunequivocalrecentstatements in favour of the view that agriculturalslaverywas widespreadin Athens:Michael Jameson'sarticle"Agricultureandslaveryin ClassicalAthens"andG. E. M. de Ste. Croix's The classstrugglein the ancientGreek world. It will be argued in what follows that their case has not been made. Indeed, since theseworks representthe best that has so far been said in favour of such a view, the casecan probablynot be made at all, at least on the basisof available

evidence.

¸ 1986by E. Badian.All rightsreserved.

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

The first andmoststrikingpointthatconfrontsus is thatin theratherlarge body of survivingGreek literature--in sharpcontrastto Romansources-thereis simplyno directevidenceto indicatethe importanceof agricultural slavery. While the absenceof evidenceproves little and one shouldnot make too much of argumentsfrom silence(as Ste. Croix so often points out), it does mean that the burdenof proof lies more heavily on the advocatesof Greek agriculturalslaverythan they have been willing to

acknowledge. 3 The secondpointis thatwhattextualevidencethereis aboutagricultural labour in Athensis seldomunambiguous.The ambiguitybeginsat the most fundamentallevel, in the languageitself. Ste. Croix suggeststhat the Greeks and Romanswere "inhibited" from recognizingcertain forms of unfreelabourlike serfdomanddebt-bondage as distinctcategories"becausethey dividedmankindinto just two groups:free and slave"(138). He deals with theseconceptualdifficulties largely insofar as they affect recognitionof the "intermediate"or "mixed" categoriesbetweenslavery and completefreedom and not insofaras they affect the perceptionof slaveryitself. The implicationseemsto be that the conceptualapparatus of the Greeks and Romansshouldat least permit us unequivocallyto identifyslaveswhen they appearin the evidence.The Greek languagein particular,however, does little to justify suchconfidencein the clarity with which Greek thoughtdistinguished slavesfrom the rest of mankind. Indeed,nothingcouldbe moreeffectivelycalculatedto obscurethe boundariesbetweenslavesand otherlabourersthanthe languageoften usedby classicalGreek writersto describehow the work of societygetsdone. In the caseof earlyGreece,at least,eventhedichotomybetweenservile andfree is problematic.On theonehand,for examplein Homericlanguage, both free labourerand slavecan be referredto indiscriminatelyas drgstgr, "one who worksor serves". 4 On the otherhand,bothmasterand servant might be contrastedwith thosedefeatedoutsiderswho are in but not of thecommunity;andit hasbeensuggested thatthecategorydoulosoriginally referred specificallyto the "not-belongingness" of these defeatedones

ratherthanto theiruniquely servilecondition. 5 Indeed,fromthe"heroic" andaristocratic vantagepointof theHomericepics,it wouldnotbe surprising to find all labourersregardedas servants,so that servilestatuswould not be the distinctive

characteristic

of the slave.

What is more surprisingis that the indeterminacyof Homer's vocabulary-and the ethicalprincipleson which it was based•id not disappear from the languageof classicalliteratureas slaverygrew in quantityand

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

economicimportance,even when the adventof democracyelevatedthe ordinarypeasantandartisanto full citizenshipandrenderedthe distinction between free man and slave more salient and decisive in practice. Ste. Croix himself points out that the standardtechnicalterms used by the Greeksto designate slaves--termssuchasdoulosandandrapodon--"could be usedlooselyand even purelymetaphorically"(138). What he fails to tell us is how often the languageof the most importanttexts leavesthe labourer'sjuridical identitytantalizinglyin doubt.Few languagescanhave hada greatervarietyof termsfor thosewhoworkor servethandid classical Greek. It is strikinghow seldomtheir usageentails a clear distinction betweenfree andunfree,andhow oftenthe usageadoptedby the classical Athenianwritersreflectsthe aristocraticethic in whichdistinctionsamong the various kinds of servile and menial classes are of little moment.

The exampleof Xenophonis particularlyinstructivesincehis work, especiallythe Oeconomicus, hasprovidedthe richestsourceof evidence concerningthe systemof agriculturalproductionin classicalAthens.In the Oeconomicus,which setsout the principlesof estatemanagementfor preciselythe kind of wealthyestatewherewe shouldmostexpectto find slavesworkingthe land, the evidencetums out to be surprisinglyelusive. Seldom,for example,aremembersof thework-forcereferredto asdouloi-thatis, moreor lessunambiguously aschattelslaves.In general,Xenophon usesa varietyof otherwordswhichrefer to servantsor labourerswithout specifyingtheirjuridical status;and the contextdoesnot often permitus to identifya servantunequivocallyas a slave.One relativelyunambiguous passagerefersto a bailiff as being"bought"(XII 3), thoughthe passage is less clear about whetherXenophon'smodel landlord, Ischomachus,

himselfnormallybuyshis bailiffs. 6 Another(III 4) refersto servants (oiketai) in fetters (on some estates,though not specifically the one in question),which suggestsslaves;as doesanotherpassagewhich speaks of the oiketai who are not allowed to breed without permission(IX 5). Thesetextsrefer more or lessclearlyto servantswho are slaves,but they do not imply that all servantsare slavesor give us any indicationof how many are.

The word for servantmost commonlyused by Xenophonis oiket•s, which generallyrefersto householdservants(thoughthesecouldpresumably work outsidethe house)but withoutdistinctionbetweenfree workers and slaves(e.g., in additionto the passagesalreadymentioned,III 2, V 10, VII 35, VIII 22). Another term applied by Xenophon to servants, diakonos, "one who serves or ministers" or an "attendant", is often used

in Greek to describepeoplewho servein a clearly non-servilestatus,such

asofficialsin temples or religious guilds. v Xenophon usesit to describe

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

both a householdmaid (VIII 10) and a steersman'smate (VIII 14). Ste.

Croix refers specificallyto passageswhich purportto prove that bailiffs were typically slaves (about which more later), citing one in which Xenophonusesthe word therap6n to refer (apparently)to a servantin chargeof other servants(using oiket•s in the next sentence,apparently interchangeablywith therap6n: XII 19). Especially in its earlier uses, therap6ncouldreferspecificallyto attendants whoperformedfreeservices, in contrastto the doulosor slave, thoughit later came to mean simply

"servant" andcouldapplyto slaves. 8 WhenXenophon is referring specifically to people who labour in the fields, he most commonlyemploys derivatives of the verb •@¾6t•eoO•tt, "to work (or labour)", sometimes appliedto manuallabourin general,but more particularlyto husbandry. All these words can refer to any kind of agricultural worker from the wage-labourerto the free husbandmanhimself, as well as to slaves. So, for example:"even strongmen cannotlive withoutthosewho labour[cultivating the land]" (ergazomenoi:IV 15); or "the earthyieldsfood... to ergazomenoi"(V 2); or "what art repaysthe labourer(ergazomenos) more

generously [thanhusbandry]?" (V 8).9Thenthereistheergast•r,referring clearly to a labourerwho worksfor a farmer (V 15), andthe ergat•s again appliedto a labourerworking for a farmer. None of thesewords imply a particularjuridical status.When immediatelyafter the last passage,in V 16, Xenophonmakesone of his rare unambiguousreferencesto slaves, the passagecan be read not as if he is equatingergatai with douloi but ratheras if he is speakingof slaves(douloi) as a sub-categoryof ergatai. Having arguedthat a farmer (ge6rgos)must encouragehis labourers(ergatai) often, he goeson to suggest"and slaves(douloi) need to be given goodhopesnot lessbut evenmorethando free men (eleutheroi)",perhaps implyingthatthefarmer'slabourersmay includebothfreemenandslaves. One unambiguous referenceto agriculturallabourerswho are slaves(a passagein whichhehasSocratesrepudiatingthesuggestion thatthewealthy farmer shouldbuy childrento train them as ge6rgoi, III 10) usesthe term ge6rgoi, the same word he usesmost often to designatethe farmer who employslabourers.In a famoustextwhereXenophonspeaksof thedebilitating effects of the banausicarts, he speaksof ergatai and ergazomenoi (here referringnot to farm labourersbut to artisans)in sucha way that the termsmay refer partly to slaves,but more explicitly to free craftsmenwho make bad citizensbecausetheir practiceof banausicarts weakenstheir minds and bodies and leaves them no leisure to attend to their friends or

their city (IV 1-3). All this linguisticconfusiondoesnot preventus from concludingthat slaveswere usedon wealthyGreek estates,andespecially in domesticservice;but it significantlyobscuresour vision--muchmore

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

thansomehistoriansadmit-•of theextentof agriculturalslavery,itslocation

(e.g.,inthehouse orinthefields),andtheratioofslaves tofreelabourers. •o AlthoughPlatoand Aristotleare lessusefulas sourcesof concreteevidence about Greek economicpractices,like Xenophonthey do tell us somethingabouttheflexibility of theGreeklanguagein referringto servants and labourers.For example in Laws (806E) Plato speaksof letting out land to douloi, therebyusingthis apparentlyunambiguousword for slave to describea situationmore suitableto serfs or coloni than to ordinary chattelslaves(which confirmsSte. Croix's remark aboutthe failure of the Greeksto recognizecertain"intermediate"forms of unfreelabour). On the other hand, both Plato and Aristotle in varying degreesregard all manual labourersas properly servile, ideally to be excludedfrom the freedomof citizenshipeither as slaves,or perhapsas metics. This antidemocratic ethos and the blurring of distinctionsto which it leads are exemplifiedby Plato in the Statesman.He first excludesall practitioners of "contributory" or subsidiary arts--thatis, all thoseengagedin productive activitiesand in supplyingthe community'sbasicneeds--from a sharein the art of politics(muchas Aristotledoesin his distinctionbetween"con-

ditions" and"parts "••). Hethengoesontoconsider thecategory of slaves and servantsof all kinds (289C if.). Here the term hyp•ret•s is used in both a literal anda broador partly metaphoricalsenseto includeeveryone from the most menial, "bought"personalservantor slave to the public servantor minister.•2

What is especiallysignificantaboutthispassage,however,is that Plato makesa clear distinctionbetweenpeoplewho are truly servilein the sense that they or their servicesare boughtand sold, and otherswho servein a less base and mercenarysense.In fact, the object of the argumentis to disqualifythe former from performingpublic servicesas statesmen.The effect of his analysisis that slaves--who are themselvesacquiredby purchase-are only one groupwithin a largerservilecategorywhich includes those who place themselvesvoluntarily in a servile positionby offering their servicesfor hire to any employer. Suchpeoplearejust as unambiguouslyunfitfor politicsasareslaves.Amongthemarenotonlywage-labourers but also merchants and traders, who act in effect as the hired hands of

thoseengagedin productivearts whoseproductsthey distribute.Even if Plato'susageis partly metaphorical,it illustratesvery well the aristocratic mentalitywhich obscuresthe distinctionsamongpeoplewho work for their livelihoodandperceivesthedifferencesamongthemassimplystagesalong a continuumof bondageand servility. The mentalityof Plato, like that of Xenophon,is one in which all menial work ought ideally to be done by unfree labourers. The same point of view that affects the meaning of

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

various words for "servant"affects the meaning of "freedom", since in aristocraticeyes juridical freedom alone does not entitle a man to be consideredeleutheros.The conceptualand linguistic reflectionsof this mentalityhaveproducednot only metaphoricalconfusionsbut a flexibility of literalusagewhichconsiderably obscures ourpictureof Greeksociallife. Historiansarethusfacednotonlywith a shortageof substantive evidence concerningslavesin Greek agriculture,but also with ambiguitiesin the relativelyfew referencesthat do exist. The absenceof positivereferences hasbeencombinedwith otherdeductiveandinterpretativearguments--for example, aboutthe size of holdings;the probableyield of agriculturalland andthepopulationit couldsustain;theuneconomiccharacterof agricultural slavery, especially on small holdings, given the seasonaland irregular natureof agriculturalwork; and so on; and suchargumentshave beenused to questionthe widespreademploymentof slavesand the importanceof

agricultural slaveryin Greece. 13It is conclusions of thissortthathave recentlybeenchallenged,particularlyby Jamesonand Ste. Croix. (p.u.p. drop 22 pts.)

MichaelJameson's "Agricultureandslaveryin ClassicalAthens"is perhaps the most importantrecentcontributionto the argumentthat slaverywas widespreadandsignificantin Athenianproductionand, in particular,that this was so in agriculture.Althoughthe standardof significanceand the measureof "widespread"remainunclear,it is Jameson'sobjectto demonstratethat the utilizationof slavelabourin agriculturalproductionwent far down the social scale, in other words that the use of slave labour was

the normon ordinarypeasantholdings:"I wouldarguethatat leastin the conditionsof the Classicalperiodthe additionof someslavehelp to the farmer'sown capacitywasessentialfor all but therichestandthepoorest, thatit extendedthereachof thefamily'sworkforceandthatthispermitted formsof intensification thatenabledthefarmerto be fully a citizen"(125). (The "richest"are excludednot, of course,becausethey ownedno slaves, but becausein suchcasesslavesdid not servesimply as "help to the farmer'sown capacity".)The extentandnatureof slaveryon properties owned by wealthy landownersdoesnot come into questionin Jameson's article, nor doeshe considerthe situationof peasantfarmersin relationto theirwealthiercompatriots,anoversightwhich,aswe shallsee,hasserious implicationsfor his analysis.

Jameson'sargumentis essentiallythat populationin Attica grew from the sixththroughthe late fifth century;that this demographic growthput

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

pressure on existingresources andavailableland, as properties decreased in size;that this createda demandfor intensifiedproduction,especiallyin the form of diversificationof agriculture;and that slaverywas the only available meansto intensifyproductionwithout incurringunacceptable socialcosts,that is, withoutcompellingthe Athenianfarmerto sacrifice his civic and militaryroles:in otherwords,slaverywasthe conditionfor theunityof farmerandcitizen(140). Therearesomesubsidiaryarguments which are simply intendedto demonstrate that the absenceof references to agriculturalslaverywhereone might expectto find themin epigraphic

andliterarysources tellsusnothing "onewayortheother" (136).14Added to this are suggestions that slave labour in agriculturecould have been renderedeconomicalby regularyear-roundemployment,if we assumea sufficientdegreeof diversificationin responseto a need for intensified production;but sincemuchof this argumentdependsuponassumingpreciselywhatneedsto be proved--thattherewasa needfor labourintensification of the kind and degreehe describes--thisargumenttendsto be circular. Fundamentally,the whole case turns on the propositionthat "slaveholdingenabledthe Athenianto be a participantin a democracy" (140).

Jameson'sattemptto relate the use of slavery to "intensification"is questionablefrom the start.Even if it couldbe shownconclusivelythat a clear increasein the demandsmadeuponlabourtook placein the relevant period, what is there to showthat this increaseexceededthe capabilities of thepeasantfamily itself, evenwhentheheadof the household performed

civicduties? Is Suppose thatbefore"intensification" the familyhadtoo little to do. Do we know that the pre-intensification Attic peasantfamily was alreadytaxedto the limits of its laboutingcapacities,thatthe growing pressuresupon it exceededboth its ability to work longerhoursand its capacityto increaseoutput per hour of work, even grantedthe limited technicalinnovationso often attributedto Greek agriculture?"Intensification" relativeto what?And how much?This kind of argumentsimplywill not work at such a level of abstraction.

Jameson'spropositionsabout demographicgrowth and intensification of productionturn out to be rathervagueandindeterminate.For example: "As for the actual historical situation, perhapswe can begin with the propositionthat from the VIth throughthe early Vth to the later Vth cent. the populationof Attica grew, whateverthe rate or the actual figures" (130). Or: "So far we haveseensomehintsof deviationfroma hypothetical patternof subsistencefarming. Considerationof some calculationsmade for ancientagriculturalconditionsin generalandcomparisonwith modern data may help to show that a fair degreeof intensificationwas practiced

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

by the IVth cent." (131). This is followed by a shortparagraphshowing that, given normal wheat yields, for a typical small Attic farm of 4-5 hectares"... to supporta family with no other sourceof income,intensification, and with it very hard work, would be required."Phraseslike "whatever the rate . . ." or "a fair degree" seem remarkably lame and nonchalant,especiallysincethe "rate"and the "degree"are criticalto his case.

Let us assume, however, that Jamesonhas made a case for substantial

demographicgrowthin the relevantperiod,for a "fair degree"of intensification, and in principlefor relatingthe growthof slaveryto the needfor intensifiedproduction.Let us focuson his centralargumentthat it wasthe farmer's citizenshipin a democracy,the demandsit made upon him and his desireto preservethis status,which compelledhim to transferagricultural labour to slaves.

It shouldbe noted, first, that demographicpressures and insufficiencies of peasantland-holdings were notuniqueto classicalAttica but havebeen recurringproblemsin agrariansocietiesdominatedby peasantproduction. Nor hasthe "intensification" of productionby diversificationand/orspecializationbeenunusualin suchsocieties. 16Jameson's tasktherefore,is to identify what was peculiarto Athenian societywhich might accountfor the adoptionof an unusualsolutionto theseproblems,the large-scaleuse of slave labour in agriculture.Jameson'sanswer is, of course, that the civic and military statusof the Attic farmer is the differentiaspecifica.In fact, he is almost certainly right that this is what above all distinguishes the Attic peasantfrom peasantsin othersocieties;but it is preciselythis characteristicthat makesthe rest of Jameson'sargumentimplausible.Far from explainingwhy the ordinaryAttic farmermighthavebeencompelled to transfersomeof his "intensified"labourto slaves,the citizenshipof the Attic peasantactually reducedthe need for labour intensification,in a senseoff-settingdemographicpressures,by limiting the needfor surplus productionin waysunknownin anyotherdocumented "peasant"society. Peasantshavebeendefined--in contrastto "primitive agriculturalists"-as cultivatorswho dependfor their subsistence on certainrights in land and family labour, but who are involvedin a "wider economicsystem" which includesnon-peasants.Essentialto this definition is the fact that the peasantfamily operatesas a productiveunit (ratherthan as an "entre-

preneurial unit",asin themoderu familyfarm).57In thissense, thesmall farmersof Attica can be calledpeasants.More specifically,peasants have beencharacterized as "rural cultivatorswhosesurpluses are transferredto a dominantgroupof rulersthat usesthe surplusesboth to underwriteits own standardof living andto distributethe remainderto groupsin society

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

that do not farm but must be fed for their specificgoodsand servicesin

turn".18Theproduction of a "fundof rent"--thepayment in labour,produce,or moneyto someonewho "exercisesan effectivepower, or domain, over a cultivator"--is, by this definition, regardedas the characteristic

"whichcritically distinguishes thepeasant fromtheprimitive cultivator", 19 whetherthat "rent" takes the form of paymentsto private landlordsor a tax or corv•e labour for some state or religious authority. It has been a general characteristicof peasantsthat a large proportionof their surplus productionhas been accountedfor by rent and/or taxes. What perhaps distinguishes the Attic peasantfrom others,as we shall see, is the limited degreeto which he was subjectto suchobligations. Clearly, the needto intensifyproductionhasvariedin largepartaccording to the extentof suchobligations.Patternsof surplusproduction,therefore, have varied in responseto the demandsof surplusappropriation.These patternshavebeendeterminednot only by "objective"factorsof population, ecology, and technologybut also by cultural factorsand the standardof expectations,as well as by socialand politicalrelationsand the balance of power betweenproducingand appropriatingclasses.In fact, demographic pressuresthemselvescannot be consideredin abstractionfrom

theserelations. 2øThe levelat whichpopulation growthbeginsto strain availableresourcesand productivecapacitiesvaries(inter alia) according to how much productionis syphonedoff by leisuredappropriators.This is especiallytrue in non-capitalistsocietieswhere appropriatingclasses tendto extractsurplus"unproductively", increasingtheir surplusby coercively squeezingthe direct producerratherthan by enhancingtheproductiviO'of labourthroughtechnicalimprovements. The moresurplusappropriatedby non-producers,the lower the population"ceiling", the level at which "overpopulation" occurs,and the level at whichpopulationgrowth requiresintensifiedproduction.That Jamesonhas failed to take account of suchconsiderationsis illustratedby the fact that his centralconcernis to identify the sourceof the poorercitizen's free time withoutaskingabout the sourceor degreeof the rich citizen's wealth. Athenscanbecontrasted in theserespects with otherancientcivilizations which were alsosubjectto demographic pressures and technological limitationsand where productionwas also sufficientlyintensiveto support elaboratematerialculturesas well as state-formsfar more complexthan the Athenianpolis. In the ancientNear East, for example,wealthyruling strata,monarchs,and religiousinstitutionswere supportednot by chattel slaverybut by theheavyduesandlabourservicesof subjectpeasantpopulations.The differencedoesindeedseemto lie in Atheniancitizenshipand the sociallimitationsthatit placeduponsurplusproduction.But thepoint

10

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

here is that the demandsof citizenshipdeterminednot only the form of surplusproduction butalsoitsextent.The civicstatusof thesmallproducer limitedthepressures for intensified production by limitingthetwoprincipal formsof surplus extraction, rentandtax.Thewealthandpowerof landlords, and hence the demandsthey could make on the society'sproductive capacities,wererestrictedby theconfiguration of socialandpoliticalpower represented by the democracy,whichlimitedopportunities for concentrating propertyand affordedlegal protectionsto small producersagainst certainforms of dependence.As for the tax burdenso often borneby peasants,not only wasthe Athenianstateapparatus relativelysimple,but exemptionfrom regulartaxation,as M.I. Finley has suggested, was a hallmarkof "thatnovelandrarelyrepeatedphenomenon of classicalantiquity, the incorporationof the peasantas a full memberof the political

community". 2• For theGreeks,"[a] titheor otherformof directtaxon theland. . . wasthemarkof a tyranny" (95).22In thisrespect, classical Athens(andRomebeforethe growthof her empire)differeddramatically from other societiesin which kingdomsand empireshave restedon the backsof a tax-burdenedpeasantry. The questionthen might be whetherAthenscould sustainthe level of civic and military participationby ordinaryproducersrequiredto preserve theserestrictionson surplusextraction,withouttransferringlabourfrom peasantsto slaves.One could, however,just as well ask how peasants anywherehavebeenable to subsiston family labourwhile sustainingthe levelof surplusproduction requiredto maintainextremelywealthylandowners and a large and complexstateapparatus.Rome, the one casein which slaverydid developon a large scalein the contextof a peasanteconomy, was an exceptionalcase,characterizedbothby immenseconcentrations of wealth and by a growing imperial apparatus.The peasants'frequentand long absences on militarycampaignsduringthe periodof imperialexpansion (and their consequentunreliability as a labour supply) made them uniquelysubjectto dispossession and replacementby slaves. It is instructiveto compareclassicalAthens with Rome. Here is how KeithHopkinsdescribes Romein the3rdcenturyBCbeforehervastimperial

expansion andbeforethemassiveinfluxof slavesintotheRomaneconomy:

ß . . the areagoverneddirectlyby Romein the earlythird century BCwas not largeand rich enoughto supportsizeableconcentrations

of wealth.The politicalsystemreflectedthe widespread obligation to bear armsand the widespread ownershipof land; althoughfar from democratic,it effectivelylimited the extentto which most citizens were exploited. The noblescollectivelyprobablyowned

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

11

much of the best land, but typically had only modestestates.Few of the farmswere largeenoughto requireemploymentof non-family labour throughoutthe year. The bulk of agriculturalland and of common land was exploitedby small-holdersor yeomenpeasants, someof whom were partly dependenton the patronageof the prosperous.

Most Romanswere under-employed.Even independentyeomen living just above the level of minimum subsistence had plenty of time with nothingto do. An averagepeasanthouseholdproducing its minimum subsistence on quite good arable land usedup very muchlessthanhalf of its own labourpower.This chronicunder-employment is still common in many peasanteconomiesusing dry farming.It wasinstitutionalized in Romein numerous publicholidays andin popularparticipationin politics.Aboveall, under-employment allowed the state, when it could not extracta sufficientsurplusof

produce in theformof taxes,to taxlabourinstead. 23 Sincesurpluslabourwas"taxed"especiallyin the form of military service, arguesHopkins, the growth of the Empire and the concomitantincrease of the military burdenwas particularlydisruptiveto the peasanteconomy and alsocompelledthe rich to find an alternativelaboursupply: ß . . in the traditionalagriculturalsystem,the rich dependedfor the cultivation of their farms on the surpluslabour of the free poor, employedas tenants,share-croppers or as occasionallabourers.But the conquestof anempireincreasedthe incidenceof militaryservice, andeithertookfreelabourawayor increased itsunreliability.Besides, as the estatesof the rich increasedin size, so did their need for labour (25).

The dispossession of peasantsabsentfor long periodson military duty, and with it the concentration of land in the handsof wealthyproprietors, form the backgroundagainstwhich the growth of slavery took place. Thereafter, Rome was notable not only for her far-flung empire and the largestateandmilitaryapparatus requiredto sustainit, but alsofor immense and almostunrestricted concentrations of propertyand hugedisparitiesof wealth. "What distinguishedRome was neithereconomicinequalitynor exploitation," P.A. Brunt has argued, "but the enormity in the scale of both."24 M.I. Finley appears,at first glance,to disagreewith Hopkins' assessment

of slaveryin early Rome, suggesting that he givestoo muchweightto the

12

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

effectsof conquestand arguingthat Rome was a "slave society"before

the periodof imperialexpansion. 2sOn closerinspection, however,the differencesbetweenFinley and Hopkins seem not so very substantial. Finley's argumentis simplythat, while "conquest"and imperialgrowth were critical factorsin the expansionof the slave society,they do not accountfor its emergence.The growthof empirewas importantbecause it created "the basis for large estates"(84) and hence for new forms of slave-utilization; andFinleyagreesthatan "enormous leap"occurredafter the SecondPunic War (83). Unlessthe disagreement concernsprecisely how many slavesthere were beforeand after the "enormousleap" (which would be impossibleto ascertainin any case,given the meagerevidence for the two centuriesbefore200 BC--as Finley pointsout), Finley's argument seemsessentiallysimilar to that of Hopkins. Both historiansagree thattherewere slavesbeforethe 3rd century,but that an "enormousleap" tookplacethereafter,in conjunctionwith the"drasticreorganization of land-

holdings", 26theconcentration ofproperty andthecreation oflargeestates, associated with theprocessof imperialexpansion.It is preciselythisprocess of "drastic"reorganizationand concentrationof propertywhich seems never to have occurred in classical Athens.

It is true that Finley stressesthat Rome before the great "leap" was alreadya "slavesociety"andnot simplya societywith slaves;but we must remind ourselvesof what that means:a slave societyfor Finley is one in which large-scaleproductionin boththe city and the countrysideis dominatedby slavelabour--as in Greeceand Rome where the permanentwork forcein "establishments largerthanthe family unit... was composedof slaves"(seen. 1)--irrespectiveof theproportionof the society'sproduction whichis actuallyconductedin suchlarge-scaleestablishments. SinceFinley speaksof imperialconquestasthe processwhichcreatedthe basisfor large estates, it seems reasonable to assume that, in his view, Roman farms

beforethat time were generallysmall and that agriculturewas dominated by free men-•evenif suchlargerestablishments asexistedhada permanent work force of slaves.

At any rate, Finley's argumentin no way affectsthe caseagainstJameson-•except,perhaps,to confirmit. Jameson's suggestion thatagricultural slaveswere normally used by ordinary small farmers in classicalAttica would seemto run counterto the convictionof both Hopkinsand Finley that small-scalefarming in both Greeceand Rome was dominatedby free men and permittedlittle scopefor the use of slave-labour. Athensduringtheclassical period,then,wascloserto Hopkins'description of earlyRepublicanRomethanto the laterImperialmodel.With a relativelysimplestateapparatus; no systematic taxation(in fact, a system

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

13

which obtainedpublicrevenuesdirectlyfrom the rich ratherthanby taxing the poor); without huge concentrations and disparitiesof wealth; with an "empire"not unifiedor governedby a large administrativeapparatus;and with a lessonerousmilitary burden-•Athenshad far lessneed, or ability, to tax the labouringcapacitiesof her peasantsthan did Rome. And if the political systemof the early Roman Republic restrictedthe extentto which citizenscouldbeexploited,thiswasevenmoretrueof Atheniandemocracy. In fact, in a very importantsensethe very essenceof citizenshipfor the Athenianpeasantwas protectionfrom certainkindsof surplusextraction, both in the form of taxation(as Finley pointedout in the passagequoted above)and in the form of dependence on the rich. In Rome, the transition from Republicto Empire at first permittedthe rich to avoid the burdenof staterevenuewithout transferringthe full fiscal weight of empire to the peasants,by exploitingtheprovinces;but eventually,in contrastto Athens, thetax burdenwasincreasinglyshiftedto thepoor, while thepublicfinancial

burdenof the rich diminishedevenfurther.27In Athens,no suchdecline of thepeasantascitizentookplacewhile sheremainedanindependent polls. It is true that the relative unavailabilityof Athenian free producersfor exploitationwas itself a criticalfactorleadingto the growthof slavery.In a sense,the free time of the poor was won at the expenseof slavelabour for the rich. This, however, tells us little about the use of slavesby the small proprietorsthemselves,which is Jameson'sprincipalconcern.Furthermore,while therelativefreedomof theAtheniansmallproducerencouragedslaveutilizationby the rich, thereis alsoa sensein whichthatfreedom placed limits on what the rich could do even with slaves.The relations between appropriatingclassesand free producersrestrictednot only the total amountof surplusproductionin generalbut also the extentand form of slave-exploitation itself. In particular,the configurationof classpower between producing and appropriatingcitizens in Athens obstructedthe concentrationof propertywhich couldhave madepossiblemore intensive forms of slaveproductionlike the latifundial slaveryof Rome. The Roman case, then, was quite exceptionalin its demandson the peasantryand its need for an alternativelabourforce. The very leastthat can be said, therefore, is that it is no more difficult to believe that the

Athenianpeasant-citizencould both subsiston family labour and sustain an unusualdegreeof civic participationthanit is to believethat peasants elsewhere(apartfrom Rome duringpart of her historyand in parts of the Empire) have been able to live on family labour while still sustaininga complexstateapparatusand great concentrations of wealth (e.g. in the ancientkingdomsof the Near East and Asia, early modem "absolutist" France, etc.). In all such cases,a significantfactor in explainingthese

14

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

possibilitiesmay be what hasoften been called, somewhatmisleadingly, the "chronic underemployment"of peasanteconomies,to which Keith Hopkins refers. It is a commonplacethat peasanteconomieshave been generally characterizedby "underproduction"(at least accordingto the standardsof productivitydemandedby moderncapitalism)andby uneven rhythmsof work, often with long "unproductive" periods.Theserhythms are, of course,determinedin part by environmentalandecologicalfactors, the weather, seasonalcycles, and so on. Productionis also restrictedby the size and quality of peasantholdings, which are often insufficientto supportthe family and may require the farmer to undertakelabour for othersas a casuallabourer, sharecropper,or tenantin order to make ends meet. Analystshave alsoidentifiedessentialcharacteristics of the domestic unit as a unit of productionwhich work against-•or limit its demand for--productionbeyondthe needsof family subsistence, and tend toward an underutilizationeven of existing resourcesand technologies,in the

absence of external compulsion. 28The"inefficiency" of peasant production, the tendencyto absorbsurplusman-hoursby increasinglabourinput and effectively reducing labour-productivity,has also been noted. The implicationis that, accordingto circumstances, peasantswith small holdingsgenerallymusteitherseekwork outsidetheir households on someone else's land, as tenantsor casualhired labourers,or keep their essentially "underemployed" familiesbusyat homeby maintaininga morelabour-intensive(and cheaper)systemof productionand suppressing technicalim-

provements in labourproductivity. 29 The very idea of "underemployment"or "hidden unemployment"as appliedto peasanteconomieshas been criticizedby scholarssensitiveto anachronisms andthe inapplicabilityof valuesandcategoriesderivedfrom the capitalisteconomy with its unprecedentedneed and capacity for maximumproductivity,or from the rhythmsof industrialproductionand the factory which knows no seasons.These criticisms,however, merely strengthen theargumentbeingmadehere.Withoutdenyingthecharacteristicsof peasantproductiondescribed by othersin thelanguageof "underemployment", critics reject this designationpreciselyon the groundsthat it assumes,amongotherthings,that the modelpeasantis a full-time agriculturalist. This assumption"representsa grossdistortionof the varied and complextaskswhich peasantsmay undertakeduringthe courseof a single

day".3øSo the concept of underemployment treatstimenotdevoted to farming as "rest" or "idleness",when in fact the typical peasantis one who devotesonly part of his time to agriculturalproductionand muchof it to otheractivities:crafts;trading;communalwork, includingthe performance of variousfunctionsfor cult and village; and a variety of tasks

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

15

which in more "developed"economieswould be performedby full-time specialists. So whetherwe acceptthe formulationthat small peasantsare typically "underemployed", or rejectthe conceptof "underemployment" andrecognize not only non-agriculturalbut even non-productiveand "extraeconomic"activities as essentialto the social function of the peasant,it remainstrue that all peasantsto a greateror lesserextentmustdivide their time betweenproductiveand unproductiveactivities, as well as between household and communal functions. We must add to these considerations

the fact that time devotedto productiveactivitiesis itself normallydivided betweenproductionfor the peasant'sown family (as well as, quite commonly, assistance to hispeasantneighbours) andsurpluslabourfor landlord, state,or religiousestablishment. With all this in mind, it becomesfar less difficult to imagine an Attic peasantfamily, relatively free of the needto createmassivewealthfor richcompatriots or to supportanimmensepolitical superstructure, sustainingitself withoutalien labour,while the headof the householdremainsableto performhis civic andmilitary functions;though we shouldnot exaggeratethe amountof time spentby ordinarypeasants

attending assemblies andjuries,thedemocratic idealnotwithstanding. 31 Someordinarypeasantsmay havehad a slave,male or female, who lived as part of the family and sharedin all its activities;but we shouldnot underestimate how difficult it wouldhavebeenfor a peasantfamily, living always close to the margin--and this would includenot just the poorest but the many who had holdingsof a few acres--and typically "underemployed", to solve its problemsof subsistence by addingto the household yet more permanentand alien mouthsto feed. Jameson'scontentionthat slave labour was the norm on the ordinary peasantholding is, therefore, hardly convincing.As for slaveryon large estates,he presumablyregardsthe questionas settledand unproblematic. It is true, of course,that the casebeing made hereagainstthe widespread use of slavesby peasantsis basedin large part on the view that small farmerswere relatively free from the necessityto producea surplusfor larger landholdersand that this freedomwas paid for to someextent by the labour of slaveson wealthier farms. We shouldnot, however, go to the otherextremeandunderestimate the degreeto which Atheniancitizenfarmerswerethemselves exploited,producingwealthfor theirrichcompatriots as tenants,sharecroppers, or casualhired labourers.The questionof slave-utilizationby wealthyproprietorscannotbe separatedfrom thisissue; and it cannotbe taken for grantedthat, if the use of slavesby peasantsis problematic,at leastwe can be sureof the degreeto which wealthyAthenians relied on slavesto producetheir wealth.

16

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

III

These issuesare highlightedin the work of G.E.M. de Ste. Croix. Since Ste. Croix regardsJameson'sarticle as the only recent studyto assign slaveryitsproperroleandto presenttheevidenceaccurately,hepresumably

accepts itsreasoning aboutslavery onpeasant holdings. 32Hisownarguments,however,seemat leastimplicitly to have more to do with larger landowners,thoughwe are never told how far down the socialscalewe shouldtake examplesdrawnfrom literary accountsof wealthyAthenians. At any rate, Ste. Croix's discussion,more than Jameson's,allows us to assess the stateof the evidenceconcerningagriculturalslaveryon the larger propertieswhere we shouldmostexpectto find it. Ste. Croix quite justly pointsout that the absenceof evidenceis no proof of non-existencebut goes on, rather lessjudiciously, to maintain emphaticallythat"a greatdealof slavelabour"wasemployedon the land, "contraryto what is sometimes said"(144). He doesnot himselfsupport this assertionby directevidence(of whichthereis little) or evenby calculation and deductionbasedon what is known aboutcrop yields, the size of landholdings,etc., but relieson an interpretation of literarytexts.Above all, however,he dependson the abstractand speculativeassumption that unfreelabour,in the absenceof hired labour,is the mostprofitablemethod of surplus-extraction. In the end, muchof his argument,as we shall see, tumson thisassumption: thebestcasein favourof widespreadagricultural slavery,he maintains,is to be foundnot in any availablepositiveevidence but in the a priori preferabilityof unfreelabourandwage-labourasmodes of exploitation.Since, he argues,wage-labourwas rare in Athens,there must have been a great deal of slavery. Somethingneedsto be said aboutthis first premisebefore we turn to Ste. Croix's use of the literary evidence.Ste. Croix arguesthat slavery was the best meansof extracting"the largestpossiblesurplusfrom the primaryproducers" underthe prevailingconditions(40). This proposition is based on a more fundamental

role that unfree labour and hired labour

are the only ways of consistentlyachievinga large surplus--in contrastto the appropriationof rentsfrom free producers,or otherformsof appropriation, suchas taxationor compulsoryservices,madepossibleby control of the statemachine:"to ensurea really large surplusfor a long period, the bulk of the primary producersmust either be made to give unfree labour,underthe constraintof slaveryor serfdomor debtbondage,or they must be driven to sell their labour power for a wage" (53). Under the conditionsprevailingin ancientGreece and Rome, slaverywas the best available means of extraction,

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

17

ß . . having regard to the low level of productivity, and also to the fact thatfree hired labourwas scarce,largelyconfinedto unskilled or seasonalwork, and not at all mobile, whereasslaveswere available

in largenumbersandat pricesthe lownessof whichis astonishing, in comparison with what is knownof slavepricesin othersocieties (40).

This argumentleavesthe critical questionsunanswered,and unasked. Ste. Croix, to begin with, generallyignoresthe disadvantages of slavery which might put in questionhis primary assumptionabout its inherent superiorityover other modesof exploitation--suchas the difficultiesand costsof supervision(which in Athenswould havebeenaggravated by the fact that wealthy landownersoften held their propertyin scatteredparcels rather than large estates)or the problemsarisingout of the fact that the master's investmentis embodiednot simply in means of productionor

labour-time but in the verypersonof the slave. 33The essential point, however, is that the argumentis surprisinglyahistorical.The suggestion that unfree labour and hired labour are two intrinsicallypreferableforms andthat in Athensslaverywas the chief alternativein the absenceof hired labour doesnot advancethe issuevery far. Hired labour has, after all, never been the predominantform of surplusappropriationuntil the very recentandlocalizedpredominanceof capitalistappropriation.Where wagelabourhasexistedin pre-capitalistor non-capitalisteconomies,it hasgenerally beenan adjunctto otherformsof labourand surplusappropriation, often as a meansof supplementingthe incomesof smallholderswhose land--whether ownedor held conditionally--hasbeeninsufficientfor subsistence.In suchcases,wage-labourhas tendedto be casualor seasonal, employedparticularlyat the harvest.Wage-labouras a predominantform presupposesa labour-forcecomposedof people who are juridically free but devoid of land or any otherpropertyessentialto production--whether heldin ownershipor somekind of conditionalpossession suchastenancy-and thereforedependentfor their livelihood upon the sale of their labourpower for a wage on a regular, continuousbasis.The predominanceof such a labour-forcehas been unique to the capitalist economy which emergedin early modemEurope.In non-capitalisteconomies,wherepeasants have tendedto dominateproduction,propertiedclasseshave derived their wealthprimarily from rents,labourservices,dues,fines, taxes,tithes, or tributes,imposeduponproducerswho havebeenin variouswaysdependent uponthem, either in legal bondage,e.g. as serfsor debt-bondsmen, or in otherwisesubordinatepositions,as sharecroppers or tenants. Various modes of appropriatingsurplusfrom peasantproducerswho

18

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

owe partof theirlabouror product--inkind or in money--tolandlords haveexistedthroughout recorded historyandthroughout theworld.34At

thesametime,large-scale chattelslaveryhasbeenrare.35Wage-labour cannot,therefore, in anyhistorically meaningful sense beregarded asthe chiefalternative whose non-availability proves theimportance ofslavery. It is worth addingthat Ste. Croix seemsto assumethat the necessityof accumulation characteristic of capitalismis a universallaw of nature,and that every systemneedsa maximum surplusin the way that capitalism does. Equally unhelpfulis his habit of lumpingchattelslaverytogether with all otherformsof unfreelaboursuchas serfdomand debt-bondage. Why slaveryand not otherformsof unfreelabour, and why in Greeceand not elsewherein the ancientworld (or virtually anywhereelseat any time), even under similar conditionsof low productivityand a similar "unavailability"of wage-labour?How do we accountfor the large surpluses producedand appropriatedin other ancientcivilizationsin the Near East and Asia where, althoughneitherchattelslaverynor wage-labourplayed a majorrole, thereexistedelaboratematerialculturesandstateapparatuses and luxuriouslyleisuredruling classes?And even if we grantthat forms of unfree labourother than slaverywere relatively unavailablein Athens (notablybecauseof the politicalstatusof peasantsandartisans),Ste. Croix gives no adequatereason--as we shall see--for assumingthat slavery remainedtheonly eligibleoption.If we considertheimportance of tenancy and sharecropping of variouskinds throughouthistory, it is difficult to take seriouslyhis easy dismissalof rent-extractionfrom (relatively) free producersas a major sourceof wealth, on the a priori groundthat unfree labouris in principlemore profitablethan free. In fact, the very idea of an a priori superiorityinherentin a mode of exploitationis ill-conceived.There can be no doubtthat for the Greek and Romanpropertiedclassesslaverywas a lucrativei•eans of surplus-extraction and that the degreeof control that they derived from the outright ownershipof labourersaschattelpropertyaffordedthemgreatadvantages. "Yet," writesM.I. Finley,

for all the advantages (or apparentadvantages), slaverywas a late andrelativelyinfrequentform of involuntarylabour,in worldhistory generallyandin ancienthistoryin particular.Advantagesanddisadvantagesare not essences but historicalattributesthat come and go

underchanging socialandeconomic conditions. 36 Ste. Croix's attemptto constructan argumentin the absenceof positive evidencethereforerestson a very weak foundation.Now let us seehow

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

19

he deals with suchpositiveevidenceas there is. In Appendix II of his book, he sumsup what he regardsas the most importanttextual evidence.It must be said that, if there are convincing argumentsavailable to make his case, Ste. Croix fails to producethem. Indeed, his evidence here is alarmingly thin, and he uses it much less carefully than his painstakingscholarshipelsewhereleadsone to expect. The evidenceis hardly conclusiveand doeslittle more than prove at best that agriculturalslavesexisted,especiallyon large estates(which no one denies).Ste. Croix fails to acknowledgethe difficultiesposedby the iraprecisionand ambiguityof the languagein the textshe cites,thoughmany of his examplesare preciselythe problematiconesmentionedin our own discussionof Xenophon. More significant, however, is his rather liberal interpretationof the evidence. Apart from referencesto variouspassages in Xenophon,Aristophanes, and Demostheneswhich Ste. Croix cites largely without quotationor dis-

cussion, 37hiscaseinfavourofagricultural slavery consists oftwoprincipal elements:a discussionof the famouspassagein Thucydidesabout the escapeof more than 20,000 slavesduringthe siegeof Decelea;and the "negative"argumentthat in the absenceof hired labour, slaverywas the best available means by which Athenian landownerscould have made "appreciableincomes"--an argumentthat relies on evidenceconcerning hired labour rather than slavery. Let us look first at the discussionof the passagefrom Thucydides,to which Ste. Croix here devotesnearly half of his argument.Thucydides (VII 27.5) refers to more than 20,000 slaveswho escapedfrom Attica

duringtheSpartan occupation of Decelea (506).38Thisisa passage which commentatorsoften cite in their estimatesof the slave population.Ste. Croix makesa great deal of the phrase"more than" 20,000, suggesting that many historianshave misquotedthis phraseas if it said a total of 20,000. From this Ste. Croix concludesthat Thucydidesmusthavehad in mind a maximumof hardly lessthan 30,000. Having establishedto his own satisfactionthat the numberof escapedslaveswas as high as 30,000, Ste. Croix goeson to the next phrasewhich suggests that a greatpart-•or, as Ste. Croix prefersto interpretit, the greaterpart-•of theseslaveswere cheirotechnai.This word, which normallyrefersto craftsmenor artisans, he translatesmore generallyas skilled men or experts;and becausethey were skilled, it seemsto him unlikely that they were largely mine-slaves, as many scholarshave supposed. It could be argued, first of all, that the debateabout numbersis futile, sinceThucydideshimself could hardly have known the figures with any degreeof precisionor certainty. Nevertheless,even if the figures must

20

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

remain speculative,we can at least acceptthat there were large numbers of skilledworkmenamongthe slaves.Ste. Croix, however,is on weaker groundif he assumesthat thesecheirotechnaiare unlikely to have been minerssimply on the groundsthat workersin the mineswould not have been regardedas "skilled". In fact, the evidencesuggeststhat a miner could be thoughtof as a craftsman-•cheirotechnds, technit•s,or d•miourgos;and suchmen, like othercraftsmen,left visibletestimonyto thepride

theytookin theirtechnd. 39 It would certainlybe fair to say that not all or perhapseven mostof the cheirotechnaiare likely to have been mine slavesor even workersin the variousprocessingoperationsconnectedwith the silver mines. There may have been other kinds of craftsmenfrom the villages and towns in the chOra.But having assertedthat the deserterswere mainly skilledworkers, Ste. Croix makesa leap in his argumentwhich is truly breath-takingin its inconsequence. He simply adds:"... no doubtincludingagricultural specialists suchas vine-dressers, who would havebetteropportunities for runningaway thane.g. mine-slaves"(506). That breezyphraseis the sum of the evidencewhich Ste. Croix extractsfrom Thucydidesto prove that agriculturalslaverywas prevalentin classicalAthens. It is worthnotingthatJamesonusesthispassagein Thucydidesto support his own caseon agriculturalslaveryin a way that directly contradictsSte. Croix. He deniesthat cheirotechnaiwere "the majority", "thegreaterpart", ratherthan simply"a largepart"; and, moreparticularly,he questionsthat theseskilledworkersincludedsignificantnumbersof agriculturalexperts, supposing insteadthatthey"camelargelyfrom the ergasteriain the mining districtand elsewhere"(136). He believesnonetheless that the passageas a whole implies "significantlossesin farm labour." His reasonfor this conclusionseemsto be simplythat the passagespeaksof the Attic chdra and its losses,which (if I understandhim correctly)presumablymeans that the slaveswho escapedwere largely from the countryside.Even if this is so, however, it tells us little abouthow many lost slaveswere farm labourers.Thucydidesrefers not simply to the loss of slavesbut to the generaldisruptionof agriculturecausedby the enemy'sdominationof the countryside.In any case,the slave-population of the chOrawouldcertainly have included mineworkers and domestic servants, as well as the skilled

craftsmenwho labouredin the villages and small townshipsscattered throughoutAttica. (It is, after all, importantto rememberthat "urban" craftsmencannothavebeenconfinedto the city of Athens.)Indeed,taken together,thesetypesof slavescould conceivablyaccountfor mostof the

"morethan20,000",leavinglittleroomfor realagricultural slavesri ø At any rate, however this passageis interpreted,the very least that can be

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

21

saidis that it leavesus nonethe wiser aboutthe proportionof Attic slaves who functionedas agriculturallabourers. Anotherstrikingexampleof Ste. Croix's modeof interpretationoccurs in his citation of a passagefrom Xenophon'sMemorabilia to prove that "Even the overseeror manager... of an estatein Attica (or elsewhere) would normally be a slave or a freedman." (505). It may be so, but the text in questiontells us nothingof the kind. In this passage(Mere. II 8, esp. 3-4), Eutherus,apparentlyoncea man of property,tells Socratesthat sincehis return from the war he hasbeen forcedto work for a living with his hands(literally, his body). He and Socratesthen go on to discusswhat Eutherusmight do when he becomestoo old to work with his hands,and Socratessuggeststhat he might hire himselfout as an overseerto manage a wealthierman's estate.Eutherusrepliesthat it would be hard for him to submit to servitude (douleia).

Now why this passageshouldbe cited as evidencethat bailiffs or overseerswere normallyslavesis far from clear. On the contrary,it couldbe taken to mean that the notion of a free hired bailiff was quite normal. What the text does suggestis that Athenians,and more particularlymen accustomedto the independentlife of the propertiedclass,were reluctant to acceptsalariedemployment,whichwas generallyregardedas a dependentcondition.Ste. Croix citestheexchangebetweenSocratesandEutherus much earlier in the book to illustrate the attitude of Athenians toward hired

labour (181). In this connectionit is worth noting anotherpassage,from Xenophon'sWaysandMeans, whichseemsto suggestthatmanyAthenians who lackedthe strengthto work with their handsmight be happyto earn a living as managers(IV 22). The critical point, however,is that while Xenophon'swordscanlegitimatelybe usedto illustratea particularattitude towardhired labouror salariedemployment,they cannotbe used-•as Ste. Croix usesthem in the earlier reference--to supportthe contentionthat hired labourwas rare in Athens.Howeverwidespreadthe disdainfor such dependencemight be, it tells us nothingaboutthe numberof peoplewho may have had no choicebut to acceptit--as Xenophon•sEutherusmay have been forcedto do, like other citizenswith insufficientproperty,let alonethe manywho were classedasthdtesandwho werethereforeofficially

propertyless or at leastin possession of minimalproperty. 4• However widely acceptedthe upper-classnorm of true eleutheriamay have been amongAthenians,it is clear that a greatmany citizenscouldnot actually live in accordancewith it. Reasoningas Ste. Croix doeshere, one might equally conclude, given the stricturesagainstthe banausiclife so often repeatedby aristocraticwriters, that few Atheniansengagedin manual

labourat all.42At anyrate,theimportant pointnowis thatthepassage in

22

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

questiontells us nothing at all about the prevalenceof slave-bailiffsor even about their very existence. Ste. Croix, however,doesnot rest his caseon positiveevidencealone. On the contrary,he suggeststhat perhapsthe most telling argumentfor the importanceof slavesin Athenianagricultureis the negativeone: that hired labour, the only alternativeway in which Athenianlandownerscould have made appreciableincomesout of their property (as we know they did), or indeedany profit at all (apartfrom leasing), was evidently rare and confined mainly to the seasonof harvest, vintageand olive-picking(505).

This argumentimmediatelyraisesa hostof problems.The first is thatin order to supporthis contentionthat wage-labourwas rare, Ste. Croix appearsto rely on a methodological principlehe hashimselfemphatically rejected:treatingthe infrequencyof referencesas testimonyto the rarity of the institution(e.g. 186). The rejectionof thisprincipleis the verybasis of his argumentin fayourof agriculturalslavery.As positiveevidence,he citesthreepassages from Xenophon'sMemorabiliato provethe comparative insignificance of hiredlabour(179-82). One is the storyof Eutherus alreadymentioned,whichprovesnothingoneway or theotherexceptthat someformerlywealthyAthenianswerereluctantto acceptsalariedemployment. Anotheris a well-knownexchange(II 7.2-6) in whichAristarchus complainsthatsincetherevolution(the coupof the Thirty Tyrants)he has had a householdfull of relatives,largely women, to support.He has no incomefrom his landedproperty,whichhasbeenseizedby enemies,nor from his houseproperty,sincethereare so few peopleleft in the city to rent it. Socratescites the exampleof Ceramon(and others)who, with manymouthsto feed, managesto supporthis family andstill saveenough to be rich. Aristarchuspointsout that Ceramon'sdependents are largely slaves,while his own are free persons.The implicationis that suchfree personscannotbe expectedto do manualwork---anotionwhichSocrates in this instancerejects,suggesting that Aristarchusput his womenfolkto work to producemarketablegoods. Now whateverthispassage may do to suggest thatupper-class Athenians despised manuallabour(andthatSocrates, whooftenaccepts theanti-democraticviewsof hiswealthycompanions andpatrons,atleastonthisoccasion takesa differentview--though, significantly,specificallyin the caseof women), it is really stretchingthe point to arguethat the text tells us

anythingmuchabouthiredlabour.It is notentirelyclearthatSte.Croix is right to interpretthis exchangebetweenSocratesand Aristarchusas

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

23

indicatingthat"in Xenophon's opinionthe averageupper-class Athenian of his day automatically assumed thata reallyprofitablemanufacturing businesswould be slave-worked"(181); but even if this is so, we are

hardlyentitledto drawthe generalandunequivocal conclusion that"the labourexploitedby the propertied classis thatof slaves".The passage refersto veryspecificcasesin whichwealthymenusethedomesticskills of their household members--slave or free--to

make saleable domestic

itemslike breador clothing.We areevenlessentitledto drawanyconclusionsaboutslavesin agriculture,andstill lessaboutthe useof hiredlabour in theAthenianeconomyin general.In fact, theargumentis rathercircular:

if therarityof wage-labour is supposed toprovetheprevalence of slavery, we cannotusethe sametext to proveboththe importance of slaveryand the rarity of wage-labour•uite apartfrom the fact that thereis here no referenceto agricultural labourat all. The otherpassagecited by Ste. Croix in his discussionof hired labour (Memorabilia III 11, esp. 4) seemsto suggestthat there are threeobvious ways of acquiringwealth in Athens:to have a farm, a houseto let, or craftsmen.This may very well be true;but again,it is far from clear what it provesabouthiredlabour---orindeedaboutslavery.Xenophontellsus nothinghereabouthow or by whomthefarm in questionwouldbe worked. Nor, for thatmatter,is Ste. Croix necessarily entitledto turnthecraftsmen (cheirotechnai)into slave-craftsmen. Xenophonmay haveslavesin mind, but we canhardlyassumethis if we are to usethe text asproofthat slaves were used to the exclusion of hired labour. We are even less entitled to

assumethat thefarm is workedby slaves--whichis the crucialpoint for Ste. Croix in his argumentthattherarityof wage-labouris themosttelling casefor the prevalenceof slaveryin agriculture. It is, of course,more than probablethat hired labour, at leastregular hired work as distinctfrom casualor seasonalwage-labouramongfree men, was relatively rare in Athens. Nevertheless,the very evidenceSte. Croix producesmay lead one to think that it was not as unimportantto the Attic economyas he suggests. Ste. Croix citesall the texts--andthey are indeedinfrequent--whichhe has been able to discoverreferringto hired labourin Athenianagriculture(576 n. 16). What is perhapsmost significant aboutthesereferences is nottheirinfrequency, butthefactthat they includepassageswhich make it clear that the use of wage-labourin harvesting wastypical--somuchsothattheword"harvester" wasvirtually synonymouswith "hired man". So, for example, in Hiero (VI 10), Xenophonwritesthat tyrantshire guardsjust like harvesters.Similarly, Demosthenes (XVIII 51) denounces Aeschinesasnota friendbuta hireling of Philip and Alexander, "unlessa harvesteror other hired man is to be

24

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

called the friend and guest-friendof the man who pays his wages".The implicationseemstobethatharvesting wastypicallydoneby hiredlabourers (at leaston largerfarms).Giventheimportanceof harvestingin a primarily agrarianeconomy,this is no smallmatter.Even to say, asSte. Croix does, that wage-labourwas "confinedmainly to the seasonsof harvest,vintage and olive-picking"(505) is alreadyto say a greatdeal. It hardly supports his own conclusionthat hired labourwas unimportantif it was the typical form of harvestlabour, and if the harvestaccountedfor a very substantial part of agricultural labour, as it has commonly done in agrarian

economies. 43It is possible thatsomeof thehiredlabourers wereslaves let out by contractors;but this needsat leastto be argued,not assumed. In any case, the strongpossibilitythat an essentialpart of agricultural labour was typically performedby hired labourraisesseriousquestions aboutSte. Croix's "negative"argumentfor the prevalenceof agricultural slavery. A furtherquestionis raisedby the negativeargument.Here againSte. Croix's case is built upon the assumptionthat slavery and hired labour were the only alternativeways "in which Athenianlandownerscouldhave madeappreciableincomesout of their property. . . or indeedany profit at all" (505). Significantly,he addsparentheticallythe phrase"(apartfrom leasing)".The restof the argumentproceedsas if the parenthetical possibility did notexist.Indeedthe"negative"argumentin favourof agricultural slaverydependsuponthe assumptionthat no reasonablealternativeother thanwage-labourwasavailable.Ste. Croix fails, however,to explainwhy we shouldso readily dismissthe optionof leasing,exceptto reiteratethe assertionthat "... leasingcannotbe expectedto yield nearly as much profit as working land directly with slave labour.... "(172). Since, as we have noted, variousforms of tenancyand shamcroppinghave been amongthe mostcommonmodesof surplusextractionthroughouthistory, this cavalierdismissalis especiallypuzzling. Here again Ste. Croix falls backon his unprovedassumption aboutthe inherentlysuperiorprofitability of slavery, which, of course,in abstractionprovesnothingat all. Quite apart from whetherGreek landownerscan have been expectedto engage in this kind of comparativecost-accounting, even Ste. Croix himself acknowledgesthat the circumstances surroundingslave-exploitation may be such as to offset its inherentprofitability. Indeed, he even suggeststhat thesecircumstances mayrenderleasingpreferable.For example,discussing the rise of the colonate in Rome, he writes of

the additionaltime and effort which a landownerworking his estate directlywith slavelabourwould haveto expendin orderto get the

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

25

best results,comparedwith the landlord who leasedout his land, and the impetus this would give to leasing.... Over all, farms which were leasedwould normally haverequiredlessattentionfrom their owners,andthis would havepartly discountedthe higherprofits to be expectedfrom land worked directlywith slaves(241). The need for direct supervisionis a limitation on the advantagesof slaverythat might be saidto inherein the natureof slaveryitself. This is quite apartfrom the many otherconditionsandqualificationsthat needto be takeninto accountin accordance with the principlethat the desirability of any form of exploitationis not a universal"essence"but an "historical attribute".Ste. Croix generallyneglectsthis principlein his assessment of leasingas an alternativeto slavery;and to the extent that he takes it into account,the presumptionis almostalwaysa priori in favourof slavery. For instance,in his argumentfor the prevalenceof slaveryhe cites Columella (I 7.4-7) to illustratethat leasingwas consideredundesirableby Romanwriters, exceptundercertainlimited circumstances, notablywhen the landownercouldnot regularlysupervisethe work himself (172). The passagecould, however, as easily be read as an argumentin favour of tenancy.Columellahere outlinesthe many dangersattendantupon slave estatesnot personallysupervised by the landlordandrecommends leasing in suchcases.Thepointisthatthepossibility of regularpersonal supervision couldcertainlynot be takenfor grantedin Romefor a varietyof reasons, not leastthe tendencyfor the holdingsof large proprietorsto be widely dispersed,and the politicalpreoccupations whichkept manylandowners

in the city of Romeand away from their farms(I 1.19). The dispersion of land-holdingswas typical in Attica as well, and constantsupervision of slaveswould alsointerferewith socialand politicalactivities(a point which Jameson,incidentally,overlooks).We might conclude,then, that Columella'sprinciplewasoperativetheretoo. At anyrate,if we areentitled to speculatein the absenceof positiveevidenceanddraw conclusions about the frequencyof certainlabour-formsfrom their advantages,a casecould be madefor the view thattenancyor sharecropping musthavebeenfairly commonbecausethey hadcertainsignificantadvantages overotherforms, given the generaldrawbacksof slaveryand its need for supervisionand giventhehistoricalcircumstances of classrelationsandpoliticalconditions. It might be somewhatimprudentto draw this conclusionin the absence of positiveevidence,andthefactisthattheevidencefor tenancyin classical Athensis relativelysparse(as indeedis the evidencefor otherspecific formsof labour).Onenotableexceptionis LysiasVII 4-11, which,surveying the historyof one particularplot, catalogues a seriesof lettingsas if

26

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

this were the most naturaldispositionof land. Still, we shouldperhaps not expect, in the survivingliterature,to find referencesallowingus to distinguishamongpeasantsand the variousways in which they may have held their land. The smallholderswho made up the bulk of Athenian proprietorsare of little concernto someonelike Xenophon,writing in the Oeconornicusabout large estates.Where they are mentioned,we are unlikely to be informed about the statusof their land, any more than we might be in English literary referencesto "husbandmen" or "farmers", which would not normallypermit us to distinguishamongthe formsof tenure suchpeopleenjoyed. Consider,for example, a passagefrom one of the older Robin Hood ballads, the Gest of Robyn Hode (stanzas13-14), where Robin stateshis principlesto Little John:

But loke ye do no husbondeharme That tilleth with his ploughe No more ye shall no gode yeman That walkethby grene-wodeshawe; Ne no knyghtne no squyer That wol be gode felawe.

The "husbonde"here is evidentlya cultivatorwith a landholdingof some kind whoprobablypossesses a plough-team; butwe havenoway of knowing in what form or on what conditionshe holds the land, just as we cannot be sureaboutthe statusof the Greek ge6rgosor ergazomenos.In fact, as R.H. Hilton points out in a discussionof rural societyin late medieval England, in the many literary works depictingcountry life we cannot normallydistinguish amongpeasants of variouskinds,theirformsof tenure or even their degreesof freedom,at a time when the distinctionbetween free and villein was still importantin manorialdocumentation."A normal contrastin literature is between 'lords and common people'...", he writes."Countrypeoplearereferredto as'tillers' or husbandmen, normally

withoutdistinction of status. ,,44Thus,wordslike"tiller",or"husbandman", or "ploughman"can cover a wide range of peasanttenures,from free tenuresto tenanciesin villeinage. Similarambiguitieshaveattachedhistoricallyto otherwordsin English havingto do with the statusof peoplewho cultivatethe land. The word "farmer" itself is a case in point (see OED). Originally the farmer or "fermor"(like theFrenchfermier)wasspecificallya tenantandsometimes a bailiff or steward--someone to whomlandwas"farmed"outby a wealthier landlordto be managedor worked (like Xenophon'smanager?);but

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

27

for a timethismeaningcoexistedwith themoregeneralmeaningof"farmer" as appliedto anyonewho cultivatesthe land. Among otherthings,this conflationof meaningmay suggestthe frequencywith which farm labour was done by tenants.The "yeoman",generallyregardedas the model prosperous peasant,a freeholder,wasoriginallyby definitiona nobleman's servantor attendant(seeOED); andin the heydayof theEnglishyeomanry, Sir ThomasSmith,writingin 1565, couldspeakof yeomenasbothfreemen or 40-shillingfreeholders(i.e., part of the Parliamentaryelectorate)and

"(for the mostpart) fermorsto gentlemen",that is, tenantsworkingthe

landof lords,knights, andgentlemen. 45In fact,theseemingly clear-cut conceptof "freehold"itself includedcertainkindsof tenancy. The often ambiguousshadingsof meaningin the spectrumbetween dependentlabourer,tenant,and freeholderreflectsthe complicatedspectrum of conditionsand tenurestypical of smallholdersin many partsof the world. This is especiallytruewherethereis no conceptof "absolute" privatepropertybut rathervariousshadesof conditionalproperty;where thereis no cleardividingline betweenoutrightownershipandmerepossessionor occupancy; andwherethereis norigiddichotomybetweenproperty and propertylessness of the kind that existsin modemcapitalistsociety. The indeterminacyof peasantconditionsand tenureswould have been especially characteristic of classical Greece,which,beforethedevelopment

ofRoman property law,hadnoclearlegalconception ofownership atall.46 In the light of theseconsiderations,it is at least worth suggestingthat historianshave not made as much as they could of the available literary evidence. One especially tantalizing example will illustrate the possibilities-and

the difficulties--secreted

in the texts.

At the beginningof the OeconomicusXenophon raisesthe possibility that a man can be put in chargeof another'sestateand practisethe art of estate managementwithout himself owning land (I 3-4). The passage clearlyrefersnot to a slavebailiff but to a free manager.Ste. Croix takes thisto be one of the rare Greek referencesto hired labour,and in any case quickly dismissesit as a "hypotheticalpoint" in a text which otherwise assumesthat overseersare slaves. He arguesthat Xenophonis simply trying to illustratehypothetically"the fact that what you do for yourself you can also do for others"(182), and that elsewherein the book (XII-XV) Xenophonalways takes for grantedthat the overseerwill be a slave. The text could, however, be read in quite a different sense. First, it may demonstratethat the notionof free managerswas quite normal in Athens. Thus, everythingthat followson the art of estatemanagement appliesto owner-managerand non-owningmanageralike. It is importantto note that, even if the later passagescited by Ste. Croix refer to slave-bailiffs,

28

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

they do not necessarilyin any way affect Xenophon'soriginal suggestion about the free manager.Although Xenophonspeakshere of turningover or entrusting(epitrepein) an estateto sucha manager,he doesnot actually refer to the managerhimself as epitroposor epistatgs,the terms he later usesto describethe bailiff or steward.The free managerin the opening passageis, like the landlord, spokenof as someonewho fulfills the role of oikonomos(I 2) or oikonomikos(! 3). So Xenophon may be thinking here of a differentpersonfrom the bailiff discussedin detail later on (XI 25-XV 10).What the free managerdoes is not simply to act as bailiff in the senseintendedby the later passagesbut rather, like the landownerand in his stead, to practicethe art of estatemanagement(oikonomia), an art which includesthe procuring,training, and generalsupervisionof good bailiffs and labourers. In other words, the free man referred to at the outset

apparently stands in lieuof thelandlord, notof thebailiff.47 The bailiff discussedin XI 25-XV I0 probably is a slave, literally "bought";but evenheretherearesomeambiguities.It is clear, for example, that the bailiff is permittedto profit from his activitiesand, indeed, that a certaindegreeof passionfor materialgain may actuallybe a desirable quality in a manager(XI! 15-16). He may even be enabledto grow rich; and his master may treat him like a free man (eleutheros)and even a gentleman(kalos kagathos). At the very least, this reflects the profound complexityof the slave condition,illustratingthat the juridical category of slaverymightitselfincorporate conditionsshadingintootherlessdependent forms of labour.

It is evenpossiblethat Xenophonis indifferentto thejuridical statusof bailiffs, who couldbe eitherslavesor free. The suggestion that they may be "treatedlike" eleutheroiis not by itself an indicationthatthey are slaves, since even a free hired manager or tenant might not be regardedas eleutheros."The free man", as Finley pointsout, "was one who neither lived underthe constraintof, nor wasemployedfor the benefitof, another; who lived preferablyon his ancestralplot of land, with its shrinesand

ancestral tombs. "48At anyrate, if thebailiff is a slave,we shouldbe careful abouthow we generalizefrom this example. The advice aboutthe bailiff is givenby Xenophon'smodellandlord,Ischomachus,an exception-

ally richman.49His extreme wealth(by Athenianstandards) makeshis example in general a difficult one for others to follow; and his daily activities(XI 14-18) arecertainlythoseof a veryrich manwith considerable leisure.Sincethoseactivitiesincluderegularvisitsto the farm in question, we may presumethat this farm meetsthe conditionfor a slave-runestate, regular supervisionby the landlord,which was surelynot possibleon all estates.so

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

29

Let us return, then, to the free managerof I 3-4, who apparentlyplays the part of an oikonomos,not simply that of a bailiff. The most important point is that Xenophonmay not be speakinghere of a hired managerat all, in the senseof a salariedemployee,but ratherof somekind of tenant or sharecropper.The critical passagereadsas follows: Having beenasked by Socrateswhethera man who understands the art of estatemanagement can earn moneymanaginganother'sestateeven if he ownsno property himself,Critobulusreplies,"Of course;andhe couldbringin goodrewards if, havingtakenoveran estate,he payswhat is due andproducesa surplus

to increase theestate"(I 4).5• Whatis strikingaboutthispassage is that it conjuresup a managerwho is responsiblefor certainoutgoingsor dues, especiallypaymentsto the landlord, and whose earningsare determined by the amountof surplushe producesover the outgoings.This is certainly not the positionof a hired man or salariedemployeein any strict sense, implying the receipt of a fixed wage or salary. Such a man would not be responsiblefor outgoings,nor would his earningsbe directlydetermined by the surplusover outgoings.The conditionsdescribedhere are much more like thoseof a tenantwho takes over a piece of land, assuming responsibilityfor all its burdensandcosts,payinga portionof his earnings to the landlord,and keepingfor himselfwhateverhe producesover and above his rents and expenses. It is true that the word used to describethis "manager's"earningsis misthos,the word most commonlyusedto refer to a wage. Misthos can, however, mean "reward" or "recompense"in a more general sense;and, for example, the verb misthophoreincan mean either "to work for hire" or "to bringin rentor profit"(LSJs.v.). Furthermore,thereareetymological andhistoricalreasonsfor supposing thata closeconnectionexistedbetween the "hired" managerand the tenant or sharecropper.There is a close etymological relationshipbetween misthos and misthOsis,"wage" and "rent". The misthOtos is a hired man; the misthOtds can be a rent-payeror

tenant. 52The linguistic fluiditybetween thewordsfor payingrentand receivinga wage probablysuggestsa real structuralandhistoricalconnection betweenthem which is not conveyedby the clear andeven antithetical differencebetweenrent and wage in the modem sense.In his study of Greek law, DouglasM. MacDowell makesthe following suggestion about the possiblehistorical transmutationof misthosinto misthOsis: By leaseit was possibleto obtainuseof propertywithoutacquiring ownershipof it. The word for lease or rent is misthosis,and the connectionof that word with misthos('fee', 'wages') suggeststhe following courseof development.A landownermight employ a man

30

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

to work a pieceof his land, givinghim a fixed amountof the produce eachyear (misthos)andkeepingthe resthimself. Then, to encourage the labourerto work hard, the landownermight agree to take only a fixed amountof the produceeachyear, allowingthe labourerto keep the rest; in practicaleffect, this would mean that the labourer

hada leaseof thepieceof landandpaida fixedrentforit.53 In otherwords,thefixed rentasoutgoingis notherediametricallyopposed to the fixed "wage" as income(the term "wage" in this contextis in any case misleading);both characterizea relationshipbetweenlandlord and tenant,a relationshipin which one man is paid for workingor managing another'sland, and paymentis made by meansof dividing the tenant's productbetweenhimself and the landlord. In both cases, the earnings derivedfrom working for someoneelse might be a misthos. The critical point here is that, whetherthe tenantreceivesa fixed wage or pays a fixed rent, he is regardedas someoneemployedto work or manageanother'sland. The form in which he receiveshis sharedoesnot alter his positionin this respect,even if it may affect his earningsor his attitudetowardproductivity.That the ancientsincludedcertainkindsof tenancyamongthe severalwaysin which a landlordmight employa farm managerto work his land--in other words, that they may have regarded tenancy as a kind of "hired" labour--is suggestedat least by Roman

sources. 54Cato,forexample, seems tohavein minda gradual continuum from lettingout a wholepieceof landto a sharecropping tenant,to letting out a pieceof it for a specificpurpose(e.g., tendinga vineyard),to letting or contractingout a specifictask (e.g., gatheringolives) to be performed by hired labourers(De Re Rustica 136-7, 144). In eachcase,peopleare paid to performagriculturallabour,thoughdependingon the comprehensivenessandthe durationof thetask--which may rangefrom takingcharge of a whole estateall year round, to performinga specificand narrowly defined seasonaltask suchas harvestinga particularcropspayment can range from a shareof the farm's entire yield (either as a fixed shareof the crop or the sharethat is left after rent) to a wage. A mixture of variousrent-forms,fixed or variable, rangedalong a continuousscale, extractedin variousways by landlordsfrom tenantsand sharecroppers with varyingdegreesof securityof tenureaccording to prevailing needs and possibilities,has been typical of many agrarian economies.At the very least,we mustentertainthe possibilitythat such formsof tenancy,leasing,or "management"--and notjust slaveryor wagelabour--wereavailableassignificantoptionsto Athenianlandowners lookingfor waystoexploitlabour"profitably".Indeed,sincewealthyAthenians

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

31

so often ownedseveralsmallerpropertiesratherthan largeconcentrations of land, "farming" out these smallholdingsin one form or anothermay have been the easiestway. What, then, might the Attic countrysidein classicaltimes have looked like? Most propertieswould be worked by peasantsand their families. Often thesesmallholderswould, as in other peasantcommunities,assist their neighbours,especiallyat harvesttime. Somesmallholderswould be able to afford a slave or two, whoseprincipalfunctionswould probably be in the house,but who might lend a hand in the fields. Land ownedby wealthy citizens would, in the typical case of small scatteredproperties, be let out to tenantsor sharecroppers, who would work the land in much the sameway as any otherpeasant,usingprincipallyfamily labour.Larger estates-•ofwhich therewere relativelyfew--could be superviseddirectly by the landowneror by bailiffs. In suchcases,the basicpermanentstock of farm labourerswouldconsistof slaves,butthisstockwouldnotbe very large. Casuallabour would probablybe availablefor hire at all times in the form of propertyless citizensand the many small farmerswhoseproperties(whetherownedor leased)wereinsufficientto supporttheir families. These labourerswould be especiallybusy at the harvest, but would be availablefor variouskinds of work throughoutthe year. It would be to the advantageof the landownerto employthemwheneverpossible--buying their labourpower at very low wagesand only when needed--insteadof investingin slavesand incurringthe risks and responsibilities of owning their very persons,keepingthem alive and (relatively) well throughboth productiveandunproductive periods.As longastheconcentration of property remainedlimited and peasanttenuresreasonablysecure,and while even large landownersoften held their propertiesin separatescattered parcels,the scopefor labouron the landbeyondthat of the peasantfamily unit would continue to be restricted.55

This picture cannot, of course,be confirmedby positiveproof, but it is historicallyplausibleand fits the availableevidence.Unlessand until new evidenceemergesdifferent from what now exists,"widespread" agricultural slaverymust seemvery much more fanciful. Ellen

York University

Meiksins

Wood

Toronto NOTES

1. I shouldlike to thankProfessorE. Badianfor his manyhelpfulinsightsand for his painstakingeditoriallabours.My thanksalso to the anonymousreaders

32

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

whose criticismsand suggestionsI found constructiveand useful.

2. For somearguments suggesting thatagriculturalslaverywasrelativelyinsignificantin Athens,or even that the role of Athenianslaveryin generalhasbeen exaggerated,seeChesterG. Starr,"An overdoseof slavery",JEH 18 (1958) 17-32; A.H.M. Jones,Atheniandemocracy(1957) 10-20; Victor Ehrenberg,Thepeople of Aristophanes(1962) 80 and ChapterVII, especially181-2. (Ehrenberg'scase is a bit ambiguous,since,while maintainingthat farmingwasthe leastimportant occupationof slaves,he nevertheless takesfor grantedthat slave-ownership was very widespreadevenamongsmallfarmers.)SeealsoGert Audring,"Grenzender Konzentration von Grundeigentumin Attika wfihrend des 4. Jh. v. u. Z.", Klio

56 (1974) 445-6; andLea M. Gluskina,"Zur Spezifikderklassischen griechischen Polis im Zusammenhangmit dem Problem ihrer Krise", Klio 57 (1975) 415-31. Audringstresses the restrictions of the peasanteconomyin Attica, arguingthat it waslimitedessentially to familylabourandnotingthelimiteddegreeof specialization, divisionof labour,andproductionfor the market.He alsonotesthedisadvantagesof slave-labourevenfor wealthierlandowners,especiallyin the light of the fact that they often ownedtheir propertiesin smaller, scatteredholdings(454). Gluskina, too, argues that conditionsfor large-scaleslave utilization were not favourable,becauselarge propertieswere as a rule very parcellized(417). For arguments in favourof theimportanceof agriculturalslavery,seeespecially, Michael H. Jameson,"Agricultureand slaveryin ClassicalAthens",CJ 73 (1977) 122-41; G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The class struggle in the ancient Greek world (1981). Thesetwo workswill be discussed extensivelyin whatfollows.M.I. Finley is sometimes citedasa proponent of thisview, but, whilehestresses theimportance of slaveryin all aspectsof Athenianlife, in factheclaimsonlythatslavesconstituted the permanentwork-force "in all Greek or Roman establishments larger than the family unit". (SeeAncientslaveryand modernideology(1980) 81. The emphasis on "permanent"is Finley's.) This leavesroom not only for a large numberof smallholders--whoconstitutedthe bulk of Athenianproprietors--workingtheir land with family labourand withoutslaves,but alsofor manywealthyproprietors who held their land in separatesmallholdingsand could have let their farms to tenantswho worked them, like other peasants,with family labouralone. It also allowsroom for substantialcasualwage-labouron propertiesof varioussizes. 3. Indeed, a primafacie casecan be mademore easily againstthan for "widespreadagriculturalslavery". For one thing, there is more evidenceto indicatethe existenceof otherkinds of slaves,especiallymineworkersand domesticservants; and in the contextof evidenceconcerningthe total numberof slaves,this probably leaveslittle room for agriculturalslaves.(See Appendix,Part 1.) Furthermore,if we are reduced,in the absenceof positiveevidence,to relyingon deductionsabout the relativeadvantages anddisadvantages of variouslabourformsin the prevailing circumstances, and on conclusionsabout what kinds of labour Athenian landlords

are most likely to have chosen, the case in favour of slavery (as argued, for example,by Ste.Croix) isfar frompersuasive,aswill be suggested in whatfollows. 4. Finley, The world of Odysseus (1965) 49. 5. Walter Beringer," 'Servile Status'in the sourcesfor early Greek history",

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

33

Historia 31 (1982) 13-32. In theseearly cases,slaveswere often womenand were relativelyunimportantin production. 6. There are, however, some ambiguitieseven here. See pp. 27 if., for a discussionof the passagesin the Oeconomicus concerningbailiffs. 7. See M.I. Finley, Economyand socie• in ancient Greece (1981) 98, for a discussionof the complexitiesin the usageof this word and othershaving to do with slavery. 8. SeeLSJ s.vv. andM.I. Finley, The worldof Odysseus (1965) 54-5,109-10. Finley discussesthe Homeric therapOn,neithera slave nor a serf but a retainer, who, thoughsubordinateto the head of the householdor chieftain, might occupy a very high position. 9. See p. 43, for a case in which ergazomenoiare clearly neither slavesnor labourersbut tenants.This kind of flexible usageof wordsreferringto cultivators of variouskinds shouldbe kept in mind when we considerthe questionof tenancy and sharecropping (pp. 27 if.). 10. Michael Jamesonrefersto theselinguisticambiguitiesbut arguesthat "If we have troublein identifying'agriculturalslaves'in Athensit may be in part becausetheyare everywhere"(p. 137). This maybe true, butthenthe textscannot be usedto prove that they "are everywhere". 11. Aristotle in the Politics makes a distinction between the "conditions" and

the "parts"of a polis in his discussion of the ideal polis. The latter are the full membersor citizens, the former, "which are necessaryfor the existenceof the whole"withoutbeingpartof it, includethoseengagedin productionandin supplying the basicgoodsand servicesfor the community--farmers,craftsmen,shopkeepers (1328a-1329a). Elsewhere,he refersin particularto the servileand menialstatus of craftsmenand labourers,who shouldnever be citizensbecausethey perform menial dutiesand differ from slavesonly in that they perform thesemenial duties for the communitywhile slavesperformthem for individuals(1277a-1278a). 12. STRANGER. There remainsthe classof slavesand servantsin general, and hereI prophesythatwe shallfind thosewho setup claimsagainstthe king for the very fabric of his art, just as the spinnersand cardersand the rest of whom we spokeadvancedclaimsagainstthe weaversa while ago. All the others,whomwe calledcontingent causes,havebeenremovedalongwiththeworkswejustmentioned and have been separatedfrom the activity of the king and the statesman .... STR.The boughtservants,acquiredby purchase,whomwe canwithoutquestion call slaves.They make no claim to any sharein the kingly art. YOUNGSOCRATES. Certainly not. STR.How aboutthosefree men (•.e60•9o0 who put themselvesvoluntarilyin the positionof servants of thosewhomwe mentioned before?I meanthemenwho carry about and distributeamongone anotherthe productionsof husbandryand the otherarts, whetherin the domesticmarket-placesor by travellingfrom city to city by land or sea, exchangingmoneyfor waresor moneyfor money,the men whom we call brokers, merchants,shipmasters,and peddlers;do they lay any claim to statesmanship? Y. soc. Possiblyto commercialstatesmanship.

34

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

STR.But certainlywe shall never find labourersand hired men, whom we see only too glad to serveanybody,claiminga sharein the kingly art. ¾. so½.Certainlynot. sxR. But thereare peoplewho performservices(6LaxovofivTeg) of anotherkind for us. How about them?

¾. soc. What servicesand what men do you mean? sx•.The classof heraldsandthosewho becomeby long service skilledas clerksand otherclevermen who performvariousservicesin connexion with public offices. What shall we call them? ¾. soc. What you called the others, servants(6r•l@•zaL);not themselvesrulers in the states.

Hypgretgsis the word for "servant"which Aristotleuseswhenhe definesthe slave (doulos)as a servantin the sphereof action (praxis) ratherthan in the sphereof production(poifsis)•a passagewhich, incidentally,is significantbecauseit seems to take for grantedthat the typical slave is the domesticservant,not one who engagesin production(Politics1254a):6 6• [31og •@•tg, 06 •olvlotg,•o'rlv.6t6 6 6o•kog6•vl@•vlg'r(0v•@6g'r•v •@&•tv. 13. See, for example,Jones12-17, 76-79. 14. Jamesoncitesa few bitsof positivetextualevidencefrom Old Comedyand the oratorswhich are discussedbelow in Appendix, Part II. 15. For an account of early Greek agriculture much more detailed, closely argued, and supportedby evidencethan Jameson's,see ChesterG. Starr, The economicand social growth of early Greece, 800-500 BC (1977). Starr dealswith preciselythe periodof expansionwhich is mostcriticalto Jameson'sargument, and not only questionsany rapidor dramaticdemographic growthbut dealswith the problemof pressures for increasedproduction(a greatdeal moresystematically than Jameson)without assuminga need for agriculturalslavery.See especially

Chapters II andVII. Theso-called "underemployment" typicalof peasant economies is also relevanthere and will be discussedpp. 14 f. 16. See Eric Wolf, Peasants(1966) ChapterIII. For an exampledrawnfrom a later periodof "populationexplosion"in Europe, see EmmanuelLeRoy Ladurie, The peasantsof Languedoc(1976) Part I, Chapter2. 17. See, for example,M.I. Finley, The ancienteconomy(1973) 105. 18. Wolf 3-4. The term "surplus"is used here in a particularsensewhich perhapsrequiressomeexplanation.In purelytechnicalterms,onecouldspeakof "surpluslabour"to describeany labourabovewhat is neededto provide"the minimumrequiredto sustainlife.... the daily intakeof food caloriesrequired to balancethe expenditures of energya man incursin his daily outputof labor" (Wolf 4), pluswhatis requiredto maintainandreplacethe supplies andequipment necessary for the production of thatcaloricminimum--torepairor replaceinstruments,feed livestock,maintainbuildings,fences,fields, etc. Such"purelytechnical" termsare, of course,affectedby culturalfactors,changingtechnologiesand expectations. For the purposes of the presentargument,however,the criticalissue doesnot concernthe precisemeasureof biologicalneeds,culturalnecessities, or the costof the "replacement fund";nor are we primarilyconcerned with how much

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

35

of the producer's"surplus"is producedvoluntarilyin orderto enhancehis or her owncomfortor affluence.The essentialissuehereis thedisposition anddistribution of goodsand servicesbetweenprimaryproducersand othersnot engagedin the production process.Whensociety"is no longerbasedon theequivalentanddirect exchanges of goodsand servicesbetweenone groupandanother"(Wolf 3), when in particularthe goodsand servicesof somegroupsare appropriated by others whoseclaimsreston a positionof dominance,a distinctionemergesbetweenwhat theprimaryproducersproducefor theirown andtheirfamilies' useandmaintenance (whetherdirectlyor throughthe mediumof exchange),andwhattheyproducefor otherswithoutequivalentexchange.The questionof "surplusproduction" thenhas to do with the form andextentof the labourperformedby primaryproducers for non-labouring appropriators. More particularly,the issueis the compulsory labour performedby the primary producerin order to meet the demandsof a dominant appropriator.The point at issue,then, is the natureand extentof any external socialcompulsions whichmay determinethe natureandextentof the producer's labourbeyondwhat is requiredfor self-maintenance and the continuanceof the familyunit.(SeeWolf 2-10 foramoredetaileddiscussion of someofthesepoints.) 19. Ibid.

9-10.

20. SeeRobertBrenner,"The agrarianrootsof Europeancapitalism",Pastand Present no. 97 (November 1982) 25, for a particularlylucid statementof this principle. 21. Finley, Ancient economy96. 22. The Athenians,again,generallyavoideddirectandregulartaxationon the property or personsof citizens. Metics paid a head-tax, the metoikion, while propertiedcitizenswereoccasionally obligedto pay a war tax, the eisphora,from which "roughlyeveryonebelow the hoplite status"was exempt(M.I. Finley, Economyand societyin ancient Greece ( 1981) 90). There were alsoindirectlevies,

suchas salesand harbourtaxes. A substantialportionof public revenuescame from the liturgies,by which individualwealthycitizenstook responsibility for certainpublicfunctions,includingentertainments and the maintenance of ships. Thus, the burdenon poorercitizenswas exceptionally light. It is worthnoting that, as Finley has pointedout, there is no evidencethat taxation, so often the objectof grievancefor the poorin othertimesandplaces,everfiguredamongthe complaints of theAtheniandemos.By contrast,theburdenborneby therichseems to havebeena majorthemein anti-democratic grievances (Finley, 1.c.). 23. Keith Hopkins, Conquerorsand slaves(1978) 24. 24. P.A. Brunt, Social conflictsin the Roman Republic (1971) 40-1. For a sketchof just howenormous andunfettered Romanfortuneswere--for example, in comparisonwith early modernEngland--seeRichardDuncan-Jones, The economyof the RomanEmpire (1977), especially4-5. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Finley, Ancient slavery 83-5 and 166 n. 42. Hopkins9. Finley, Ancient economy96. See, for example,MarshallSahlins,StoneAge economics (1974), Chapters 1-3, for a discussion of the "domesticmodeof production",its internaldynamics

36

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

and limits and the "structureof underproduction". 29. See, for example, Finley, Ancient economy106, where he describesthe implicationsof 5- to 6-acre holdings. 30. StephenB. Brush,"The myth of the idle peasant:Employmentin a subsistenceeconomy",in RhodaHalperinandJamesDow, ed., Peasantlivelihood(1977) 62.

31. It has beenarguedthat, especiallyin the 4th centuryBc, a substantialpart of the averageassemblyandjury consistedof moreprosperous citizens,and that thiswasparticularlytrueof juries, sincethepay of threeobolsa day wasinsufficient to keep a family and far lessthancouldbe earnedeven by casualunskilledlabour (A.H.M. Jones,Athenian democraO, 35-7, 109-10). See also K.J. Dover, who makesa similar argumentaboutattendanceat juries, in Greekpopular moralit)' in the time of Plato and Aristotle (1974) 34-5. Both Jonesand Dover base their argumentsnot only on the ratesof pay but on the contentand languageof speeches and on what may be inferredaboutthe natureof the audiencebeing addressed. 32.

Ste. Croix 506. It is not clear that this endorsement of Jameson's views on

the useof slavesby peasantsis compatiblewith Ste. Croix's often repeatedobservation that the bulk of Athenian small producersstood outsidethe systemof exploitationand seldomwent beyondfamily labour. (See, for example, 33 and 52-3). In fact, where Jamesonwould undoubtedlyregard Athens as a "slave society"preciselyon the groundsthat slaverywas so widespreadthroughoutthe social spectrum,Ste. Croix generallyarguesalmostthe reverse:the systemof exploitation,the form in which surplusis extractedfrom producers,and not the form in which productionitself takes place, is the essentialcharacteristicof any society.Athenscan, therefore,be regardedas a slave societydespitethe fact that freeproducershadsucha largesharein production,preciselybecausefreeproducers can be set asideas having little part in the systemof exploitation. 33. For a differentevaluationof slavery,its costs,etc., seeHopkins 10, 108-11. Occasionally,Ste. Croix doesseemto acknowledge the problemsthat accompany slavery, thoughwithout pursuingthe implicationsfor his basicargument.See, for example,241, wherehe suggests that in RomanItaly the needfor supervision may have "partly discounted"the profitabilityof slavery, in contrastto leasing.As we shallsee,thisobservation doesnotaffectSte. Croix'sassessment of theadvantages of slaveryin relationto leasingwhen he makeshis casefor agriculturalslaveryin Greece.

34. For someexamplesin the ancientworld, seeK.D. White, Romanfarming (1970) 411-12; W.B. Emery, Archaic Egypt (1961) 111. For medievalEurope, where not only serfdombut variousforms of tenancyand sharecropping existed, seeGeorgesDuby, Rural economyand count•wlife in the Medieval West (1968), passim; R.H. Hilton, The English peasantEl'in the later Middle Ages (1975), passim,e.g., 125-133, 139-155. For more generalstudiesof peasantsin many parts of the world, and in more recent times, see Eric Wolf (cited n. 16) and Theodore Shanin, ed., Peasantsand peasant societies( 1971). 35. On therarityof "slavesocieties",seeFinley,Ancientslavery67 andHopkins 99-100. Hopkins, for example, suggeststhat there have been only five "well

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

37

established"casesthroughouthistory:classicalAthens, Roman Italy, the West Indian islands, Brazil, and the southern states of the U.S.A.

36. Finley, Ancientslavery77. 37. See below, Appendix, Part I, for a discussionof thesetexts. 38. xct[ &v6@ctrrO6cov •rk•ov • 66o [tv@t66sgqO•ortok/lxsoctv, xctl •o6•cov •rok0 [t•@og Xst@o•r•}XYat. In Ste. Croix's version,this passagesuggeststhat "the greater part" were cheirotechnai,but as he pointsout, accordingto mostmanuscriptsthe passageseemsto read "a greatpart" (•ro•.0[t•@og) ratherthan "the greaterpart" (•6 •ro•.0[t•@og),though"the argumenthere is not affected"by this alternative reading (506). 39. See, for example,Alison Burford, Craftsmenin Greek and Romansociety (1972): "The term 'craftsman' is here usedof every skilled worker whose labours contributedto the manufactureof objectsin durablematerials,and who depended on the exerciseof his craft for a living. Defined thus, the miner, the bronze-nailmaker, the goldsmith,the jeweller, the quarrymason,the sculptor,the architect, the tanner.... the shipwright,the joiner and inlayer, the potter, the figurinemaker,thevase-painter, themosaic-layer,thecatapult-builder andtheglass-blower are all equally deservingof consideration.... In Greek, techn•, and in Latin, ars, were usedindiscriminatelyof paintingand cobblingalike, just as technit•s, cheirotechngsor d•miourgos, thefaber or artifex, could be either a sculptoror a miner,a quarrymanor an architect"(13-14). Seealso73, whereBurforddiscusses the skills involved in mining, and 176-177, where she refers to the epitaphsand dedicationsby which minersleft evidenceof their craftsman'spride, includingthe following statementin the remarkableepitaphof Atotas the miner, apparentlya Paphlagonian slaveclaimingroyaldescent:"No onerivalledme in skill [techn•]." The conceptof techn• itself is discussedin ChapterVI. See also R.J. Hopper, Trade and industo'in Classical Greece (1979), ChapterVII, especially134, where Hoppermentionsa dedicationapparentlyreferringto the "skill" of mining. As for Ste. Croix's suggestion thattheseskilledslaveswere morelikely to have been agriculturalslaves,it mustbe stressedthat cheirotechn•scommonlyreferred specificallyto handicraftsmen or artisans(LSJ)asdistinctfromagricultural workers. For an exampleof sucha usage,seePlato, Republic547d, wherehe recommends that the guardiansabstainfrom farmingand handicrafts: ¾•co@¾tCov &rr•X•o0ctt r6 x@orro•.•rtoOv ct•)rfl•xct[ 40. See below, Appendix, Part I, for a discussionof slave numbers. 41. The word thSs, which referred to a member of the lowest "class" in the

SolonJansystemof classificationaccordingto property, was also usedto refer to hired men. It has been estimatedthat th•tes constitutedabout 66 per cent of the citizen populationin the early 5th century}•c and about 57 per cent in 322 }•c (Jones8, 76-81). Jonesbasesthe figure for 322 on Antipater'sruling which disfranchised12,000 citizens(out of 21,000) who did not meet his propertyqualification. There is no way of knowinghow many of thesepeopleactuallyworked as casualwage-labourers, but that somewere forced to do so is clear. For an argumentwhich goesfurtherthan Jones,and probablytoo far, claimingthat the 12,000disfranchised citizens--thatis, themajorityof thecitizenbody--represented

38

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

thosewho had insufficientpropertyfor an independentlife and would therefore have been compelledto work as day-labourers,seeE. Ruschenbusch, Athenische Innenpolitikim 5. Jahrhundertv. Chr. (1979) 133-152, especially147-9. 42. Ste. Croix certainlywould not arguethat the aristocraticcontemptfor ordinary craftsmendisplayedby Xenophon(e.g. OeconomicusVI 5-7) tells us very muchaboutthe numberof citizenswho actuallyworkedas craftsmenin Athens. 43. Jamesonalso points out that the harvesteris the typical hired man (131), and that "One may suspecthired labourwas considerablymore commonthan our sourcesshow" (132). Even Ste. Croix at one point concedes:"I do not wish to denythat hiredlabour,especiallyat peakperiodsof agriculturalactivity, may have been more importantthan our survivingevidencesuggests"(593 n. 59). 44. R.H. Hilton, The Englishpeasantryin the later Middle Ages (1975) 25. 45. Sir Thomas Smith, De RepublicaAnglorum, ed. Mary Dewar (1982) 74. 46. See A.R.W. Harrison, The law of Athens(1968) I 200-205; Douglas M. MacDowell, The law in ClassicalAthens (1978) 133 if.; J.W. Jones,The law and legal theoryof the Greeks(1956) 201 if. 47. Gert Audring has argued(thoughit is not entirely clear on what evidence) that the free managerat the beginningof the Oeconomicusrepresentsnot so much an Athenianreality as a proposalby Xenophon,a possiblesolutionfor propertied

citizens impoverished by thewar, in "f,)berdenGutsverwalter (epitropos) in der attischenLandwirtschaft des 5. und des 4. Jh. v.u.Z.", Klio 55 (1973) 114-15.

He does,however,suggestthat in the 4th centurythe slave-bailiffmay have been increasingly replacedby freetenants,andthattheliteratureafterXenophondisplays less interestin slave-bailiffs.He also cites anotherhistorianwho placesmore emphasisthanhe doeshimselfon tenantsand free managers(113): H. Bolkestein, in Economiclife in Greece's golden age, new ed. (1958) 29, writes, "... there were plenty of them [landowners]who left the cultivationof their groundeither to tenantsor to men whom we call working-managers(epitropoi) who might be slavesor free men." On leasingto free men--poor citizens,freedmen,andmetics-see also Gluskina (n. 2 above) 417.

48. Finley, Ancientslavery90. 49. See J.K. Davies, Athenianpropertiedfamilies (1971) 265-8. 50. SeeK.D. White, Romanfarming (1970) 370-76, for a discussion of certain considerations affectingthe desirabilityof slave-runestates. 51. •Eo•;tva@a,•;q)I I 6 Yo)x@f-c•]g, •;qlv•;I}9(v•]v •;alS-c•]v/•to•a[u}v•,xa[ •[ [tq a6-c6g

%6XotX@fl•tct%ct •:Xcov, %6v&kkovo[xovo[xovo•to•v%ct •o•@ xa[ o•,xo6o•toOvm [tto0otpo@eCv;

Ni1 A•ctxct[xo•.6v¾• [tto06v,•cP•I6 K@tx613ov•,.o•, cp•@otx' &v, •[ 66vcttxo o[xov xct@c0,.cq3•v x•.•rv x• 6oct6•r xcti,x•@tovo(•ctv xot&v cdS•tvx6v o[xov. 52. Ste. Croix points out that misthoscan mean both "pay" in a broad sense and "rent". Although the distinctionbetweenthe misth6tosand the misth6t•sis often that betweena hired man and a rent-payeror tenant, Ste. Croix suggeststhat it can also refer to somethinglike the difference between a wage-labourerwho hiresout his labourpowerfor unskilledor partlyskilledwork, andthe "contractor" who undertakes a specifictask, virtuallyalwaysskilledor requiringpossession of

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

39

specialequipmentand probablyslaves(189). 53.

MacDowell

140-1.

54. See K.D. White 388-9, for a catalogueof the "systemsof management" to be found in the Roman evidence, including both managementby slavesand variouskinds of tenancy,sharecropping, or leasing. 55. SeeV.N. Andreyev,"Someaspectsof agrarianconditionsin Attica in the fifth to third centuriesB.C.", Eirene 12 (1974) 5-46; and Audring, "Grenzen..." (n. 2 above)for someindicationsof the persistence of theseconditions.Andreyev discusses the distributionof land in Attica, arguingthat therewas a "rathernumerous"classof peasantproprietorsowningfrom about3.6 to 5.3 hectaresof land, which he estimateswas approximatelythe amountneededto maintaina family. He stresses the stabilityof thispeasantpropertyandquestions theextentof upheavals and dispossessions at the end of the 5th centuryBCand in the 4th. Audringalso notesthe stability(and stagnation)of the peasanteconomy,the limits it imposed on land-concentration,and the consequentrestrictionson slave-utilization. APPENDIX

TO THE

NOTES

Modem estimatesof the numberof slavesin classicalAttica have varied widely, ranging,for example,from 20,000, as againsta free populationof 124,000, for the late 4th century Be (A.H.M. Jonesin Athenian democracy(1957) 76-79) to 106,000 for 323 Bc, with a free populationof 154,000. The latter figuresappear in the article on "Population(Greek)" in the Oxford ClassicalDictionary (1970) over the namesof A.W. Gomme and R.J. Hopper, and are based,with a few modifications,on Gomme'sclassicandoften-citedThepopulationofAthens(1933).

Let ustakeGomme-Hopper asourpointof departure because thesefiguresrepresent amongthe highestestimatesof slave-numbers still currentin modemscholarship. Thesehigh figuresshouldprovidethe mostgenerous basisfor assessing theprima facie plausibilityof widespreadagriculturalslaveryin classicalAthens.The principal issuehere is not whetherthese---orany other--figuresare in themselves the mostaccurate,butto whatextentevena highestimateof slave-numbers cansupport argumentslike thoseof Michael Jamesonand G.E.M. de Ste. Croix. GommeandHopperoffer the followingestimatesfor the years431 and 323 •3c, the peak periods: 431BC

323BC

Totalpopulation of Attica

310,000

260,000

Citizens(with families) Metics (with families) Slaves

172,000 28,500 110,000

112,000 42,000 (?) 106,000 (?)

40

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

If we considerthese figures in the light of certain other estimatesconcerning thegeographicalandoccupationaldistributionof slaves,we obtainsomeastonishing results. Although little is known about occupationaldistributions,it is generally acceptedthat large numbersof slavesworkedin the silver minesat Laureion.The major studyon thesemine slaves,S. Lauffer's Die Bergwerkssklaven vonLaureion (1955-6), estimatesthat as many as 30,000 slaves worked in the mines and processingmills at one time when they were in full operation,as in the late 4th century Bc (II 904-16). The mines were flourishingthroughoutmuch of the 5th century,before a declinetowardthe end of the Peloponnesian Wars andthe revival in the secondhalf of the 4th century. Let us first, for the sake of argument,take Gomme-Hopper'smaximum of 110,000 slaves for 431 and assume 15-20,000 mine slaves, instead of Lauffer's

peakfigureof 30,000. Where are the restof the slaves,then?Accordingto GommeHopper, in 431, when about one-third of the citizen populationlived in Athens, Piraeus,and environs,approximatelytwo-thirdsof the slaveslived within those boundaries.(In the courseof the following century,the proportionof city-dwellers grew.) This would mean that about 73,000 slaveswere located in the largely, thoughnot entirely, urbanareaof Athensand its immediatesurroundings, occupied as domesticservants,craftsmenand labourersin workshops,"civil servants", policemen,entertainers,etc. After subtractingthe mine slavesfrom the remaining 37,000, this would leave about 22-27,000 slaves for the areas in which the bulk

of Attic agriculturewas carriedon. Thesewould haveto be distributedamongthe workshopsof outlyingtownsandvillages(rememberthat the areaoutsidethe urban centre of Athens was not all rural) and the households(often more than one) of the citizens living away from the city (two-thirdsof the total citizen population,

i.e. about 115,000, includingfamilies, accordingto Gomme-Hopper,of which perhaps29,000 wouldbe citizens),aswell ascountryestates(oftenseveral)owned by citizensresidingin the city. Then we must considerthe fact that a reasonably wealthyhouseholdcouldeasilyemployseveralslavesjust for domesticandpersonal servicesalone,withoutagriculturaltasks--notonly aspersonalattendants of various kinds, or for ordinary maintenance,cleaning, the preparationof food, or tending and teachingthe children, but also in various householdcrafts such as weaving cloth and makingclothes,makingsoap,etc. There is evidencewhich suggests that a householdnumbering15 slaves--apparentlypersonalattendantsfor the various membersof the household,rather than "productive"labourers--wasconsidered normal for a wealthy, and not necessarilythe wealthiest,Greek. Such numbers appear,for example, in the last wills and testamentsreportedby DiogenesLaertius for the philosophers,Aristotle and Lykon (Diog. Laert. V 11-16 and 69-74). While thesereportsmay not be authentic,they do at leastsuggestwhat a Greek might regard as plausible.Plato, a moderatelywealthy bachelorwith what was probablya smallhousehold,is reportedto havefreedoneslaveandleft four others (Diog. Laert. III 41-43). A small proportionof countryhouseholdscould thus easily exhaustthe whole supplyof rural slaves.(It shouldbe addedthat noneof these calculations take into account the fact that the total number of slaves would

have includedpeopleof all agesand conditions,many of whom would not have been fit for heavy physicallabour.)

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

41

In 323, whenaccordingto Gomme-Hopperthemeticpopulationwassubstantially larger than in 431 while the citizen body was smallerand slavessomewhatless numerous,andwhentheproportionof city-dwellershadrisenperhapsto three-quarters of the total population,the situationwould hardlyhavebeenmore favourable for agriculturalslavery-•especiallyif we take Lauffer's figure for mine slaves duringthe revivalof theLaureionminesin the late4th century.Evenif we assume that, despitethe substantialincreasein the urban population,the proportionof slavesin the countrysideremainedthe same, once the 30,000 mine slavesare subtracted,as well as the slavepopulationof Athensand environs,we mightbe left with as few as 5-6,000 slaves for the rest of Attica. Needlessto say, if Gomme-Hopper'slarge figuresfor the total slave populationare rejectedas too high--if, for example,we accepta 60-80,000 maximumin peak periods(see, e.g., M.I. Finley,Economyandsocietyin ancientGreece(1981) 102)•it becomes even more difficult to find enoughslavesto producea substantialagricultural labour-force. II

The textual evidencemost commonlycited to demonstrateeither that slaveswere used in agricultureor, more generally, that slave-ownershipwas widespread throughoutAtheniansociety,extendingfar down the socialscale,is fairly sparse and can be canvassedrather briefly. Apart from Xenophon'sOeconomicus,the followingpassages are oftenmentioned:on agriculturalslavery,variouspassages from Aristophanes' Plutus,especially26-29 and 1105;hisPeace1138-9, 1146-8 (Ste. Croix adds Plutus 510-21 and Ecclesiazusae 651); Ps.-Demosthenes XLVII

52-3 andLIII 6 and Dem. LV 31-2, 35; LysiasVII 16-17, 43, to whichJameson addsVII 11; on widespreadslaveryin general,LysiasV 5 and XXIV 6. Let us look first at Aristophanes.It hardlyneedsto be saidthat greatcautionis requiredin usinghim as a witnessto historicalreality, sincecomic distortionand exaggerationare his stockin trade.A writer who canturn Socratesinto the leading sophist,or a man of substancelike the democraticleader, Cleon, into a simple tanner or even a slave, must be read with a very critical eye. It is importantto note, for example,that one of Aristophanes'principalliterarydevicesis to replace thetragicheroof Greekdramawith oftenvulgarcommonfolk, especiallypeasants; and althoughmuch can no doubt be gleanedfrom his comediesabout Athenian socialvaluesand practices,he doesnot seemto be particularlyscrupulousabout portrayinghis demoticheroesin realisticterms. When a simplepeasantbecomes the comic Athenian Everyman, he may also acquiretraits characteristicof the communityhe representsbut not necessarilyspecificor appropriateto his class; and slaveswere certainlyan essentialfact of Athenianlife, even if not the life of a poorAttic peasant.The possibilityshouldalsobe considered that, if Aristophanes waswriting from the standpointof a fairly wealthycitizen, he wouldbe evenmore likely to take slave-ownership for grantedas a basicconditionof life. (See K.J. Dover, Greekpopular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle(1974) 35 if. for a discussionof Aristophanes'"upperclassstandpoint".The book is full of useful insightson tragedy,comedy,andoratoryashistoricalevidence.)Thus, evenif we

42

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

discount thefactthattheslaveis a stock-character in Atticcomedy,it is difficult to knowwhatto makeof Chremylus in thePlutus,an apparently modestfarmer whoseems to haveseveralslaves(26, 29, 1105).Thesamequestions wouldapply to Trygaeus in the Peace.

Two otherpassages from Aristophanes' plays,citedby Ste. Croix in supportof his argument,raisemorequestionsthanthey answer.In Plutus507-21, a dialogue occursbetweenChremylusand Poverty. The farmer suggeststhat Plutusshould eliminatepovertyby distributingwealthmoreequally.Povertyrepliesthatif wealth were more equallydistributedand everyonecould afford a life of leisure,no one would work. Who would practisethe variouscraftsand tradesor ploughthe soil? Chremylus'answeris that slaveswould do the work; and in reply to Poverty's questionaboutwheretheseslaveswould be obtained,the farmer saysthey would be bought. Povertyexpressesdoubt that any merchantwould traffic in slavesif he could have money without engagingin such business,and concludesthat Chremylus'life would be harderthan it is now. Not only would he haveto labour himselfbut he would be unableto obtainthe productsof other men's craftssince povertywould no longercompelcraftsmento work. The contrastsuggested here betweenthe real world, where peasantsand craftsmentoil, and the ideal, where slaveswould do their work, neednot imply that the toiling peasantor craftsman in reality had no slave to work by his side;but it hardly servesto prove that in the real Attic world peasantsnormallyemployedslaves. The passagefrom Eccles. (651) cited by Ste. Croix inspireseven more doubts abouttheextentof slave-ownership amongsmallfarmers.Here, Praxagoraproposes a utopiain which propertywould be held in commonand farm work would be done by slaves.Again, this is a fictional situationwhich is explicitly contrasted to the reality in which one man has vast acreswhile anotherhas too little land even to be buried in, and one man has many slaveswhile anotherhas not a single one (592-3). The mostthatcan be saidaboutsuchtextsis that they indicatethat slaverywas taken for grantedand peoplegenerallyaspiredto own slaves;but this is quite differentfrom demonstrating thatall, most,or evenmanyAtheniansownedthem-any morethanthe aspirationto be rich socharacteristic of Americancultureproves thatmostAmericansarewealthy.The utopianvisionswhichAristophanes attributes to ChremylusandPraxagoraseem,on the contrary,to meanthatwhat wasa reality for the prosperous landownerwas merelya dreamfor the ordinarypeasant. It maybesignificantthatthemodestbutslave-owning peasantappears in Athenian literaturelargely as a comicturn. At any rate, thereis little textualevidenceapart from Aristophanesto indicatethe widespreaduse of slavesin agriculture.The passagesfrom Demosthenesand/or Ps.-Dem., cited by both Jamesonand Ste. Croix, are ratherlimited in their application.Ps.-Dem. XLVII 52-3 refersto a farm--the speaker'shomeestate--onwhichthereare householdservants(oiketai). We are not told that theseservantswork in the fields; and in any case, their master, a trierarch,is clearlyamongthe wealthierlandowners of Attica. So all thispassage tells us is that a wealthyAthenianlandownerhad householdslaveson his home estate, where he would have a substantial household to maintain and where he

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

43

couldpersonally supervise hisslaves. Thisissomething thatnoonewouldquestion, noteven an historian(like A.H.M. Jones)inclinedto the mostconservativeestimates of the number and distribution of slaves in classical Athens. Such a text tells us

nothingaboutthe useof slaveson lesswealthyfarms,or aboutslaveson farms ownedby wealthierlandlordsapartfrom their homeestates,or indeedaboutthe useof slavesin agricultural labourin general. Ps.-Dem. LII! 6 mentionsthreehouseholdslaves--againoiketai--who haverun away from a farm. Again it is apparentlythe homefarm of the citizenin question, and againwe are told nothingaboutwhat the servantsdo. (In anotherpassage(21) reference is made to two other slaves who sometimes hire themselves out as farm

labourersfor wages,especiallyfor harvesting.)The identityof theirmaster,Nikostratos,is not certain;but his accuser,his neighhourand formerly intimatefriend, Apollodoros,is himselfvery wealthy,a trierarchand sonof Pasion,the ex-slave bankerwho was reputedto be the richestman in Athens.The intimateassociation betweenNikostratosand Apollodorosmay indicatethat the former too was a wealthyman(at leastbeforehis allegedmmisfortunes),andotherevidencesuggests that he was. The text refers to his brother Arethousios, and Davies in Athenian propertiedfamilies (481 n. 1) concludesthat the latter is the ArethousiosAristole6

P616xwho boughta part shareof the leaseof the Piraeustheatre.This passage, then, tells us nothingmore than doesthe first aboutthe extentof agricultural slavery in classical Athens.

To theseexamplesof slaveson farms, Jamesonaddsthree passages,all from the samespeechby Lysias:VII 11, 16-17, 43. The slavesin thiscaseagainbelong to a rich man, and again the natureof their servicesis unclear. 16-17 and 43, which do refer to slaves,do not specifytheir duties;while 11, which refersto cultivatorsor peopleengagedin agriculturalwork, saysnothingaboutslavesat all. The ergazornenoi of this passageare peopleto whom the land hasbeenleased in the past;and the ergazomenos one or two sentences later could be either the landownerhimself--sincehe speaksof farmingthe landhimself(gerrgr) afterthe previoustenants(or sharecroppers?)•or anyoneemployedby him, notnecessarily a slave.

Dem. LV 31-2 is the only passageamongthosecited from the Oratorswhich may concerna farmer of modestmeanswith a slavewho seemsto performsuch outdoortasksas the buildingof walls on his master'sfarm. The ownerspeaksof himselfin passingas a man of small property(35); but nothingis known about him, not even his name. In particular, we do not know how small his "small property"was; and it mustbe notedthat he is the defendantin the caseand subject to a penalty, so that it is in his interestto downplayhis wealth. It shouldbe said, too, that all evidenceconcerningthe conditionsof "rich" and "poor"Athenians--includingtheir possession of slaves--mustbe considered critically in the light of the misleadingways in which Atheniansthemselvesoften spokeof poverty and wealth. As Davies has pointedout (Athenianpropertied familiesxxi n. 2), theantithesis pengs/plousios wasoftenlittlemorethana rhetorical device.For example,at leastfor rhetoricalpurposes anyonewhowasnotrich--indeed even very rich--might be treatedas pendsor aporos. Thus, Dem. XVIII

44

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

102-108, defendinghis TrierarchicalLaw, refersonly to the richest300 citizens asplousioi--thatis, only thoseat the top of the trierarchicregister--whilethe rest of the 1200 richest citizens are called men of moderate or small means and even

pendtesor aporoi (102, 108; cf. Davies xxi n. 5). Perhapswe shouldhavesecond thoughts,then, whenAristophanes'farmer, Chremylus,describeshimselfaspenis or whenDemosthenes' client callshimselfa man of smallproperty. Other commentatorstoo have stressedthe fact that penia did not for the Greeks meanpovertyas we understandit. (See, for example,A.R. Hands,Charitiesand social aid in Greece and Rome (1968) 62 if.; and W. den Boer, Private moralit3' in Greece and Rome: Somehistoricalaspects(1979) 151 if.) Not only waspenia distinguishedfrom indigence,ptOcheia,but it often appliedto all thosewho were unableto live the life of a gentleman,that is, a leisuredand independentlife free of the necessityto work. The penateswould thereforeincludea greatmany prosperousfarmersand ownersof businesses who were obligedto take an active hand in the work of their enterprises,howevermany peoplethey may have employed. By this standard,the vast majority of the Atheniancitizenry would be penates, since only the largestpropertiescould ensurethe completelyleisuredlife of a passiverentier whose "work"--if any--was purely supervisory,like that of the great landed gentleman.Sometimesthe word could be used in a political sense, so that pendtescould be synonymouswith the d•;mos,as againstthe exclusive oligoi (den Boer 152). Demosthenes'very broaduseof the term in XVIII 102-108 may not be typical--unlesswe assumethat only the 300 wealthiestcitizensof Athenscould live the life of a true gentleman;but there can be little doubtthat "poverty"asconceivedby the Greekscouldcovera very wide spectrumof material conditions.

Rhetoricaldistortionsmay alsoaffectanotherscrapof evidencesometimescited as proof that ownershipof slaveswas all but universalin Athens. In a legal case wherethe testimonyof slavesis at issue,the speakerremarksthat the matteris of commonconcernbecausethosedirectlyinvolvedin thecasearenot alonein owning slaves."The rest", or "everyoneelse" (as the translationusuallygoes),hasslaves (Lysias V 5). Apart from the sweepingvaguenessand ambiguityof the phrase &•.•.6txcel'[o•; 6t•.•.ot•&motv, one or two other points must be noted about this passage.The objectof this statement,as A.H.M. Jonesremindsus, is to convince the jury that it is a matter of public concernnot to encourageslavesto inform againsttheir masters(Atheniandemocracy12); so this may be anothertypicalcase of rhetoricallicence. We cannotbe sure preciselyhow great an exaggerationit would have beento say that everyonein Athensownedslaves,but that it would have beena greatexaggerationwe can be reasonablycertain. It is also worth consideringa point madeby K.J. Dover in his assessment of Athenian oratorsas witnessesto popular values in general. Their evidence,he suggests, mustbe criticallyevaluatedin light of certaincharacteristics of thejuries they were addressing.In particular,he concludesthat "eitherthe majorityof the jurors addressedby the fourth-centuryoratorswere fairly prosperous--notrich, for it waspossibleto exploittheir dislikeof the really rich...; or, if theydid not belongto the prosperous class,they liked to be treatedas if they did, and were

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

45

willing, at least while performingthe role of jurors, to adoptthe valuesof that class"(Greek popular morali(y 34). Dover leanstoward the view that the first of thesepossibilitiesis the more likely, that juries were increasinglymannedby prosperouscitizens, and that, especiallygiven the ratesof pay for jury duty, the poorbecamelessandlessinclinedto serveasthecenturyprogressed. It is possible, then, that Lysias' sweepinggeneralizationaboutthe universalityof slavery(if, in fact, this is what the phrasein questionmeans)reflectsthe disproportionate prosperityof hislisteners,or at leasttheirinclinationto betreatedasmenof substance. One final, andespeciallyproblematic,bit of evidencedeserves mention.Lysias XXIV is sometimescitedasif it demonstrated that"an Athenianhadto be decidedly poor not to have a slave" (Jameson122). See also Thomas Wiedemann, Greek and Romanslavery(1981) 94; and M.I. Finley, Economyand socie• in ancient Greece(1981) 97-8. Althoughthe speechsaysnothingaboutagriculturalslavery, it is worth examiningbecauseit is often cited as evidencethat slave-ownership was virtually universalin Athens, and, at least in somecases(e.g., Jameson),as if this applied to poor farmers as well as craftsmen.In this speech,a nameless invalid defendshimselfagainsta chargethat he is not entitledto a pensionfor the disabled. He remarksthat he has no children as yet (oOxto)to take care of him, nor has he yet acquireda slave to take over his work (6). This text, if it provides positiveevidenceof anything,testifiesonly to theexistenceof a tradesmanwithout a slave to help in his work, but it could conceivablybe used as evidenceof widespreadslaveryif we stressthe oiSmo,suggesting that a poor tradesmancould expectsomeday to own a slave. There are, however, a great many problemsin this speech, not the least of which is a general lack of verisimilitude. Let us, nevertheless,try to take it seriouslyfor a moment. First, the text tells us little abouthow many citizensthere are like this slaveless tradesman,or how far up the social scale his slavelessconditiongoes. This is particularlyso becausethe degreeof his own poverty is open to question.He suggeststhat his accuserhas describedhim as a man of wealth (5, 9), using the word euporia, which is usuallyreservedfor the very wealthiest(Davies, Athenian propertiedfamilies xxi). While this is without doubta grossrhetoricalexaggeration, it seemsunlikely that anyonewould dareto level sucha publicchargeagainsthim if his own descriptionof his poverty were not equally exaggerated.(Cf. Davies xxi n. 4. Davies

also notes the fact that this man could even afford the services

of Lysias, whoseclients were generallywealthy.) One other scrapof evidence may be significantin determiningthis citizen's status.He remarks(25) that during the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, he went into voluntaryexile even thoughhe was free to live without fear as a citizen with the Thirty. If he was free to live with the Thirty as a citizen, does this mean that he had been selected as one of the

3000, the minority who were namedby the Thirty as privilegedcitizenswhile so many otherswere expelled from the city? And doesthis then mean that he was a man of sufficientsubstanceto be regardedas a worthy and reliable citizen of the oligarchy?Even if somepoormenmay havestayedbehind(someonepresumably had to provide goodsand services),they would not have been amongthe 3000 with citizen rights.

46

ELLEN

MEIKSINS

WOOD

The speechis fiddled with suchanomalies,and they lend supportto the view that the text is not authentic.It has been argued, on the groundsof its poor argumentation andcompletelackof verisimilitude,thatthistextrepresents a school exercise--probably by a notverybrightstudentof Lysias(LouisRoussel,(Pseudo) Lysias(L'lnvalide) (1966)). Rousselgoesthroughthe speechparagraphby paragraph,identifyingits many absurdities.He showsthat it combinespoor imitations of Lysias'otherspeeches with simplenonsense. For example,the openinglines echothoseof LysiasXVI, whereMantitheusexpresses hisgratitudeto hisaccusers for givinghim an opportunity to renderan accountof his life. A rhetoricaldevice whichsoundsimpressive in the mouthof a rich andprominentyoungmanundergoingpublic scrutinybeforetakingoffice becomesa little absurdin the mouthof a poor and obscureinvalid, arguesRousssel.The statementaboutthe invalid's self-exileduringthe regimeof the Thirty is simplya repetitionof a themecommon to severalof Lysias' speeches (includingthe defenceof Mantitheus).Paragraphs 5-6, in whichthe criticalpassage aboutslaveryoccurs,Rousselcalls"particularly calamitous"(10), pointingto the absurdityof the invalid's statementthat as yet he has no children to take care of him. The ofixto•which

for Jameson is so

suggestive in referenceto slavery,indicatingthat sucha poor tradesmancould expectto own a slave•becomesa little ludicrousin the caseof his expectation of children,givenhis repeatedreferencesto hisadvancedageandgeneralinfirmity and the fact that, as Rousselargues,he would have to wait aboutseventeenyears for the projectedchild to assumethe desiredrole. Furthermore,if, like Jameson,and despitethe decadesinterveningbetween Lysias and Aristotle, we take Aristotle's Constitutionof Athens as our evidence concerningthe conditionsof eligibility for sucha pension,our confusionabout the invalid'scircumstances simplygrows.Aristotlewrites:

ß . . thereis a law whichordersthatthosewhosepropertyis lessthanthree minae and who are so completelydisabledthat they cannotdo any work shall, after having beenexaminedby the Council, receivetwo obolsdaily for their supportfrom the publicfunds(49.4, transl.Von Fritz). We may leave aside the discrepancybetweenAristotle's two obols and the one obol of the speech(I 3, 26)---which may indicatethat the pensionwas raisedlater in the 4th century, or that the speechwriterwas mistaken, or that Aristotle was wrong (thoughotherreferencesto a two-obolpensionexist: seeP.J. Rhodes,A commentaryon theAristotelianAthenaionPoliteia(1981) 570); but if we assume, as Jamesonseemsto do, that the conditionsof eligibility were the samein Lysias' time, what are we to make of the conditionthat recipientsmust be completely unable to do any work? This is clearly not true of our invalid, accordingto his owntestimony,andwasevenlesssowhenhe firstreceivedthepensionasa young man (7-8).

In any case,thereare a greatmanyanomalies,bothstylisticand substantive, in this problematictext. Insteadof trying to makeconvolutedsenseout of all these discrepancies, it wouldbe easierto acceptthatthespeechis inauthentic (notsimply

AGRICULTURAL

SLAVERY

47

in the attributionof authorshipbut in its substance),as Rousseland othershave done,or elseto readit asan elaborate joke by Lysiashimself.Thispossibility has also beensuggested. (See M.D. Reeve'sreview of Roussel'spamphlet,CR 18 (1968) 235-6, for a brief summaryof variousviewson this speech.) It would not, moreover,be very convincingto arguethat, authenticor not, the

text at leastindicateswhatAthenians regardedas possibleandplausible.There are simplytoo many anomaliesand contradictions in the invalid'scircumstances

to provideusefulclues.In the end, we do not reallyknow what socialtype is beingdescribed here,letalonewhether ornotthisparticular citizenactuallyexisted. In any case,again,noneof thishasmuchto do with agricultural slavery.

THE

VIA

EGNATIA

IN WESTERN

MACEDONIA

Part II: The Via Egnatia from Mutatio Ad Duodecimum to Civitas

Edessa*

Vodena, the predecessorof the modem name Edessa,was derived from the Vodasor 'Water' river, which is remarkablefor its strongflow throughout the year. The areasabove Edessa,which culminate to the west in the watershedwith Lake Amissa(previouslyOstrovo),andthosebelow Edessa consistof four tablelands,betweenwhich thereare one gradualand two steepfalls. The first or highesttablelandaroundProphetesElias drawsits water from strongsprings(see Map 1), and their outflowscausepart of the tablelandto be marshy. The descentfrom this tablelandto the next tableland--a drop of some 70m--is gradual. There the Vodas rises; it flows from its sourcesat the westernend to the village of Agras at the easternend of the tableland. Below Agras (previously Vladovon) there usedto be a famouscascade.Thereis a dropof 175mto thenexttableland, which carries the modem town of Edessaand ends in sheerprecipices. The oldest quarter, close to the edge of the precipices,lies within the acropolisof ancientEdessa.The Vodas falls in a cascadeto the lowest tableland,some70m below, which is known as Longos. Conspicuouson it is a monastery,Aghia Trias. Its surfaceis coveredby gardensandgroves, exceptwhere the excavationsof Ph. Petsasand A. Vavritsashaverevealed the town of ancient Edessa, the 'civitas Edessa' of the Roman Itineraries.

The acropoliswas linkedto the ancienttown by a steepandpartlyrock-cut path which was never possiblefor a wheeledvehicle. Thus it is clear that the Via Egnatia came to the lower town, arriving probablyat the main gate. This gatewas at its lower (i.e., eastern)side, if we mayjudge from the presentstateof the excavations. The watersof the Vodasare divided in Longosinto rivulets which irrigate the gardens. The lastthirty yearshave seengreatchangesin the valley of the Vodas. The secondtablelandhas been flooded. The beauty of the region below Agrashasbeenspoiledby the installationof a hydroelectricpower-station and a large cementworks. Water derivedfrom Lake Amissa is carried down the southernsideof the valley in hugepipes(they reappearin Longos

48

i

,

Continuedon Map I

'•C•,•

,.•.

• •-•.: •.• •

...•

.-......%.'. • .

.-..•.' :.•.•

.- •./••.

•"-,. . •? ß

•

•',

•.-•.. •:.-.

.,•,-:...•..•.L. , •: %•.

'-•: .... ?/• ; ;

:•-.- .• .•..

ß

.•

...•:-.•'•.• •:•...• • .. • .. •,- .. • .....

•.•.•..•-•:..:

•y ;.• •.....•:... • •..•.,. •.:..• •.

..

••. •

:

:. /•---..•.•.,' • •'

•.

. •, ß

.... •y:.• '•.-.. • •

•.;...

, .,- •

..... ß

•

•.•'

.':

•

•

•

. L

•

•.

• •.,... • •? .• , •¾.:: ".•..,-•. •.• •.• •. • •- .:• ....... • -.'..

,.•

......

• •

.-•.;.•

....• •..•.

• ..

.... -.•.• . .•. -.: •-.-: , .%.

•...?:•'-% ....

•.•.:.•...•

.•.• •

•"'•:•':'

.. •

THE

VIA

EGNATIA

49

II

just north of the ancientcity-wall). The cascadebelow Agras is now quite small, and a new lake has been createdon the bottom of the valley-bed just above the modem town of Edessa. These changeshave made the tracingof theVia Egnatiamoredifficult. We shallnotesomeof thechanges as we travel down from the head of the passtowardsancientEdessa. That the 'Mutatio

Ad Duodecimum'

was twelve

Roman

miles from

'civitas Edessa' is statedin the BordeauxItinerary and is clear also from

themeaning of thewords'theChanging-Station At theTwelfthMile'• Twelve Roman miles (17.7km) from the ancientcity at Longosbringsus to the vicinity of the head of the passwhich overlooksLake Amissa, and it is at the headof the passthat one would expectthat horsesor oxen were changedafter making the long haul up from Edessa.Our investigationof this area led us to a small settlement

with remains

of the Hellenistic

and

Romanperiods.It liesbetweena smallwatercourse issuingfromtheperennial springZoodochosPege ('S' on Map 1) and a high limestoneridge called Gradista. We saw the trace of a major road, long sinceout of use, which ran from the settlementto the headof the pass.We have identified this sitewith Ad Duodecimumin Part I of this article (AJAH 7 (1982) 139 f.). Moving eastwardfrom thissite,we foundsomelargeblocksof limestone, which had evidentlysupportedan ancientroad below the southernend of Gradista.

We followed

the line of this road which runs between the foot

of thehill andtherailway trackfor almosta kilometre.Thentheexcavations which were madeto take the railway throughthe narrowswhich are named after the MoharremKhan havedestroyedany tracestheremay havebeen of an ancientroad. But beyondthe narrowsthe line of a road appears again.It leadsto a strongspringof drinkingwater, andthensoonafterwards to a streambed,which was dry in September1983. At thispointwe faceda choice.Eitherwe shouldfollow the line of the modem motor-roadthroughthe narrow 'Stena Edesses'--a passsimilar to the Kirli Dirven nearPetreswhich the Via Egnatiadid use--and thenalong the southernsideof the tablelandto the outskirtsof Agrasvillage (Vladovon). (We had been severaltimes along this route, thoughalwaysby car; and in H, Mac. I 50 it had been shownon Map 7 as marking the line of the Via Egnatia.) Or we shouldturn left and take a track to the vicinity of Vryta (Gougovon)and enter the higherpart of the Vodas basin. This we decided to do.

The streambedat which we turnedleft led througha deepeningravine to the plain of the Vodasnear Vryta. We crossedthe streambedand took a higherroad and then descendedto Vryta. From the road we saw a lower road, well-marked and with a better gradient, which followed the left

5O

HAMMOND

AND HATZOPOULOS

shoulderof the ravine, passeda sourceof water, andcamedown into the plain withouthavingto crossthe streambed.If the Via Egnatiacamethis way, it would have taken the lower road. Below Agras, as we shallseeshortly,the Via Egnatiaran on the north side of the Vodas river. Where then did it crossthe river? It might have done so either high up on its coursewhere the river was smaller,or near Agrasrailway station,wherea bridgewas shownon the FrenchStaff map of 1939. We have to considerthe natureof the Vodas basinaboveAgras before we attemptan answer. At the presenttime the Vodas is fed constantlyby three strongheadsprings, of which two are at the westernend of the plain and one is southeastof Vryta. The local belief is probablycorrect,that theseheadspringsare fed by water from Lake Arnissa,which passesunderground

through channels in thelimestone (katavothrai). 2 Theriveris fedalsoby tributaries in times of rain, and it is these tributaries which cause flash

floods.The presentstateof the plain is due to the hydroelectricscheme which has flooded much of its surface, and the level of water in the lake

is controlledby sluice-gates nearAgras.On 17 September1983we walked alongthe causewaywhichcarriesthe railway-line,andfoundthatit passed throughopenwaterand swamp;thereweretwo bridges,insteadof the one on the Frenchmap of 1939, and from the bridgeswe saw a wide lake of openwater runningfar to the west. In the pastit was different.The map of 1939 showsthe upperpart of theplain asmainlydry groundandonly two smallareasof standingwater (see Map 1). In 1806 when W.M. Leake was travellingin November, normally a wet month, he describedthe view westwardsfrom Agras as follows:'Above thecataractstandsthe little villageof Vladova, sonamed from the fall, at the entranceof a greenvalley which terminatesat the end of two miles in a small lake from which the river issues. The vale is about

half a mile in width, andis borderedby thewoodysummitsof two parallel ridgeswhich meet at a passat the fartherend of the lake; throughthe

opening appears thegreatsnowy peaknorthward ofKastoria calledVitzi.,3 The distances whichhe gaveandthedescription, vaguethoughit is, suggest thatthe 'smalllake' wasthatof the 1939map,closeto thecauseway,and that beyondit he turnedsouthto enterthe so-called'StenaEdesses'(by hill 561). He did not mentionany difficulty in crossingthe Vodas above the 'small lake'.

If conditionsin antiquityweresimilarto thosein Leake'stime, thereis muchin favourof theroutewhichran westof Vryta andreachedtheVodas river beforeit wasjoinedby thewatersof theravineandof theheadspring by Vryta. Crossingthe river, one wouldproceedvia a slightelevationon

THE

VIA

EGNATIA

II

51

which the church of Panaghiastandsabove the remainsof a Byzantine churchanda Romanbuilding.We sawsomeancientarchitectural fragments there; and a broken relief in the churchof Vryta may have come from there. From this elevation we proceededon level dry groundto Agras railway station.We have shownthis routeon our Map 1, as well as the routethroughStenaEdesses,which had to crossthe Vodasriver near the railwaystation,whereit wasmuchlarger,in the wintermonthsespecially. The choice betweenthe two routesmay be decidedby chancefinds or excavation

in the future.

From Agras railway station(see Map 2) we walked on what is called locally 'the old Turkish road' (in contrastto the later Turkish road on the southside of the valley). It usedto servefor wagons,but nowadaysit is only for pack animals. We passedthroughthe northernfringe of Agras

village '• andbeganthesteeper partof thedescent. Herethewell-marked roadmakestwo or threesharpU-bendsin succession, whichhadthe effect of providinga steadygradient,suitablefor wheeledvehiclesbut unnecessary for pack animals.The sidesof the road throughthis bend were cut

intherock.5Thesideswereinplaces eightfeethigh.Theroadway between them was some four metreswide, and it includeda cut drainage-channel on one side. There were similar but lessstrikingrock-cutsidesto the road lower down. We show examplesof the rock-cut sidesin Plates 1 and 2. Thesepartsof the roadwere certainlypre-Turkish,in our opinion.W.M. Leake was of the same mind when he saw this or a nearbystretchwith rock-cutsides:'this deeppassage',he wrote, 'cut throughthe rocksfor a

road.... isprobably a workoftheancient Macedonians. ,6Delacoulonche saw the same stretch as we did, and commented: 'le roc a •t• taill• de

mani•reh laisserauxcharsun espace suffisant. '7 Although Leakeand Delacoulonchedid not make the connection,this is certainlythe route of the Via Egnatia. Beyondthis part of the road we came to a streambed,descendingfrom our left. It was dry on 19 September1983, but it would probablyhave neededa bridgein winter. After a slightrisewe descendedgradually--past the cement works--to

the northwest

comer of the tableland

which carries

the modem city of Edessa.'The old Turkish road' keepsto the northern side of the valley, in order to avoid the cliffs aboveLongos. It joins the level of the railway line nearEdessarailway station,andthencurvesround just north of the north wall of ancientEdessa(near the greatpipe) to the vicinity of Aghia Trias. On this stretchsomeof the old Turkishpavingis in place. An ancienttraveller on this route would then have turnedsouthwards round the angle of the ancient enceinteand made for the main gatewayof the city. Our suggestionthat the old Turkish road was on the

52

HAMMOND

AND

HATZOPOULOS

line of the Via Egnatia is supportedby the discoveryof three Roman

milestones.8 Thefirsttwo,foundrespectively attheoldTurkishcemetery and the Gymnasium,althoughnot in situ, probablybelongto the section of the Via Egnatiawhich leadsfrom Edessato Ad Duodecimum.The third one, seennear Aghia Trias, was apparentlyin situ; it must have been the last milestone before the junction with the road coming from the main (eastern)gateway of the city. Not far from it remainsof a Roman bath were found in 1981. Being situatedsome200m east of the circuit-wall, the bath may have been built for the convenienceof travellerson the Via Egnatia. The generalopinionhitherto,particularlyin Edessatown, hasbeenthat the Via Egnatia on leaving Longosascendedon the southside of Edessa and then followed the southside of the valley, as the later Turkish road did and as the motor-roaddoestoday. The chief objectionto this routeis the following. The ascentfrom Longoson that southside is steeperthan on the northside(that is why therailway followsthe northside). Moreover, if one has ascended on the south side, one is committed to that side for

the next stretch.Thus the later Turkishroad(remarkablefor its fine bridge) climbed above modem Edessaalong the slopesof the southside of the valley, as on the map of 1902. It was describedby K. Oestreichas staying

at a heightof some60mabovethevalleyfloorof theVodasriver.9 The Via Egnatiaon our interpretationwas on that valley floor. There was no need for draught-animalsto pull their wagonsto an additionalheightof some 60m.

Clare College, Cambridge

N.G.L.

National

M.B. Hatzopoulos

Hellenic

Research Foundation

Hammond

Athens

NOTES

* In thisjoint article 'we' is usedwhenone or otheror bothof us havevisited a site. The opinionsare shared.This article developsand revisessomeof the discussionin Part ! (especiallyAJAH 7 (1982) 139 f.), which it is intendedto supersede. Reference to theOrientation Map in AJAH7 (1982) 129maybehelpful to the reader.

1. One may compare'Mutatio Ad Decimum'and the entry 'X m.p.' on the stretch between Pella and Thessalonica.

2. A. Struck, 'Die makedonischen Seen', Globus83 (1903) 219; K. Oestreich,

'Beitr•igezur Geomorphologie von Makedonien',Abhandlungen d. k.k. geographischenGesellschaft in Wien4 (1902) 153;andE. Fels, 'Die Westmakedonischen Seen in Griechenland',Die Erde 6 (1954). The differencein heightsabove sea

THE

VIA

EGNATIA

II

53

level of Lake Arnissaand the headsprings was some50m in 1936. 3. Travels in Northern Greece (1835) III 274. He clearly did not go to the headsprings of the Vodas;for he believedthat the Vodasrose 'in Sarighioliand Vitzi' (p. 275). 4. M. Delacoulonche,M•moire sur le berceaude la puissancemacddonienne desbordsde l'Haliacmon • ceuxde l'Axius (1858) 233 no. 15, saw an inscription 'a Wladowa, sur les bordsde la riviere de Voddna'. It has disappearedsincethen. The Romanremainsat his site 'Phylokastron'on the southsideof the river have beenconfirmedby A. Stougianakis, Tov@to•tx6• •Oi5•1¾6 • Nop,o• H•kk•l• (1973) 98. Ancientcoinshavebeenfoundin tombswithintheareaof thevillageAgras. 5. The rock is soil fossilisedby the limey water of the Vodasriver. The path fromLongosto theancientacropoliswascutin placesthroughrockof thesamekind. 6. Leake, op. cit. 276, saw it 'in descendingthe hill of the cascade'(as we did); but he saw it 'on the right bank' of the river. He probablymade a slip of right for left. Delacoulonchesawit on 'la rive gauchedu torrent'.The photographs here reproducedwere takenby M.B. Hatzopoulos. 7. Delacoulonche

22.

8. Now in the Edessa Museum, no. 228.

9. For detailssee L. Gounaropoulou-M.B.Hatzopoulos,Les milliaires de la Voie Egnatienneentre Hdraclde desLvncesteset Thessalonique(forthcoming).

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

The Evidence

IN ROME

of Plautus

An unclearpointin Romanlaw is at whatperiodRomanwomenbeganto

initiatedivorces. • All recorded Romandivorces priorto thefirstcentury BCclearly show husbandsputting aside wives, and Plutarchwrites that

underRomulus'regulations onlymencoulddivorce. 2WeknowfromGaius that in the secondcenturyADa wife in a cummanuunionwaspermitted to initiate a divorce;presumablythis right had earlier been grantedto womenin thelessrestrictivesinemanurelationship, butwhenthischange

occurred is obscure.3 It is commonly stated,however,thatRomanwomen began to initiate divorcesaround 200 BCand the evidencecited is from

the comediesof Plautus.In the mostcomprehensive andinfluentialrecent discussion of the issueA. Watsonconcluded,somewhattentatively,that in Plautus' time: (1) women in cum manu unionscould not divorce; (2)

womenin sinemanumarriages butwhowereunderpatriapotestas required paternalpermissionto divorce;(3) womenin sine manumarriageswho were sui iuris hadthe ability to divorcewithoutreferenceto a male. Others

have held that a filiafamilias in a sine manu marriagedid not require paternalconsent. 4 It will be arguedherethatthereis novalidevidence to showthata Romanwife, whateverher status,couldindependently initiate a divorceduringtheperiodof themiddleRepublic.In SectionI thevarious Plautinepassages referringto wivesdivorcingwill be examinedandinterpreted;SectionII will treatin somedetailwhat is regardedas the crucial passage,Amph. 928.

Using Plautusas a sourcefor legal historyis a delicatebusiness.Care mustbe taken,for instance,to distinguish technicalfrom informalusages of wordsand phrases.In Menaechmi,after his outragedwife has thrown him out of the house, the husbandcomments,

male mi uxor sesefecissecenset,quomexclusitforas. (Men. 668) 54

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

55

That thesewordsindicatenothingmore thanan informalexpulsionis made clear when later we find the husbandhopingthat he will be able to return

homethatverynight(Men.965).5Phrases suchasexclusitforas, orextrudat aedibus,therefore, arenotby themselves evidence of divorce. 6 The greatdifficulty is decidingwhetherspecificpassages refer to Greek or Romanpractices.Clearly the audiencewas intendedsometimesto recognize the stageaction as depictingun-Romanpractices;so it will not do

to simplydeclarethat everythingin Plautusis Roman. 7 Over the past century philologistshave developed exacting proceduresto distinguish

between GreekandRomanpassages in Plautus, sbutthemethods usedby legal scholarshavenot alwaysbeensosophisticated. U.E. Paoli established the rule that legal situationsessentialto the play's action are generally

non-Roman andGreekin origin.9 Watsonsetout fourcriteria:(1) legal situationsessentialto the plot portrayGreek law, but thesemust be close enoughto Roman law to be immediatelycomprehensible to the Roman audience;(2) legal jokes and (3) elaboratelegal scenespoint to Roman law; (4) legal situationswhich are not jokes and which aid the plot in a

minorway may reflectGreekor Romanlaw.•øBut to hold, as Watson's firstcriteriondoes,thatonlyRomanlawsandcustomswerecomprehensible to the audienceis to underestimate Romanfamiliaritywith foreigncustoms and peoplesand to overlook the strongelementof comic exaggerationin Plautinecomedy(seethediscussionofMil. 1164- 67 and 1276-78 below). To say that legal situationsintegral to the plot are Greek is inaccurate, sinceit was Plautus' practiceto add, sometimes,a few words or lines of Romanlegalvocabularyto a legalcontextotherwiseGreek. Also, a Plautine passagewith parallelsin Attic law may sometimesreflectcommonGraecoRoman practice. When attemptingto identify Greek and Roman legal practicesin Plautus,eachpassagemustbe examinedseparately,andevery

criticaltoolmustbeused.• Because of thedearthandproblematic nature of the sources,later legal evidencemust be considered,but it cannot discreditwhat contemporarymaterial says about practicesin the early

second centuryBC.12 Five of Plautus' comediescontain referencesto wives divorcing, or threateningto divorce, their husbandsin one manneror another:Arnph. 928, Men. 719 if., 780 if., Merc. 784 if., 817 if., Mil. 1164 - 67, 1276 -78,

Stich.17, 48-57, 68 if., 126if. 13Examination of thesepassages will help to determinehow far Roman womenof this periodwere free to divorce. In Stichusa father tries to force his daughtersto divorceagainsttheir will. The phraseused,(fi'lias)abducerevolt, seemsto be a technicalterm

for theprocedure. •4AlthoughFredershausen, GattiandPaolihaveshown that in Attic law a fatherhad the fight to do this, whetheror not a Roman

56

MYLES

McDONNELL

fatherwhosedaughter wasunderhispotestas hadthe samerightis uncer-

tain.•5Paoliargued thatinStichus thefather's desire tohavehisdaughters remarry contradictsthe Roman ideal of the univira and therefore makes

the dramaticsituationun-Roman.But the univirawas only an ideal and many Roman widows of the Second Punic War would have remarried.

Besides,thereluctance of thedaughters in Stichusto remarryaccords with the Roman ideal. 16

Early in the play a daughterrefersto her father'spowerto end her marriagewith thesewords: verum postremoin patti' porestateest siturn. (Stich. 53)

The wordsare foundin a passagegenerallythoughtinterpolatedfor a later

production of the play.•7 While Plautusmighthavecarriedoveran unRomanlegalrightfrom hisGreeksource,it is lesslikely thatan interpolator

wouldusethetermpatrispotestas todescribe a powerunknown atRome.•a Also, we knowthata father'srightto forceafiliafamiliasto divorceagainst

her will wasabrogated by MarcusAurelius. 19If Romanfathershadthis right in the early Empire, it is reasonableto assumethat they possessed it in the middle Republic.The legal situationin Stichus,therefore,conforms

to bothAthenianandRomanpractice. no We may now turn to thosepassageswhich suggestthat Roman women requiredtheir fathers' permissionor assistanceto divorce. In Menaechmi the wife, after throwing her husbandout of the house (Men. 661-71), decidesto divorcehim (Men. 719-26) andimmediatelysendsfor herfather (Men. 734-38).

Watson commented that it is not stated that the father is

needed for the divorce and that after his arrival no mention of the divorce

is made. 2•Butthewife'ssummoning of herfatherfollowssocloselyon her decisionto divorce that it seemsperverseto deny a connection.In addition, when the father arrivesthe wife saysto him, proin tu me hinc abducas(782). Iffiliam abducereis indeedthe technicalterm for a father endinghis daughter'smarriage,thesewordscanbe takenasthe daughter's requestfor a divorce. Under Attic law a womanrequiredthe assistance of her lo,rios to effect

a divorce,sotheMenaechmi scene certainly fitsAthenian practice. 22Since the wife alsostateshergrievances againstherhusband,thewholesequence has been said to representAthenian but not Roman law, becauseit is allegedthat the latter requiredno groundsfor divorcewhile the former

did.2• But thecomplaints of thewife in Menaechmi areinformalandare made to a parasite(Men. 559-61), a husband(Men. 719 if.) and a father

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

57

(Men. 780 if.), not before a magistrate,as Athenian law demanded;in any casethe contentionthatAttic law requireda wife to justify herdivorce

is itselfdisputed. 24 The principalobjectionto a Roman milieu for the Menaechmidivorce sceneis basedon the widely held view that underclassicalRoman law a

filiafamiliasdid not requirepaternalconsent to divorce. 25Thereis no evidencethat this wastrue in Plautus'time,26but in addition,the casefor its being so in classicallaw is suspect.The only sourcewhich suggests that a filiafamilias had the right to divorceindependentlyis a constitution of ^D 534 (CJ 5.17.12, re-enactedthe followingyearasNov. 22.19) which abrogatedit. But thereis reasonto believethat the capacityof childrenin potestateto divorcewithout paternalconsenthad been recentlyacquired whenJustinianrestrictedit (seeAppendix)andthis sequencewould fit the

pattern of Romandivorcelegislation in thelatefifthcentury. 27Moreover, thereis evidenceto suggestthat underclassicallaw afiliafamilias was not free to divorce. A constitutionof ^D 240 clearly implies that a daughter

inpotestate required herfather'sassistance to divorce.28 Also,theincapacity of a filiafamilias to divorce independentlywould explain Plutarch's remarksabouta Romandaughterbeing especiallydependenton her father

andaboutherneedforagnatic protection fromherhusband. 29Consequently, there is no cause to doubt the evidence in Plautus which indicates that in

the secondcentury}•cafiliafamiliaswishingto divorcerequiredtheconsent and assistance of her father.

This conclusionis supportedby a referencein Mercator to a wife calling on her father to assistin a divorce. The passage'ssignificancehas been challenged,however,becauseof a questionaboutthe type of marriagein which the wife is involved. In Mercator the wife complains, em quoi te et tua quae tu habeascommendesviro. (Merc. 702)

Watsontook this as proof of a "mariusmarriage".He arguedthat sucha statementis appropriate onlyto a wife in a cummanurelationshipin which

all property belongs to thehusband. 3øSincethereis littledoubtthatin this period only the husbandcould initiate a divorce in a manusunion, there can be no questionof the wife calling on her father for assistancein a

divorce. 31But Merc. 702 will easilyadmita looserinterpretation than Watsonallowed and can, without difficulty, be appliedto a filiafamilias in a sine manu marriage.Somelines later the wife declares, non miror sei quid damni facis aut fiagiti

58

MYLES

McDONNELL

nec pol ego patiar seic me nuptamtam male measquein aedis seic scortaobductarier. (Merc. 784-86)

She is clearly contemplatinga divorceand in the very next line shesends for her father. As in the Menaechmi scene, the declaration of the intention

to divorceis too closeto the summoningof the fatherfor a connectionto be denied.32 As does the Menaechmidivorce scene, this situationfits Athenianpractice,but here againthereis no valid objectionto a Roman contextas well. Mercator 784 if. should,therefore,be acceptedas further evidencethat in Plautus'time a filiafamilias requiredher father'sconsent and assistanceto divorce. 33

There is another, crucial piece of evidencein Mercator concerning divorcesby Roman women. The slave woman, Syra, sympathizingwith the plight of her mistress,lamentsthe life of the marriedwoman: Ecastorlege dura vivont mulieres multoqueiniquioremiseraequam viri. nam si vir scortum duxit clam uxorem suam,

id si rescivit uxor, inpunestviro; uxor virum si clam domo egressaest foras, viro fit caussa,exigitur matrumonio. utinam lex esseteademquae uxori est viro; nam uxor contentaest quae bona est uno viro: qui minu' vir una uxore contentussiet? (Merc. 817-25)

Becauseof similaritiesto certainEuripideanpassages,theselines have been claimed as attisch and thereforereflective of Athenian law.34There

are, however,enoughdifferences betweenthisspeechandtheparallelsin Euripidesto allow for Plautineexpansion,in additionto whichthereare substantive reasonsfor positinga Romanratherthanan Attic legalprovenance.In Athenshusbands seemednotto haverequiredgroundsfor divorce, but there is evidence that Roman husbands who divorced without cause

sufferedfinancialpenalties.Besides,a good casehas been made for a Romanwife's absencefrom the home withouther husband'spermission

beinggrounds fordivorce. 35SinceSyra'smistress wasa partner in a sine manu marriage,the servant'scommentscannotbe restrictedto the disabilitiesof a wife in a manusrelationship, but mustbe a generalreference to Romanwives.One mightarguethatSyra'sspeechsomehowcontradicts the eventsof Menaechmi,where a wife in a sinemanumarriagethreatens

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

59

divorcecontingenton paternalconsent.But the refusalof the father in Menaechrnito agreeto a divorceandhis adviceto hisdaughterto overlook the extramarital affairs of her husbandshow that paternalconsentwas not

automatic. 36Syra'sspeechwould,therefore,be a fair description of the wife's situationin Menaechrnias well, and Syra's wish for the samelaw for husbands and wives would refer inter alia to the freedom to divorce

independently. That it wasfar easierfor Romanmento divorcetheirwives thanvice versais supported by the little informationwe haveaboutdivorce

in themiddleRepublic. 37 If Syra's speechat Merc. 817 if. is takenas evidenceof the general incapacityof Romanwomento divorceindependently, it impliesthat in Plautus'time a wife who was sui iuris requiredthe consentand assistance

of hertutorin orderto divorce,a proposition thatis generally denied. 38 For the Republicanperiodthereis no evidenceon the questionof consent in the divorce of a woman who was sui iuris. It has been argued, from a

storyin Livy, that in the fifth centuryBCa Romanwomanwho was sui iuris did not requirethe consentof her tutor to marry, but this is very

doubtful. 39The natureand extentof the authorityof the tutorrnulieris duringthe Republicis debated,but that a strongobligationto protectthe

woman'sinterests wasrecognized is certain. © Evenif duringthemiddle Republichis authoritywaslimitedto his ward'sfinancialwell-being,this does not show that the tutor's consentwas not required for marriage, or for divorce, since both acts affected the finances of the woman and of the

agnaticfamily. There wasa very real chancethat in this perioda divorced woman would not recoverthe entire dowry; in which caseshewould have to be supportedby her family and a new dowry formedif she were to marryagain. Even if shedid recoverthe full dowry it wouldhaveto be

managed by her tutoruntilsheremarried. 4• The increased independence which certainRomanwomencameto enjoy in the late Republicwas due, in large part, to the creationof legal deviceswhich gave women some controlover the selectionof their tutors, and therebyover their property, andnot to a reductionin the legal authorityof the tutor rnulieris.The same development may alsoexplaintheincreasein divorcesin thelateRepublic.

Butthechange seems to haveoccurred wellafterPlautus' time.42 These conclusionsabout the incapacityof Roman women to divorce withoutthe consentof their fathersor guardiansare, however,at odds with two otherPlautinenoticeson divorce.In Miles G!oriosusit is clearly statedthat a womanhasdivorcedher husbandin orderto marrya soldier, and there is no reference to male consent or assistance.

Ac. quasiqueistiuscaussaamorisex hoc matrimonio

60

MYLES

McDONNELL

abierim, cupiensistius nuptiarum.Pa. omne ordine. nisi modo unum hoc: hasce esse aedis dicas dotalis tuas,

hinc senemapste abiisse,postquamfecerisdivortium: (Mil. 1164-67)

Py. egon ad illam eam quae nuptasit?vir eius me deprehendat. Mi. quin tua caussaexegit virum ab se. Py. qui id facere potuit? Mi. [quia] aedesdotalis huiiu' sunt. (Mil. 1276-78)

Watson claimed this divorce procedureas Roman becauseit is essential to the plot and as suchwould have to be immediatelycomprehended by

theaudience. 4•3 Not onlydoesthisargument underestimate contemporary Roman awarenessof non-Romanpractices,but it is vitiated by evidence that the audiencereceivedhelp to understandthe lines. Pyrgopolynices' questionat Mil. 1277 andthe reply in the following line look like a Plautine

attempt to explaina situation unfamiliar toRomans. • Butmoreimportant, the circumstances of this divorceare a comic fantasy.It hasbeenpointed out that the situation envisioned at Mil. 1164 f. and 1276 f., wherein a

woman has divorced her husbandbecauseof physical desire for another man, would have been inconceivable in Plautus' Rome. This would have

beenperceived by theRomanaudience aspossible onlyamongGraeculi. 4's Suchconductby an Athenianwife wouldhavebeenequallyunacceptable, but the play is set in Ephesusand as the Roman playwright attributes outrageousbehaviorto Greek women, sotheAthenianauthorof theoriginal

Alazonascribed license tothewomenof Ephesus. 46In thesescenes Plautus' hand can be detectedonly in minor additionsor in the alterationof the speakingpartsof the characters.No good evidencehas been adducedfor the Plautine origin of the divorce passages.In short, there is nothingto indicate a Roman context for the divorce scene in Miles Gloriosus

and it

is not evidencethat Roman women coulddivorceindependentlyin Plautus' lifetime. 47

The only otherevidencein Plautusfor a Roman womandivorcinginde-

pendently is foundin Amphitruo?Alcumena,aloneandangryat being unjustlyaccusedof adultery, confrontsher husbandand announces, valeas, tibi habeas res tuas, reddas meas. (Amph. 928) These words are a traditional Roman divorce formula, so there is little doubt that the line is Plautine or that it was meant to imitate a Roman

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

61

situation. 49This line shouldbe strongevidencethat in Plautus'time a woman

could divorce her husband without

male consent or assistance and

it is frequently citedas such? Thereis, however,a question overhow the line shouldbe interpreted.Watsonemphaticallyrejectedthe notionof a humorousreversalof sexualrolesin whichAlcumenawouldspeakwords

normallyutteredonlyby men.5 E. Schuhmann foundthehumorof the scenepreciselyin Alcumena's mannishbehavior. 52We are left in the uncomfortablepositionof having two contraryand subjectiveinterpretations of the one passagewhich constitutesvalid evidencethat Roman womencoulddivorceindependentlyin the middle Republic. A closerlook at the contextin which thesewordsare spokenwill providea more secure basisfor their interpretation.

Impersonationandmistakenidentityare commonplot devicesin Plautine comedyandarecentraltoAmphitruo.In thisplay, however,transformations are not limited to the identitiesof characters,they alsooccurin the physical world andin the realmsof perceptionandvalues.Godsbecomemen, night is miraculouslyprolonged,conventionalconjugalbehavioris turnedinto immorality, sanity is madnessand truth is called a lie. The themeof real or apparentchange is introducedearly when, in the prologue, Mercury

jokingly promisesto alter the natureof the play itself withoutchanginga word of the text (Arnph. 50-55). Such radical alterationsare possible becausein Arnphitruothe intriguesare managedby gods. Problemsconcerning realityandillusionwhicharisewhendeitiesinvolve themselves

in human affairs are an old theme in classical literature

and

parallelshave been notedbetweenAmphitruoand certainAttic tragedies,

particularly Euripides' Bacchae. 5'•In tragedy,andespecially in Bacchae, changein characters'statusesis a crucialthematicelement.Suchchange alsooccursin comedy,but with a significantdifference.When they constitutethe major themesin tragedies,suchchangesare profound,with shatteringand often permanentconsequences, while in comedythey are usuallydrawnwith light strokes.The differenceis dictatedby the genre. The natureanddegreeof the alterationof statuswhichthe comicpoetcan employwill dependto a greaterdegreeon the sensibilitiesandprejudices

of hisaudience, because thealterations mustbe funny.54 In Bacchaechangesin statusoccurin threeareas:in age, whenTeiresias and Cadmusare changedfrom old men to young(Bacch. 190); in social position,betweenPentheus,whobeginsa king andendsin shamefuldeath, and Dionysus,who entersas a chainedstrangerbut exits as lord andking

62

MYLES

McDONNELL

(cf. Bacch.441 if. and 1031, 1037-38, 1192);in sex,whenPentheus,the defender of masculine values,isdressed andaddressed asa woman(Bacch. 925 if., 821 if.) while Agave becomesthe leaderof maenadhuntersand warriorsand boaststo her father of a man's courageand deeds(Bacch. 680 if., 1202if., 1222-23, 50-52). 55 The samethreetypesof changearefoundin Amphitruo.In thebeginning of the comedyAmphitruois a vigorouswarrior;by its endhe is described as a senex(Amph. 1032, 1072). The changein the socialstatusof master and slave, a hallmarkof Plautinecomedybut not of great importancein this play, occursin the altercationbetweenAmphitruoandMercury-Sosia

in Act IV. 56Furtherchanges are foundin the confrontations between Amphitruoand his wife which occurin Act II scene2, where Alcumena is questionedby Amphitruo and Sosia, and in Act III scene2, where Alcumenadisputeswith Jupiter,who is disguisedas Amphitruo;presumably therewere more in Act IV scene2 which doesnot survive,but which, to judgefrom thefragments,presentedAmphitruochallengedby Alcumena

andMercury-Sosia. 57Thereis evidence of a sexualreversalin the two scenes which survive intact.

All the confrontations between Alcumena and her husbands, mortal and

divine, are markedby variousalterationsof statesof time (Amph.691-95, 730-31,758), sleepandwakefulness (Amph.696-97,726), madnessand sanity(Amph.719-20,727-30,753-54,788-89,798), guiltandinnocence (Amph.869-72), seriousness andlevity (Amph.855-56,916 -17,920 -21), truth and falsehood(Amph.751,755-56, 793,901-2), reality and illusion (Amph. 884-85). Qualitiesfirst attributedto one characterare transferred to the other. Thus in the first confrontation,Alcumenais initially accused of insanity(Amph. 753-54,788-89), but in the end Amphitruothinkshe is mad (Amph. 844). In Act IV AlcumenaaccusesAmphitruoof madness (Amph. fr. vi [vii], viii [xii]), using the sameword (larvatus) which he had earlier used of her (Amph. 777). It is in this contextof transferred characteristics andmirror-likeshiftsof perspective andjudgmentthatindi-

cations ofa sexual reversal between Amphitruo andAlcumena arefound. The first indicationof a sexualreversalis encounteredafter Amphitruo hasaccusedhis wife of infidelity. It occursin Sosia'spun on the word vir and concernsAmphitruo:

A1. opsecroecastor,qur istuc,mi vir, ex ted audio? Am. vir ego tuo' sim?ne me appella,falsa, falsonomine. So. haerethaecres, si quidemhaeciam mulier facta est ex viro. (Amph. 812-14)

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

63

The ideais presented andthendropped,buttheparallelto Bacchae822 is striking. 58 But it is Alcumenawho undergoes,in the eyesof her husbandandthe world,the mostgrievouschangefrom the bestof wives(Amph.676-78) to a womandevoid of femininehonor (Amph. 818-19). This changeis neveracknowledged by Alcumena,whoseinnocenceis patent,but her characterdoes alter in these scenesand the alterationis indicatedby her diction.

In classicalantiquitywomen'slanguage,bothin dramaand in life, was

perceived asbeingdifferent frommen's. 59Through mostof theplayA1cumena'slanguageis appropriate to the modelmatronathatsheis, and

sheoftenuseswordsthat are distinctlyfeminine. © But afterrepeated accusations of infidelityAlcumenaswearsto herinnocence andthefollowing exchangetakesplace: AI. per supremiregisregnumiuro et matremfamilias Iunonem,quamme veneriet metuereestpar maxume, ut mi extra unum te mortalisnemocorpuscorpore contigit, quo me inpudicamfaceret.Am. vera istaecvelim. AI. vera dico, sed nequiquam,quoniamnon vis credere. Am. mulier es, audacteriuras.AI. quae non deliquit, decet audacemesse,confidenterpro se et proterveloqui. Am. satis audacter.

(Amph. 831-38)

Alcumena'swords,especiallyAmph. 836-37, merit attention.Falseoaths and displaysof audacia and confidentiaby womenare commonplacein Plautusand are, in fact, centralelementsin the misogynousportraitof womenpresentedin Roman comedy:

os habet,linguam,perfidiam,malitiamatqueaudaciam, confidentiam, confirmitatem, fraudulentJam.

qui arguatse, eum contravincat iureiurandosuo. (Mil. 188-90)

Suchnegativequalitiesare displayedby two typesof femalecharacter

in Plautus,the shrewish uxordotata,andthemercenary meretrix. 6j The samequalitiesare also presentin the comic figure of the intriguingslave and, in fact, the aggressivewomanandthe cleverslavesharemanycharacteristicsin Plautinecomedy. Both are characterizedby facility with lan-

guageandbothusewordsas weapons. 62As Plautusemploysmilitary

64

MYLES

McDONNELL

imagery to describea slave's intrigues, so he usesa military metaphorto describe a woman's

audacia:

nequeequesnequepedesprofectostquisquamtantaaudacia qui aequefaciat confidenterquicquamquam mulier facit.

(Mil. 464 - 65)63 The schemingslavetriumphsby lordingit over his master,and Plautine

shrewsandcourtesans dominate theirmenby treatingthemas slaves. 64 Conversely,the qualitiesof the good slave and the good wife at Rome,

bothon stageandin life, aresubmission andsilence. os The aggressivequalities embodied by the Plautine slave, shrew and whore,however,couldalsobe approvedin Rome.Audaciaandconfidentia by free maleswere acceptable,most often in military contexts,but also,

in Plautus,in non-military situations. 66In thepresentation of certaintypes, then, a reversalof values has occurred.Aggressivequalities which free males would monopolizehave been transferredto women and slaves, where, coupledwith patentlypejorativetraits(perfi'dia,fraudulentia),they

formthenegative stereotype of thesesubservient groups. 67No doubtthe typeshad a basisin Romanlife, but while a displayof theseaggressive masculinequalitiesby womenand slaveson a stagecouldbe laughedat,

theywouldhaveeliciteda differentreactionat home.68 From his reactionto his wife's oath it is clear that Amphitruo interprets

her wordsaccordingto the misogynous model:as the signof a deceitful woman. But it is equallyclear that Alcumenawill not acceptthis role. Sheclaimsaudaciaandconfidentia aspositivetraitsandwith herself-righteousassertionof theseaggressivequalities(decetaudacemesse)usurps behaviorwhich at Rome was commonlyapprovedonly in men. In this way Plautustransforms Alcumenafrom a merelysympathetic character

intoa nobleone,hisonlytrulynoblefemalecharacter. 69Thesame technique is usedto portraythe nobilityof Tyndarus,the slavewho is notreallya slave,in Captivi,wherehesays:decetinnocentera servolureatqueinnoxium / confidentera esse(Capt. 665-66). Yet, whenPseudolus speaksalmost the samewordshe doesso as a braggingcomicslavewho displaysmock nobilityand,significantly, wefindsuperbum essein placeof theambivalent confidentera esse(Pseud.460-61). On the Romanstage,therefore,the one way a noblewoman,or a nobleslave,couldbe portrayedwasto be shownbehavingin the mannerof a free male. But thereis a danger.If carriedtoo far Alcumena'saggressive behaviorwouldbecomethreatening andshewouldcrossoverandbecomeoneof the stereotypes of aggressive females. Lest she be seen as a shrew or worse Alcumena must quickly assert feminine

virtues.

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

65

non ego illam mi dotem duco essequae dos dicitur sed pudicitiamet pudoremet sedatumcupidinem, deum metum, parentumamoremet cognatumconcordiam, tibi morigeraatqueut munificasim bonis,prosimprobis.

(Amph.839- 42)TM On hearingthesewords Amphitruo'srage is immediatelyquietedand he quickly agreesto call in a relative of Alcumenato arbitrate,whereupon

thesceneends(Amph.844 ff.).7• The sexualrole reversalis taken up in Act III scene2. Here Jupiter, disguisedas Amphitruo, attemptsto win over the angry Alcumena. He begins as a confidenthusbandaddressingher as uxor (Amph. 898), but the normalhusband-wiferelationshiphasbeeninverted.EarlierAmphitruo had angrilythreateneddivorce(Amph. 852), now Alcumenacontemplates separation(Amph. 888). Before Amphitruo had called Alcumena stupid and mad (Amph. 709, 719 if.), here shethrowsthesevery accusations at him (Amph. 904, 907). Alcumena's remarkableaggressionin this scene

hasbeennoted,but thereversalgoesbeyondthis.TMUnableto convince Alcumenawith arguments,Jupiterresortsto pleadingand swearingoaths (Amph. 923), just as Alcumena had sworn to her innocence(Amph. 831

ff.). Moreover,Jupiter'swordsoro opsecroaredistinctlyfeminine. 73As Jupiterswearsand pleadsas a wife, Alcumenarepliesas a husband: ego istaec feci verba virtute inrita. nunc, quandofactisme inpudicisapstini, ab inpudicisdictis avorti volo. (Amph. 925-27)

In pre-CiceronianLatin virtus is attributedonly to men; elsewherein the Amphitruo it denotesonly martial courage. A woman's claim to virtus

wouldcertainlyhaveraisedthe eyebrowsof Plautus'audience. TMThen comes the divorce formula

and Alcumena's

intention to leave:

valeas, tibi habeas res tuas, reddas meas. iuben mi ire comites?

(Amph. 928-29)

Jupiter'sresponse, whichup to this pointin the conversation hasbeen mild, indicatesthatthereis somethingexceedinglystrangein Alcumena's declarationandin the languagewith whichsheexpresses it. He sayssanan es?75

As in Act II scene2, Alcumena's masculinebehaviormust be brief if

66

MYLES McDONNELL

she is to remain a sympatheticcharacter,so she replies with a claim to the principalfeminine virtue, pudicitia (Amph. 930). Jupiterthen swears a mightyoathto himselfpromptinga touchingdisplayof connubialdevotion

by Alcumena(Amph.931 if.).?6The characters havereturnedto their proper roles. Convincedof her husband'sgoodwill, Alcumenaforgives him and returnsto being the model matrona with suitabledisplaysof obsequium: ego istuc curabo. (Amph. 949)

numquidvis, quin abeamiam intro, ut apparenturquibusopust? (Amph. 970) quin venisquandovis intro?faxo hau quicquamsit morae. (Amph. 972)

In turn, Jupitertakesup the role of paterfamiliasby preparingto perform

the sacrificewhichAmphitruo hadvowedin battle.77His partingwords to Alcumena are telling:

recte loquereet proindediligentemut uxoremdecet.

(Amph.973)TM III

Changeis a majorthemeof Plautus'Amphitruoandchangesin characters' statuses take placefor whichparallelscanbe seenin Euripides'Bacchae. Since multiple transformationsoccur during the confrontationsbetween Alcumenaand Amphitruoand sincewithin thesescenesthere are other indications of a sexual role reversal, it is reasonableto think that Alcumena' s

recitationof the divorceformula at Amph. 928 is anotherreversalin which sheutterswordswhich were properlyspokenonly by men. If this is true, thereremainsno evidencethata Romanwomancouldindependentlyinitiate

a divorceduringtheperiodof themiddleRepublic. 79It mightalsobesaid thatthe generalincapacityof Romanwomento divorcewithoutthe assistanceof a male concurswith otherevidenceconcerningthe attitudestoward

womenin themiddleRepublic. 80It shouldnotbe surprising if at Rome a 8l woman'sfreedomto divorcehad to wait for a more enlightenedage.

ColumbiaUniversity

Myles McDonnell

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY

WOMEN

67

APPENDIX

The capacity of personsin potestateto divorce in classical

Roman

law

The Plautineevidenceexaminedabove showsthat in the early second centuryBCa filiafamilias requiredpaternalconsentto divorce, but it is generallyheldthatunderclassicalRomanlaw afiliafamiliasdid notrequire

suchconsent. 82Thismaybe questioned. Theonlysource whichsuggests that a filiafamilias hasthe right to divorceindependently is a constitution of AD 534 (CJ 5.17.12, re-enactedby Justinianin the followingyear as Nov. 22.19) which soughtto protectparents'contingentclaimson dotal propertyandbetrothalgiftsagainsttheirchildrenobtainingexclusivecontrol of suchpropertyby a collusivedivorce.The enactmentrequiredparental consentfor any divorce which would be financially disadvantageous to them, and althoughit also refers to emancipatedchildren,the abuses addressed seemto havebeenrestrictedto childrenin porestate(Nov. 22.19 says: eorum namque qui sub potestatesunt calliditates circa parentes habitasprohibemus).Only a paterfamiliaswho controlledthe dowryof a marriedfiliusfamiliascouldbe defrauded,sincean emancipated husband wouldhimselfcontrolthedowry(CJ 5.17.12 refersto childrendefrauding theirown parents).The offendingfiliusfamilias woulddivorcein a manner which would permit his wife to recoverthe dowry (see CTh 3.16.1 and 2; andCJ 5.17.8) andthecouplewouldcontinueto live together.In regard to daughters,this type of fraud also seemsto have been limited to those in potestate.If a wife were sui iuris, only shehad the right to recoverthe dowryat the endof the marriage(seeUlp. Reg. 6.6 andUlp. Dig. 24.3.2 pt.). Sincethe husbandalreadycontrolledthe dowry duringthe marriage andthe emancipated wife controlledherbetrothalgifts(Nov. 22.19.9 says dotisautsponsaliciae largitatis)theonlypossible fraudwouldbetodeprive the woman'sfatherof dosprofecticia,which the father couldrecoverif hisemancipated daughterdiedduringthemarriage.Thistypeof fraudhad beenremediedearlier;seethemorbidcaserelatedby Ulpian,Dig. 24.2.5, and the relief grantedto the defraudedfather. A marriedfiliafamilias, however,could presumablydefraudher father of betrothalgifts with a collusive divorce.83

There is reasonto believethat the capacityof childrenin potestateto divorcewithoutpaternalconsent hadbeenrecentlyacquiredwhenJustinian restrictedit, andthissequence fits thepatternof Romandivorcelegislation

inthelatefifthcentury. 84Therationale ofCJ5.17.12 points totheabsurdity of a situationwherea fathercannotcompela child underhispotestasto

68

MYLES

McDONNELL

divorce (this rule had been made by Marcus Aurelius and supportedby

Diocletian),8-s butwheresucha childcoulddivorcewithoutparental consent and therebyinjure the parent.If the latterright hadbeenof long standing, one would hardly expectthe constitutionto have beenjustified with the claim thattherightof a child in potestateto divorceindependently absurdly contradictedanotherlongstandinglegal right (the rule of MarcusAurelius and Diocletianreceivesexplicit approvalin CJ 5.17.12). This interpretationhasbeenrejectedwith the claim that numeroustexts in classicallegal sourcesreferto the divorceof afiliafamilias "in contexts

practicallyexcludingparentalconcurrence". 86However,the textsdo not supporttheclaim.Dig. 24.3.66.2 mentionsafiliafamiliaswho, afterdivorcing, orderedthe dowry to be returnedto her father. The daughterhad merelyrelinquishedher contingentrightsto the dowry. There is no need to suppose the fatherfar awayandignorantof the divorce;consequently

thereis no reason to suppose hedidnotconsent to it.s?Dig. 35.2.14pr. concernsa fatherwho did not claim the dowry of a divorcedfiliafamilias andtherebyrelinquishedhisrightsto it. It impliesnothingabouttheabsence

of paternal consent to divorce. 88In Dig. 24.3.45a maternal grandfather provideda dowry to afiliafamilias, but with a stipulationwhich excluded her fatherfrom recoveringthe dowry. After the grandfather's deaththe woman divorcedand at issuewas who would recoverthe dowry, the womanor the grandfather'sheir. The father'spositionis irrelevantto the matter and there is no reason to doubt that he consented to the divorce. 89

Finally, Dig. 24.3.34 concernsa disputeover which party, a fatheror his divorceddaughter,was entitledto recoverthe dowry. An issueis whether

the daughterwassui iuris or underher father'spotestas.The fathermay havegivenhisconsent to thedivorce;thedisputeoverthedaughter's status may havearisenonly afterthe divorcewasaccomplished. The fathermay even have urgedthe divorcesincehe thought,incorrectly,that he could recoverthe dowry without his daughter'sconsent.The text, therefore, doesnotshowthatafiliafamiliasdivorcedwithoutpaternalconsent. 9ø Since all these casesprove to be irrelevant, there is no obstacleto supposing that the right of a filiafamilias to divorceindependently was acquiredin the fifth century AD. In additionto this there is the evidence

which suggeststhat in an earlier period a filiafamilias was not free to divorceindependently: theconstitution of AD240, CJ 5.4.7 (Si, utproponis, postquerellamde marito afilia ad te delatamdissociatum estmatrimonium nec te consentiente ad eundemregressaest, minuslegitimaconiunctioest cessante patris voluntate,in cuiusestpotestate:. . .)91and Plutarch's remarksabouta Romandaughterbeingespeciallydependent on her father

andaboutherneedfor agnaticprotection fromherhusband. •2 Onemight

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

69

arguethat sinceunderclassicallaw a wife in a cum manuunionwas permittedto initiate a divorceindependently (Gaius, Inst. 1.137a) it is unlikelythat a filiafamilias in a sinemanuunioncouldnot. But conventio in manumwas so rare when the wife acquiredthis right that the parallel is without force. It is reasonableto conclude, therefore, that under classical

Roman law a filiafamilias requiredpaternalconsentto divorce.

The interpretation of CJ 5.17.12 here proposedalso impliesthat the capacityof a filiusfamiliasto divorcewithoutpaternalconsentwas also acquiredonly in the fifth century^D. This is generallydenied,but the only evidenceearlierthan CJ 5.17.12 for a sonin potestatehavingthe capacityto divorce independentlyis from Terence'sHecyra, and it is dubious. Corbett and Watson cited Hec. 470 if., 482 if., 493 f., 501,614

f., 654 if., 698 if. as indicatingthat the sonhas the freedomto divorce

withoutpaternalconsent; 93but Hec. 654 and700 suggest thatthe final decisionis with the father. More important,there is no clearevidencethat the son is a filiusfamilias, and Hec. 171-73, which impliesthat the son can inherit, and 502, where the father-in-law directsthe son, not his father,

to return the dowry, indicatethat the son is sui iuris. Perhapsit is bestto concludethat the legal situationpresentedin Hecyra reflectsAttic and not Romanlaw. In any caseit is flimsy evidencefor the notionthat a filiusfamilias could divorce independentlyand will not, I think, standagainst

theinterpretation of CJ 5.17.12proposed above. 94 NOTES

1. The bibliographyon Romandivorceis large;a relativelyfull list of works on the subjectcan be found in J. Huber, Der Ehekonsensim riimischenRecht (1977) 7-12. The following is a selectlist of workswhich were particularlyuseful for this study: G. Brini

Matrimonio e divorzio nel diritto romano, 3 vols.

P.E. Corbett

TheRomanlaw of marriage(1930) Das riimischePrivatrecht I, II ( 1955, 1959) Der Hergangder rtSmischen Ehescheidung (1925) Das Privatleben der RtSmerI (1879) "Married women in Rome", AncSoc6 (1975) 215-27 "Ehescheidungen in denKom6diendesPlautus",ZRG 93 (1976) 19-32 "Der Typ deruxordotatain denKom6diendesPlautus", Philologus121 (1977) 45- 65 Thelaw ofpersonsin the later RomanRepublic(1967)

(1886-89) M. Kaser

E. Levy J. Marquardt S.B. Pomeroy E. Schuhmann

E. Schuhmann A. Watson

70

MYLES

McDONNELL

Works listed in this note will henceforthbe cited by author'sname, with (if necessary)an abbreviatedtitle. 2. Plut. Rom. 22.3-4. Romulusrequiredhusbandsto give cause,otherwise they sufferedfinancialpenalties.P. Bonfante,Corso di diritto romanoI (1925) 343, followedby E. Volterra, "Divorzio", in NovissimoDigestoItaliano 6 (1960) 62, thoughtPlutarch'sinformationoriginatedin Augustanpropaganda, but it is not fully analogousto Augustandivorce legislation;see R. Yaron, "De divortio varia", RHD 32 (1964) 555 n. 42. The first Roman divorce is said to have been that of Sp. CarviliusRuga; see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.25.7; Val. Max. 2.1.4; Plut. Comp. Thes. Rom. 6.4 and Comp. Lyc. Num. 3.13; Gell. NA 4.3.2. The dateis givenvariouslyas604 Bc(Val. Max.), 524 Bc(Plut.), c. 231-30 •c (Dion.) and227 •c (Gell. citingSer. Sulpicius).Modem interpretations vary also.Corbett 227 fl. acceptedthe early date and consideredCarvilius' the earliestrecorded Romandivorce.Others,e.g. MarquardtandBrini, preferredthe third-centurydate. Sincethe Carvilii cameto prominenceat Rome only in the third centurythis is probablycorrect;seeCorbett227-28 for a discussion,and alsoWatson,RHD 33 (1965) 38-50. Other early Romandivorcesare thoseof L. Anniusin 307- 6 (Val. Max. 2.9.2) andof SulpiciusGalus,Q. AntistiusVetus,andP. Sempronius Sopbus (Val. Max. 6.3.10, 11 and 12; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 14 (267C)). Plutarch,Aem. 5.1-2, writes that L. Aemilius Paullus divorced his first wife.

3. Gaius, Inst. 1.137a. The Digest offers numerousinstancesof women who are sui iuris initiatingdivorces,e.g., Dig. 24.2.4; 24.2.5; 24.3.22.9. It is often saidthat womendivorcedindependently duringthe late Republic,principallyon the basisof Caelius'reportthat in 50 •c PaullaValeria had divorcedher husband in order to marry D. Brutus(Cic. Fam. 8.7.2). Seneca,Suas. 1.6 has also been adducedto show that in the 30s divorce initiated by women was common;see Corbett225, n. 3,242, n. 2; Marquardt69-70. ProfessorBadJanhaspointedout to me the weaknessof this evidence.The Senecanpassageis a joke whichin any casedoesnot refer to legal practicein Rome. Caelius'noticesaysnothingabout the consentof a fatheror guardian,but consideringthe toneof the letteronewould not expectsuchinformationevenif PaullaValeriahadrequiredmaleassistance to divorce.ProfessorBadJandoubtsthat"divorceinitiatedby womenwithoutreference to a male was legallypossiblein the late Republic".I reservejudgment. 4. Watson 51-52, followed, somewhatinconsistently(see below n. 52), by Schuhmann,"Ehescheidungen" 24 and n. 18. An early second-century date was alsoassignedby Marquardt69; E. Costa,ll dirittoprivato romanonelle commedie di Plauto (1890) 178 if.; Brini II 167-69; Levy 17 and 76 if.; Corbett 222; and Huber 125. W. Kunkel, "Matrimonium", RE XIV 2275, and Kaser I 73 n. 5,

placedthe phenomenon later. 5. Cf. Men. 662. It is only afterwardsthat the wife beginsto contemplate divorce:seeMen. 725 if. and 781 if., and on theselinespp. 56 f. 6. Corbett 222 n. 5 cited Rud. 1046-47 as evidenceof a woman's divorcing her husband,but this alsorefersto an informalexpulsion.Costa 178 and 180 n. 83, thoughtTruc. 418-22 refersto a woman'sinitiatinga divorce,butthe woman is a meretrixandthe methodshecontemplates mighteasilyrefer to an adulterous

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

71

relationshipwhich would prompther husbandto divorceher. The suggestion that in divorceproceedingscertainwords (extrudere,exigere) were usedexclusively by men, and others(abire, discedere)only by women is contradictedby Mil. 1277-78, cf. 1166-67; seeLevy 78. 7. At Cas. 67 if. and Stich. 446-48

the distinction between Greek and Roman

is made explicit. Costa (above n. 4) and L. Pernard,Le droit romain et le droit grec et le thd•tre de Plaute et de Tdrence(1900), assumedthat all legal references in Plautus are Roman.

The conclusions

of the otherwise

excellent

article on Plautus

and Romanreligionby J.A. Hanson,TAPA 90 (1959) 48-101, sufferbecausethe authoradopted(p. 50) the" 'uncritical' principlethat everythingin Plautusis to be considered

Roman".

8. The studies of Leo, Fraenkel and Jachmann are fundamental. For a critical

survey and bibliographysee K. Gaiser, "Zur Eigenart der rrmischen Komrdie: Plautusund Terenz gegentiberihren griechischenVorbildern", ANRW I 2 (1972) 1027-1113.

9. U.E. Paoli, Comici latini e diritto attico (1962). By comparingPlautine material and the testimonyof Attic oratorsPaoli found evidenceof (1) Attic law, (2) Roman law and (3) Plautine combinations of the two. 10. A. Watson, The law of obligations in the later Roman Republic (1965) 46-

47.

l l. G. RoteIll, "Ricerca di un criterio metodologicoper l'utilizzazione di Plauto",BIDR 75 (1972) 97-132, provideda detailedcriticismof previousmethods which neglectedphilologicalcriteria. For Romanadditionsto Greek legalsituations see Most. 974-75, with Rotelli 119-24, and Persa 525, with Rotelli 127. 12. Watson, in the introductions to his four volumes on the law of the late

Republic,discussedthe dangersof usinglaw from differentperiodsfor the study of the law of the Republic. 13. O. Fredershausen,"Studien tiber das Recht bei Plautus und Terenz", Hermes 47 (1912) 234-35, listed all referencesto divorce in Plautus. 14. It occursat Stich. 17, 128, 131 and Men. 782, also Ulp. Dig. 43.30.1.5,

and Apul. Apol. 77; see Levy 17 n. 6, but note Terence,Hec. 748. 15. Fredershausen 199if., esp.237-38; C. Gatti, "Alcuniaspettidellaposizione giuridica della donna ateniesenel V e IV secolo A.C.", Acme 10 (1957) 62 if.; and U.E. Paoli, "Lo 'Stichus'di Plautoe l'af•resi paternain diritto attico", Altri studidi diritto grecoe romano(1976) 161-73, originallyin Studiin onoredi P. De Francisci I (1956) 233 if. Paoli 169 n. 9 refuted the argumentof Levy, "Verschollenheitund Ehe in antiken Rechten", Gediichtnisschrift fiir E. Seckel (1927) 150-55. 16. As noted by W.G. Arnott, "Targets, techniquesand tradition in Plautus' Stichus", BICS 19 (1972) 59; see Stich. 48 f. and 68-80. Also see Paoli, "Lo 'Stichus'" 169 and H. Petersmann,T. Maccius Plautus. Stichus(1973) 94. Paoli

also mistookideal for practicewhen he cited the supposedsenatorialaversionto large scalemaritimecommerceto supporthis contentionthat the profit-minded husbands of Stichus are un-Roman.

It is incorrect to take the Lex Claudia

of 218

Bc as evidencethat senatorswere averseto maritime profits (see W.¾. Harris,

MYLES

72

McDONNELL

War and imperialismin RepublicanRome (1979) 66 f.), and impossibleto believe that in Plautus' Rome there was no non-senatorialmerchantwho would be glad to say, (Mercurius)"quadruplicavitrem meam" (Stich. 405).

17. Stich.48-57..repeats thesubstance of thepreceding canticum in dialogue form; seeF. Leo, "Uber den Stichusdes Plautus", NAWG (1902) 378; C.C. Coulter,

Retractatio in the Ambrosianand Palatine recensionsof Plautus (1911) 88-89; E. Fraenkel,Elementiplautini in Plauto (1960) 309 n. 1. The linesare bracketedby Goetz and Schoell, by Lindsay, and by Petersmann. 18. Plautususespotestasat Stich. 69, and imperiumpatris at Stich. 141. On potestassee A. Watson, Rome of the XII Tables (1975) 47-51. 19. Paulus,Sent. 5.6.15, 2.19.2; CJ 5.17.5 (294); Ulp. Dig. 24.1.32.19; Dig. 43.30.1.5. Only Pauluscreditsthis measureto AntoninusPius. 20. The movementof Roman law was toward weakeningthe authorityof the agnaticfamily over the marriedwoman:seePomeroy215-27. 21. Watson51. (The fatherentersat Men. 753.) Watson'salternativeand preferredinterpretationof the passage,however,wasthat the father'spermissionwas required. 22. An Athenianwife, unlike a Roman, had to go beforea magistrateto secure a divorce.In all othertypesof proceedingbeforean archon,a womanhad to be representedby her kyrios. That this was true also for divorce is implied by Dem. 30 (Onet.) 1 and Isaeus,De Pyrrh. 78; seeA.R.W. Harrison, The Law of Athens I (1968) 40- 44. The onlyevidencethatanAthenianwomancoulddivorceindependently is Plutarch'sstoryof Hipparete(AIcib. 8), but thisseemsto be an inaccurate paraphrasing of Andoc. Alcib. 15; seeL. Beauchet,Histoire du droit priv• de la R•publiqueathgnienneI (1897) 384-85. 23. Schuhmann,"Ehescheidungen" 26-27, citingBeauchet1 382, for Athenians needingcausefor divorce. 24. E. Weiss, GriechischesPrivatrecht I (1923) 309 f.; W. Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland (1934) 319 if.; and Harrison I 42-43, all held that no statementof causewas necessaryand that the archon'spowerin grantingdivorces waspurelydeclarative.R. Yaron, "Minutiaeon RomanDivorce",RHD 28 (1960) 8-12, arguedfor the necessityof causein Roman divorceswhich were initiated by the husband. 25. Made by Gatti (aboven. 15) 63, citingLevy 18; for theevidence,seebelow. 26.

Watson 51.

27. Whether Anastasius'constitutionof AD497 permittingdivorceby mutual consent(CJ 5.17.9) was a restatementof classicallaw (Kaser II 123) or a "far-reaching innovation"(Yaron, RHD 32 (1964) 552), it certainlyrepresented a liberalizing of previousdivorce rules. Justinian'sother restrictionson divorce were enacted later: Nov. 117.10 (AD 542); Nov. 127.4 (548) and Nov. 134.11 pr. (556); see Yaron, op. cit. 544 if. and KaserII 123. 28. CJ 5.4.7: si, ut proponis,post querellamde marito a filia ad te delatam dissociatumest matrimoniumnec te consentientead eundemregressaest, minus legitima coniunctioest cessanteparrisvoluntate,in cuiusest potestate.... Also seethepuzzlingUlp. Reg. 6.10: si culpamulierisautparris... divortiumfacturnsit.

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

73

29. Plut.Coniug.praec.36 (Mor. 143B-C)andQuaest.Rom. 108(Mor. 289DE); cited by Pomeroy215. 30.

Watson

50.

31. Corbett 222; Kaset I 73; Watson52. The wife in manu gainedthis right later: see Gaius Inst. 1.137a and Corbett 223-24.

32. See pp. 56 f. above;otherwiseWatson50. 33. Gatti (aboven. 15) 63 ff. arguedagainsta Romanbackgroundfor Merc. 784 if. with the samereasonsshehad usedagainstMen. 719 if.; for criticismsee pp. 57 f. above.

34. F. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen 2 (1912) 119 compared the speechto Euripides' El. 1032if. andattributed it to Philemon. Fredershausen (aboven. 13) 243 n. 3, followingLeo, declaredthe legal situationto be Attic. 35. Harrison(aboven. 22) I 39-40, gavethe evidenceand arguments to prove that Athenianhusbands requiredno causefor divorce;seealsoWatson54 n. 7. Yaron, RHD 28 (1960) 8 if., arguedfor a Romanwife's "absencewithoutleave"

asgrounds for a divorceandalsodiscussed thedifferences betweenSyra'sspeech and El.

1032 if.

36. See Men.

787-802

for the father's comments and Schuhmann, "Ehe-

scheidungen" 26-27. Watson'sdistinction(50) betweencummanuandsinemanu situationsin Plautusrestson his interpretationof Mere. 702 and 817 ff., which is rejectedpp. 57 f. above. 37.

38.

See above n. 2. That a woman sui iuris did not need the consent of her tutor to divorce

duringthe Republicanperiodwas held by Brini II 168 f., III 152; Levy 18; Kaser I 279 and Watson, Roman private law around 200 B.C. (1971) 23. 39. See Livy 4.9.4-6. The case was made by R.M. Ogilvie, "The maid of Ardea",Latomus21 (1962) 477-83 andapprovedwith somereservations by Watson 46 n. 7. But see the criticisms of E. Volterra, "Sul diritto familiare di Ardea nel

V secoloA.C.", in Studiin onoredi A. SegniIV (1967) 659-77; D. Daube,Roman law. Linguistic,socialand philosophicalaspects(1969) 112 fl.; Kaser I 67. 40. Gell. NA 5.13.5, and Watson 102 if., esp. 105-6. 41. On the obstaclesto a divorcedwoman's recoveringdowry see Pliny, NH 14.90, and Watson66-70. For the importancewhich Romansgaveto the financial aspectsof marriagesee Polyb. 31.27. 42. See S.B. Pomeroy,Goddesses,whores,wivesand slaves(1975) 151. Cic. Mur. 27, impliesthat coemptiointerimendorumsacrorumcausawas a relatively recentdevelopment.The suggestion of Bonfante(aboven. 2) 56, thatBacch. 976 refersto this practicemay be doubted.The Plautinepassage,as well as Cic. Fam. 7.29.1 (see ShackletonBailey ad loc.), hassenescoemptionales; Mur. 27 presents old men as coemptores.On divorce in the late Republic see abovenote 3. 43. Watson49. Yet on the following page Watsonarguedthat Merc. 817 ff. is Romanbecauseit is not essentialto the plot. I assumethat Watsonthoughtthat Mil. 1164-67 and 1276-78 reflectbothGreek and Romanpractice,but the difficulty in his methodis apparent;see my discussioninit. 44. These lines appearto be an explanationof how, accordingto Greek law,

74

MYLES

McDONNELL

the doweredhousewould revert to the wife after a divorce (I owe this point to W. ThomasMacCary). At Rome, the wife's actio rei uxoriaewould have beenmet by the husband'sclaim to retentiopropter mores, which at this period would probablyhaveresultedin the wife's lossof the entiredowry:seePliny, NH 14.90; Gell. NA 10.23.3-4;

and Watson 66-70.

On the differences between Greek and

Romanlaw concerningthe recoveryof dowry seeH.J. Wolff, "Marriagelaw and family organizationin ancientAthens",Traditio2 (1944) 61, with n. 95 and63-65. Schuhmann,"Ehescheidungen" 25, claimedthat Mil. 1278 is a Romanreference to thepropertyof theuxordotam;on thisfigureseeE. Schuhmann, "Uxor"45-65. Even if she is correct, the identification does not show that a Roman wife could divorce in the mannerdescribed,sinceelsewherePlautusaddsRoman legal terms to an otherwise un-Roman situation: see Most. 974-75, and Rotelli (above n. 11) 119-124.

45. See Schuhmann,"Ehescheidungen" 25. 46. HellenisticEphesus,a centerof bankingandtrade,was a commercialrival of Athensand as such a target for jokes in New Comedy;on Ephesussee M.

Rostovtzeff, SEHHW 2 672-73, 1144.Ephesian wivesdid notenjoya reputation for virtue; see O. Pecere, Petronio, la novella della matrona di Efeso (1975) 44-45, who along with Sat. 111-12 cited Ach. Tat. 5.11 (the story of Melite); and Cic. Phil.

3.15.

47. L. Schaaf,Der Miles GloriosusdesPlautusundseingriechisches Original (1977) 315-26, concludedthat there are only minor stylisticchangesby Plautus in the scenesconcerned.K. GaiserarguedthatPlautusalteredthe speakingparts of the characters in Act IV scene4, but his reconstruction of the originalleaves the lineson divorceunchanged; seeSchaaf317-20 for the argumentandcriticism. E. Lef'evre'srecentattempt("Plautus-Studien IV", Hermes 112 (1984) 40-42) to creditthe entiredivorceepisodeto Plautuson the basisof what mightbe Plautine elementsin Act V scene1, is unconvincing. 48. Costa(aboven. 4) 178 cited Truc. 418-22 as evidencefor a Romanwoman initiatinga divorce;seen. 6 abovefor criticism. 49. The phraseappears,with minor variations,in Plaut. Trin. 266; Sen. Suas. 1.6; Quint.Decl. 262; Mart. 10.41.2;Apul. Met. 5.26; Gaius,Dig. 24.2.2.1; and Cic. Phil. 2.69. The last reference is not evidence that this formula occurred in

the XII Tables.For the correctpunctuationof Phil. 2.69 (commaafter iussit)see the Teubneror OCT edition,with thecommentsof Marquardt68 n. 8, andWatson, RHD 33 (1965) 42-43, esp.n. 18. The speechof Alcumenain whichthe formula occurscontainsso manyotherdistinctlyRomanconceptsthat the audiencewould certainlyhavetakenthe situationas Roman;seepp. 65 f. 50. By Marquardt64 n. 4; Levy 77; Watson52 and 54, and Paoli, Altri studi (above n. 15) 65-66. Fredershausen (above n. 13) 236-37, claimed that the situationis commonto bothRomeandAthens,whichis possible;butthetoneand dictionof Amph.925-34 betrayPlautinere-working. 51. Watson52, claimingthatthe scenerequires"thatAlcumenashouldbehave seriouslyand rationallyin the circumstances as she seesthem".

52. Schuhmann, "Ehescheidungen" 24 andn. 18. Oddly,Schuhmann accepted

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

75

Watson'sconclusion,althoughwith hesitation,addingthat if thesewordscan be spokenby a womanshewould haveto be sui iuris. She impliedthat the right of a Romanwomanto divorceindependentlywas recentlyacquiredwhenAmphitruo was first produced.This is not entirelyconsistent with her view that Alcumena's wordsare masculineand thereforefunny. 53. W.H. Friedrich,Euripidesund Diphilos (1953) 217 ff., discussed divine interventionin classicalliteratureandnotedthevariousparallelsbetweenAmphitruo and Greek tragedies,including Bacchae. In a detailed study, Z. Stewart, "The Amphitruoof Plautusand Euripides'Bacchae",TAPA 89 (1958) 348-73, showed the structuralsimilaritiesbetweenBacchaeand the secondhalf of Amphitruo.He also notedparallelsin the themesof madnessand sanity,accusations of magic, and godsbecomingmen. To thesemay be addedphysicaltransformations: cf. Bacch. 53-54 andAmph. 121-24; Bacch. 616 ff., 704 f. and 1063 f., with Amph. 113,271-83; andunjustaccusations of femaleimmorality:cf. Bacch.222-25 with Amph. 810 ff. On the possibilityof an early second-century Romanproductionof Bacchae

see Stewart 363-64.

54. The sensibilitiesof the audiencealso concernthe tragic poet, but he has more freedomto presentprofoundand sustainedshocks.Also, Romanaudiences may have beensomewhatlessreceptiveto jokes concerningalterationsin social status than Athenians

were.

55. See R. Hamilton, "'Bacchae' 47-52: Dionysus'plan", TAPA 104 (1974) 139-49, esp. 142-44. On the importanceof thisthemeseeC. Segal,"The menace of Dionysus.Sex rolesandreversalsin Euripides'Bacchae",Arethusa11 (1978) 185-202.

56. E. Segal, Romanlaughter(1968) 101 and 116, commentedon this. 57. Various attemptshave been madeto reconstructthis act; seeE. Fantham, "Towardsa dramaticreconstruction of the fourth act of Plautus'Amphitruo", Philologus 117 (1973) 197-214. 58. Noted by Stewart (above n. 53) 353 n. 15. 59. SeePomeroy,Goddesses (aboven. 42) 98, citingArist.Poet. 15.4 (145a20). Also seeM.E. Gilleland, "Femalespeechin Greek and Latin", AJPh 101 (1980) 180-83, who cited Cic. De Or. 3.45; Fronto4.3.2 (p. 57 van den Hout) and numerousreferencesin Donatus.Differencesin male and female speechare a generalphenomenon; see the bibliographyin M.R. Key, Male/femalelanguage (1975) 169 if., and B. Thorneand N. Henley, ed., Languageand sex.Differences and dominance(1975). 60. At Amph. 810, she usesamabo, and at Amph. 812, mi vir. On theseas characteristically femaleusagesseeDonatus,Commenturn Terenti,ed. P. Wessner, 2 vols. (1963) on Eun. 656.1, 952, and Hec. 824. 61. Also see Mil. 307-9, and Truc. 465-73. On the meretrix see Truc. 224 ff.,

for the uxorseeCas. 815 ff. Men. 713 hasa wife accuseherhusbandof impudentera audaciam, but this is another role reversal of an uxor dotata; see Schuhmann, "Uxor"

45- 65.

62. The loquaciousness of the Plautineslaveis his outstanding feature;so G.E. Duckworth,The natureof Romancomedy(1952) 249. On the talkativenessof the

76

MYLES

McDONNELL

uxor dotata see Aul. 124-26, and Cas. 157 and 249 if., also Schuhmann, "Uxor"

45 f., who claimed that the prominencegiven to the barbed-tonguedwife was a Plautine innovation. For the eloquenceof the meretrix see Truc. 178 ff., Asin. 204 if. and Bacch.

35 if.

63. Also Cas. 650-71, andW.T. MacCary, "Patternsof myth, ritualandcomedy in Plautus' Casina", Texas studiesin lit. and lang. XV 5 (1974) 886-87. 64. For the uxor threateningher husbandwith servile punishmentseeCas. 155 ff. and Men. 795-96: servirin tibi / postulasviros?The courtesanenslavingher lover is an old theme to which

Plautus added much: see Bacch.

92 ff. and N.

Zagagi, Traditionand originalityin Plautus(1980) 109-16. 65. On the obedienceof the good slaveseeAul. 587 if., Men. 966 if., Most. 858 if., Pseud. 1103 if., Rud. 920 ff. (Fraenkel (above n. 17) 235-36 showed that these passagesare Plautine expansions.)Trimalchio certainly prosperedby following orders:Petron.Sat. 75.11 nec turpeest, quoddominusiubet. In Plautus, tace is a refrain of master to slave. For more on the silent slave see Sen. Ep. 47.3-4. For obediencein the good wife see Cas. 204 if., Men. 787 if., and G. Williams, "Some aspectsof the Roman marriageceremonyand ideals", JRS 48 (1958) 16-29. On the silenceof a good wife see Poen. 32-35: matronaetacitae spectent,tacitaerideant;and for the necessityfor a womanto restrainher words in her husband'spresence,Cas. 196. 66. For audacia and audax with favorable connotationsin military situations see Cato, Orig. fr. 83 Peter (=Gell. NA 3.7.12); Caesar,BG 2.26.2, 4.24.3; BC 1.44.1, 3.24.2, 3.26.1; B. Afr. 63.1-2; Cic. Att. 7.7.6; Livy 21.4.5, 9.12.8, 25.23.17, 26.45.4; also R. CombOs,Imperator (1966) 277-79. For audacia in a non-militarycontextsee Livy 33.33.8. Confidentiaoccursin a favorablesensein

Enn. Scaen.25 Vahlen2, p. 123 (=Jocelyn, p. 73) and Pacuvius,Trag. 174 Ribbeck 2 I p. 97. Foraudacterin a favorable sensein Plautus seeTrue.205, Capt. 842, Men. 159. At Epid. 149 and Most. 409 audacia is usedin a favorablesense by a slave, but within the contextof a role inversion.Confidentiaoccursin a favorablesensein Plautusonly in military metaphors:seeMil. 229, Pets. 231, Pseud.763. At Amph. 1054 confidentiais usedby Bromia in a neutralsense,but she is an ancilla, and in comedyancillae are commonlytreatedwith contempt. 67. A similar phenomenon,where an aggressivequality prized by dominant males was transferredto a subservientgroup, can be seenin the belief among slave-holdersin the ante-bellumsouth that black males were sexually superior. This idea had complex origins in Europe, but on its relationshipto American slaveryseeW.D. Jordan,WhiteoverBlack(1968) 136-63. 32-43. 68. Thesedifferencesprobablyreflect socialattitudesand the fact that Plautus' audienceacceptedstageslaveslordingit overtheirmastersmorereadilythanthey

did domineering wivesor whores.Thereis ampleevidencethat in Plautus'time Romanmenwereseriouslyconcerned aboutthe behaviorof women:seePomeroy, Goddesses(aboven. 42) 177-81. Dramaticdepictionsof aggressivewomenmay well havemirroredreality. R.J. Lifton, commenting on womenin modernJapan,

wrote:"Persisting rigiditiesof definition(for instance,Japanese femininerequirementsof reserve,acquiescence andsemblance of ignorance)makeit almostinevi-

DIVORCE

INITIATED

BY WOMEN

77

tablethat womenwho breakout of theselimitationsdo soby way of identification with their fathers and brothers,competitionwith men, and the acquisitionof 'masculine traits'" ("Woman as knower", in R.J. Lifton, ed., The woman in America (1967) 35). For the new situationsthat Roman women found as a result of the SecondPunic War see Pomeroy, Goddesses179 if. It is significantthat Plautususedthe figuresof slavesand of womendifferently. Intriguingslavesare

Plautus' major charactersand their schemesare almost always successful;on Plautus'expansionof the slaverole seeFraenkel(aboven. 17) 223 if. Aggressive womenplaya muchsmallerroleandtheyarefrequentlyhumiliated:seeSchuhmann, "Uxor" 45 if. Evenwhentheyarevictorious(e.g., Cleustratain Casina,Phronesium in Truculentus),theydo not escapescornfultreatment:seeCas. 969-71. E. Segal (above n. 56) ch. IV and V deals with the humor of the reversalof the master-slave

positions.For a warningagainsttakingthebehaviorof stageslavesasrepresentative of realslavesseeP.P. Spranger,HistorischeUntersuchungen zudenSklavenfiguren desPlautusund Terenz,AAWM 1960, 8, 40-42; Segal 103; and Don. Ter. (above n. 60) on Eun. 57.

69. On the nobility of Alcumena see Duckworth (above n. 62) 256 if.

70. G. Williams (aboven. 65) 16-29 discussed pudorandthe epithetmorigera as aspectsof the ideal matrona. His theorythat morigerawas originallya ritual term usedin the marriageceremonyis attractive.Forpudicitiaas a femininevirtue see J. Hellegouarc'h,Le vocabulairelatin des relationset des partis politiques sous la rdpublique (1963) 283 n. 11, where Cic. Catil. 2.25 and Clu. 12 are referredto. For the cultsof Pudicitia seeR.E.A. Palmer, "Roman shrinesof female chastity",RSA 4 (1974) 113-59, esp. 121 if. 71. It is interestingto note that Amphitruo'sreactionto his wife's recounting of her feminine virtues("delenitussumprofectoita ut me qui sim nesciam")fits a modelpsychologicalreactionto role reversal:"What is morespecificis interpersonal action which tends to confuseor mystify. This makes it difficult for one personto know 'who' he is . . ." (R.D. Laing, Self and other (1969) 122). 72. J. Genzmer, Der Amphitruo des Plautus und sein griechischesOriginal (Diss. Kiel 1956) 155 if. At Amph. 900, Alcumenacalls her husbandinimicus.

73. In Plautusthe combinationoro opsecrois elsewhereusedonly by women; seeCas. 321 andMil. 971. Opsecrois normallyusedby subordinate partnersin a relationship:worshipperto deity, slave to master, wife to husband.For its importanceto the ideal matrona see Williams (above n. 65) 25. Alcumena uses opsecroatAmph.682 and760, andoncein combination withothercharacteristically femininewords:Amph. 812, opsecroecastor .... mi vir. Ecastorwas usedonly by women: see Gell. NA 11.6 and B.L. Ullmann, CW 37 (1943-44) 87-89. For

mi with the vocativeas a feminineusageseeDon. Ter. (aboven. 60) And. 685.1, 788.2 andEun.95.2. Opsecroisfrequently usedby SosiainAmphitruo. Amphitruo does use the word twice, but once in a moment of confusion in his confrontation

with Alcumena(Amph. 765), and again when he fearfully addresses the gods (Amph. 1130). When opsecrois usedby free malesin Plautusit is alwaysto underscore a suddeninversionof their status:seeCas. 738, Capt. 977, Mil. 1396, and Segal (above n. 56) 106 f.

78

MYLES

McDONNELL

74. The closestthingto a feminineattributionis Poen. 1328, quomquee virtute vobis fortuna optigit, but here virtus appearsin a commonplace;moreover,the line occursin a suspected passage(Poen. 1315-71 and 1372-1422 are alternative endings, each of which itself bears signs of revision) in which the sentiment expressedjars with the dramaticcontextof the plot: see P. Langen,P!autinische Studien(1886) 343 if.; Coulter (above n. 17) 63 if.; G. Maurach, P!auti Poenulus (1975) 383; Leo bracketedthe line. In Plautusvirtushas two principalmeanings, one ethical, akin to aretd (see Trin. 336-37, and Most. 139, contra W. Eisenhut,

VirtusRomana,(1973) 14 if. and 24-29), the otherdenotingphysical,especially martial courage.The latter is the most commonPlautineusageand is the only meaningvirtusotherwisehas in Amphitruo'seeAmph. 75, 191, 212, 260, 534, 648-49 and 652-53. Virtus has a wider referenceat Amph. 78, but it occursin what I try to show in an article, "Ambitusand Plautus'Amphitruo65-81", forthcomingin AJPh, is an interpolatedpassage.Cicero, Fam. 14.1.1, writesof Terentia's virtus, but in combinationwith herfortitudo, sohereit hasa masculinequality; so Eisenhut42 n. 98 and 44. The virtus of Tullia (Att. 10.8.9; 11.17.5) is of the same quality. Fortitudo, which is rare in classicalLatin outside of Cicero's philosophicalworks, is foundonly threetimesin earlier Latin (Ter. Phorm. 325, Pacuvius,Trag. 173 Ribb., and Afranius, Com. 65 Ribb.): see Hellegouarc'h (aboven. 70) 248 and Eisenhut41-43. The Afraniusfragmentascribes fortitudo to a woman(Disperii, perturbatasum, iam flaccetfortitudo),mostlikely to avoid the etymologicalassociations of virtus. In the Laudatio Turiae, virtus is applied to the wife at 2.6a and 2.19, but again in circumstanceswhere it clearly means physicalcourage. Horace, Carm. 3.24.22, usesvirtus for feminine chastity, but qualifiesit in the followingline with castitas.CIL VI 30105 and31711 are almost surelyimperial. One mightobjectthat the referenceto inpudicusat Amph.926-27 wouldraise feminine associations,but here too we find a playful reversal. In Amph. 926, Alcumenarejectsfactisinpudicison her part, andin the next line appliesinpudicis dictis to her husband.

75. Alcumena'suseof the dismissalformulanormallyspokenby the party who remains,contradictsher statedintentionto leave. But Jupiter'sstrongreactionis to morethanthis.He responds to thegeneralsocialimpossibilityof anyrespectable woman,muchlessan unescorted andpregnantone, independently abandoning her home, here epitomizedby the useof the divorceformula. "Sananes?"is a strong phraseusuallyreservedfor extremeor abnormalsituationsby Plautus:seeMen. 738, Amph.604, Bacch.566, andcf. E.W. Leach,"Meamquomformamnoscito", Arethusa 2 (1969) 38 if. 76. It is the threatto Amphitruocontainedin Jupiter'soath which causesA1cumena'sangerto subside,but note how Jupitercharacterizes his oath: confido fore; nam ius iurandum verum te advorsum dedi.

Contrastwith this the perfidiousfemale oathsat Mil. 188-90 and the references in note 61 above. A true oath is masculine.

DIVORCE INITIATED

BY WOMEN

79

77. Noted by Genzmer (above n. 72) 161. 78. For an evaluationof languageas a resourcefor socialcontrolseeB. Bernstein, Class, codesand control(1971). On the socialconsequences of "women's language"seeB. Thorne and N. Henley (aboven. 59); R. Lakoff, Languageand woman'splace(1976); F. CrosbyandL. Nyquist,"The femaleregister",Language in society6 (1977) 313-22; and D. Brouwer, M. Gerritsen,D. Dellann, Language in society 8 (1979) 33-50. 79. Schuhmann,"Ehescheidungen" 24, recognizedthereversalbut did not pursue its consequences: see n. 52 above.

80. See the evidence(abovepp. 55 f.) that in Plautus'time a Romanfather couldforcea daughterunderhispotestasto divorceagainsther will. The Lex

Oppiaof 215BCandtheopposition to itsrepealin 195,Cato'smeasures against femaledisplayin 184,theLexOrchiaof 182(?), themisogynous remarks in Cato'sspeeches, esp.Dedote(ORF4 8.221),andthegenerally hostile attitude of Plautustowardsindependent women(on whichseeSchuhmfi. nn, "Uxor"45 if.) are evidenceof strongreactionsto thingslessthreateningthana woman'sright to initiate a divorce.

81. For the relationshipbetweenwomen's rights and the quality of Roman civilizationseetheremarksof R. Syme,Sallust(1964) 16-17. Pomeroy,"Married women", saw the changein Roman women's statusas chiefly a movementfrom theauthorityof theagnaticmalesto thatof matrimonialmalesandrightlyquestioned thatthiswasa greatimprovement.But a certaintypeof Romanwoman,thewealthy womanwho was sui iuris, surelyhad more freedomin the late Republicthan she had ever had before.

82. Argued by Levy 18 and Corbett242-43 and followedby Gatti (above n. 15) 63 and Watson 51.

83. Corbett242-43 suggested that somecollusivedivorceswere arrangedto hastenthe paymentof dos or donatiopropter nuptias.But earlier, in ^D 530, Justinian hadruledthathusbands coulddemandimmediatepaymenton sometypes of dowry andcouldcollectintereston othertypesif they were not deliveredafter two years: see CJ 5.12.31.5-8 and Corbett 167. 84. See above n. 27. 85. See above n. 19 for references.

86. Corbett242-43, citingthetextsreferredto by Levy 18 n. 1. In addition to thetextsdiscussed below,Levy andCorbettcitedPomp.Dig. 23.3.24, Dig. 46.3.65, and Ulp. Reg. 6.6, noneof which are relevantto the issue.

87. Iav. Dig. 24.3.66.2:Filiafamilias divortiofactodotempatrireddiiusserat .... On the contingent rightof thefiliafamiliasto the dowryseeUlp. Dig. 24.3.22.1.On thedivorceof afiliafamiliastheactiorei uxoriaewastakenjointly by fatheranddaughter: Ulp. Reg.6.6, andUlp. Dig. 24.3.2.1. 88. Pomp. Dig. 35.2.14 pr.: ... si pater dotem consentiente filia non petisset.... 89. Paul. Dig. 24.3.45.

90. Afr. Dig. 24.3.34. At Pap.Dig. 24.3.41 thefather'sclaimto an actionto recoverdowryis basedon his havingpaidthe dowryafterthe divorcehadtaken place,noton hisdaughter's beingfiliafamilias. Gaius,Dig. 24.2.2.3, statesonly

80

MYLES

McDONNELL

that the presenceof the father was not requiredfor the filiafamilias to make a renuntiatio, and implies nothingaboutconsent. 91. Also seeUlp. Reg. 6.10 (aboven. 28). 92.

See above n. 29.

93.

Corbett

241 and Watson

53.

94. Like its author,this articlehasa longandcheckeredpast.In variousforms it was read by William V. Harris, W. ThomasMacCary, SarahB. Pomeroyand MortonSmith.I thankthemandthetwo anonymous readersfor their manyhelpful comments.I also thank the editor for his kind suggestionsand his tolerance.

THE

DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS*

Many scholarsnow date Solon's constitutionalreformsto the decade580-

570BC.• I shallargue thatthereisinsufficient reason torejectthetraditional date,594/3,2 theyearof Solon'sarchonship. 3 Thisdateis supported by otherevidence;no otherdate is givenby any ancientsource;and noneof the argumentsfor the later dateis cogent. The evidencefor the traditionaldatingis as follows. 1. According to AthPol 5.2, after a period of stasisthe demos and the gnorimoi choseSolon archonand diallaktds, and •hv •6•o . . . xr@tog6• y•v6[t•vog•(ov Jr@•y[tf•cov, Solon enactedeconomic reforms and laws (6.1), and "establisheda politeia and made other laws" (7.1): that is, his constitutionalreforms, describedat ss. 7-9. AthPol

10.1 impliesthatthe economic reformscamebefore"thenomothesia"; 4 however, accordingto 13.1, after Solon had completedhis reformsand gone abroad, for four years there was calm, but "in the fifth year after Solon's archd they did not elect an archonon accountof the stasis."This makesclear that in the opinionof the author, Soloh'sreformswere completedwithin one year, duringthe courseof his archonship.At 14.1 the

archonship of Komeas (561/0)5 is datedto thethirty-second yearafter •&v v6[tcov 0•org.Partlyon thisbasisHammondseparatedSolon'sarchonship and nomothesia:the archonship,seisachtheiaand economicreforms

tookplacein 594/3,the(mainperiodof) nomothesia in 592/1.6Cadoux (97-9) showedthatthissuggestion is untenable--forexample,it contradicts 13.1. The majority of scholarsemendsthe text to "thirty-four" (6' read as

6tv•@.m); 7asG.V. Sumner pointed out,thisemendation probably requires that the text had read 6' xet[•@mxoo•(0(rather than •.6'), and this mixture

of stylesis notanobvious one.8 It seems equallypossible thattheAthPol has just been careless.In supportof his positionHammondalso argues that Soloncould not have effectedhis reformsduringthe courseof a single

year.9 However,we shoulddistinguish between legislation anditsexecution. Findingandrepurchasing Athenianssoldabroadinto slavery,resolving disputesover land boundaries--allthis may well have taken yearsto complete, as Hammond says. But Solon's laws were instituted at the 81

82

ROBERT

W. WALLACE

beginningof the process.How long would it have takenSolonto say, "let the magistrates'decisionsbe referableto the demos"?Any assessment of thelengthof timeSolonneededto drawuphiscodeis necessarily subjective. Thereforenoargumentcanbemadeonthisbasis.(I mayaddthatcompletion of the code in one year seemsto me in no way inherentlyimplausible.) In any case, it is clear that the AthPol cannotsupporta late date for Solon'slegislation. 2. Plutarchalso seemsto positreformsin two stages,althoughthe text is

somewhat puzzling. •oAccording to Sol. 14.3,Solonwaschosen archon, diallaktgs and nomothet•s, and the first of his measures were the

seisachtheiaand lendingreforms(15). At first resented,theseeconomic measures quickly(xaX6)cameto beappreciated (16). The Atheniansoffered a public sacrifice,called the "seisachtheia",and "they appointedSolon nomothetgs anddiorthOt•sof thepoliteia", layingno restrictionson him. It is confusingthat Plutarchhas repeated"nomothet•s":apparentlyhe believed that Solon was made nomothetgstwice, with different tasks. How

long was the intervalbetweenthesereforms?Somehave felt that it must have been considerable,for the demosfirst to resentthe economicmeasures,

andthento change its mind.TMOn theotherhand,it is scarcely credible that Plutarchconceivedof an interval of sometwenty years:this is surely excludedby xaX6. Twice elsewherePlutarchrefersto Solon'selectionas

archonandnomothetgs, withoutcomment or qualification. •2 Andafter quoting(19) Solon'slaw that grantedamnestyto mostof thosewho were atimoi J•@•v fi Y.6ktova&@•ctt,but excludingthoseexiledby the Areopagos, Plutarchsaysthis law clearly shows"that the AreopagosCouncil existed before Solon's archg and nornothesia".

If Plutarch believed in two distinct

periodsof nornothesia,his referencehereto "nornothesia",in a discussion of chronology,wouldnot havebeenclear;and if Plutarchthoughtthatthe nornothesiawas some twenty years after the archg, he should not have mentionedthem together.Plutarch'sstatementimplies that both periods of nornothesia occurredeitherduring,or very closeto, the time of Solon's archonship.We cannotexcludethepossibilitythathe conceivedof a period of nornothesiaimmediatelyafter the arcM. But any intervalsubstantially longer than this seemsto be ruled out. Can we accept the implicationof Plutarch and Aristotle, that Solon enactedhis reforms in two stages?Rhodeshas doubtedthis: "what was originally a logical distinction[betweeneconomicand constitutionalreform] has had a chronologicalsignificanceread into it, and once the

misunderstanding hadoccurred it wasembroidered upon." •3Thisargument seemspreferableto Jacoby's,that Aristotleinferredthe priority of debt

THE

DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

83

relief from the archon'sproclamationat the beginningof the year that

citizens mightretaintheirproperty during histermofoffice(AthPo156.2). 14 Yet I am not surethat Rhodes'premise,of a "logicaldistinction",would havesuggested itselfor beendeduced in theabsence of someactualevidence for a distinction;and on Rhodes'theory the sourcesreally have outdone eachotherin imagininghistoryout of nothing.It seemsnot incrediblethat Solon might first have addressed the pressingissueof economicreform, before consideringbroaderconstitutionalmatters;and this information

couldhavebeentransmitted through hispoems. is 3. With one exception(Aulus Gellius), all other sourcesfor the date of Solon'sreformsassignthe nomothesiato the year of his archonship.Accordingto DiogenesLaertius (I 62), "[Solon] flourishedabout the 46th Olympiad [596-21, in the third year of which he was archonat Athens, asSosikrates records;andit wasin thisyearthathe enactedhislaws." Under the year 594, accordingto the majority of MSS, Eusebius-Jerome (99b Helms) states:SolonDraconis legibusantiquatis, extra eas quae ad sanguinempertinebant,sua iura constituit.Accordingto Aelian (VH 8.10), "when Solon was chosenarchon,he orderedthe city's affairs in various ways and also drew up his laws." And accordingto the scholiastto Dem. 24.210, citingDiodoros(=Diod. 9 F17), 6 i5/•A@6txtov x@6ot6xo6[scil. Solon]•xx&xa[ x' &eotv. If the scholiastwasdatingtheir law-codes,and if Drakon'slawswerepublishedin the archonship of Aristaichmos(621/0), a twenty-seven-yearinterval would yield Diodoros' date 594/3 for Solon's code.16 By contrast,accordingto Gellius 17.21.4, legesscripsisseAtheniensium

[scil. Solonem]TarquinioPriscoRomaeregnanteannoregnieiustricesimo tertio. On the conventionaldating of Tarquin'sreign (616-579, though variantsof a year or two are attested),this passagewould date Solon's lawsc. 584. In thelight of the otherwiseuniformtraditionandthe implausibility that Gellius could have had any good sourcefor this dating, his report must be consideredsimply as erroneous,possiblythe result of

corruption eitherin Gellius'textor (perhaps preferably) in hissource. •7 4. As we have seen,the amnesty-lawwas directedto thosewho had been exiledbeforeSolon'sarchd, andPlutarchsaysthatthis law wasthe eighth law on the thirteenthax6n. It is difficult to seewhy Solonwould specify

thisdateunless themeasure hadbeenpassed inthatyear.•8Hignettargued that the "archal"of Solonneednot have beenhis archonship,but a subsequentoffice by virtue of which he was legislating.But no other such officeis attested,andat theleastthisphraseology wouldhavebeenconfus-

84

ROBERT

W.

WALLACE

ing for thoseexiledin the interval. 19Sealeyhasnow argued(Historia 1979)thatSolon'sarchonship wasregarded asa newera.2øAgain,this would

leave those exiled

between

594/3

and 580-570

out in the cold.

Althoughwe cannotprovethat Solon'samnesty-lawwas not promulgated in 594/3 and subsequently incorporatedin the full law-code,nevertheless this law offers supportfor dating Solon's legislationto the year of his archonship. 5. Accordingto AthPol 13, after the ten-yearperiodof stasisculminating in Damasias'expulsionfrom the archonshipin 580, it was decidedto elect ten archons,five from the Eupatrids,three from the Agroikoi, and two

fromtheDemiourgoi. TMBeforeSolon's reforms onlyEupatrids couldbe archons.Therefore, this settlementseemsto reflect a period after these reforms, which openedthe archonshipto the other classes.If Solon's reforms are dated within the period 580-570, this settlementmust have precededthem. Justso, Hignett arguedthat the settlementof 580 "was a revolutionarymeasureadoptedto unite all classesin the defenseof order after the usurpationof Damasias".This was a preludeto the selectionof Solonasdiallakt•s, by all classes: theEupatridclassvoluntarilysurrendered (for oneyear) its monopolyof the archonship.I find this scenariounlikely, andacceptAthPol 13 asanargumentfor datingSolon'sreformsbefore580.

Variousargumentshave beenadvancedagainstthis evidence,in favor of

a date580-570.22Of theseperhaps theleastpersuasive arethearguments basedonestimates of Solon'sage;on thetraditionthathereformedAthens' coinage;andon possibleimplications of the intervalbetweenhisreforms and the rise of Peisistratos.

l. J.K. Davies claims that in 594 Solon would have been too young to "havebeenselectedas, andableto imposehis authorityas, diallaktgsand nomothetgs" (APF 323). This argumentis purely speculative.We must keepin mindthat Solonwasa memberof the aristocracy,a war heroand a successful civic poet. Furthermore,it is not clearon whatbasiswe are to suppose that, at this stagein Athens'history,Solonmighthavebeen old enoughto be electedarchonbutnotnomothetgs anddiallaktgs.Finally, Davies is overly sanguinein dating("with a surprisinglyhigh degreeof accuracy") Solon'sbirthbetweenc. 630 and625. The lowerdateis derived

fromtheimprobability thata youngermanwouldbechosen archonin 594; theupperdateis basedon Herakleides'implication(Plut.Sol. 1.3= F147 Wehrli) that SolonandPeisistratoswere of the samegeneration.However, as concernsthe lower date, Rhodesadducesparallelsat least of young

THE

DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

85

menholding greatpower; 23andin anyeventSolonwasundoubtedly an exceptionalman. For the upperdate, Herakleidesmay have been misled by the story of Croesusand downdatedSolon's whole life, as we have seen (n. 22). Davies himself discreditsHerakleides' late date for Solon's

death. Why shouldwe rely on Herakleideshere?There is no reasonto acceptDavies' figures.Solonmight easilyhavebeenbornc. 640, or even earlier.

2. In 1951 Jacobsthaiand Robinsondowndatedthe Central Basis deposit of the EphesianArtemision to _+ 600 [this depositcontainsthe earliest coins]; in 1952 Hignett presentedthe first modem casefor downdating Solon's legislation.Yet in spite of this suggestivejuxtaposition,most advocatesof the low chronologyfor these reforms do not use Solon's

reported reformof Athens' coinage tosupport thatchronology. 24Theyare right not to do so. On the most conservativecurrent estimate(Kraay's), Wappenmtinzenwere introducedc. 560-550, too late for any "reform" by Solonevenc. 580-570. In fact, Athens'coinageprobablydid notbegin

before c. 550.25Toexplain thistradition, Rhodes hassuggested thatSolon's statements,in his law-code, aboutdrachmai[weights]were misinterpreted

in thefourthcenturyasa coinage reform. 26 3. Finally, Hignett finds it improbablethat a period of more than thirty yearsshouldhaveelapsedbetweenSolon'sreformsandthetyranny.Reform left a massof "landlessfreemen", while Peisistratoswas "the champion of the poor", probablythe agrarianpoor: "These facts suggestthat the poor who rallied roundPeisistratos were the sameas thosewho hadfailed to obtain from Solon the freeholdsthey desired." If so, then an interval betweenSolonandPeisistratosof morethanthirty yearshe thinksunlikely: ten or twelve years is credible. The full caseagainstHignett's argumentcannotbe made here:the main objectionto it is its essentialsubjectivity.As the modem example of Central America shows, we cannot even hypothesize--muchless argue from--ideas of what might constitutea "reasonable"or "standard"length of time before a landlessproletariatwas ready for revolution. Under the right circumstances--with,for example,a suitableleader--sucha revolution might startquickly. Under othercircumstances it might nevercome. We may also note that Peisistratosfailed twice to establishhimself in power, and his successin 546 (some thirty years after Solon's reforms, on Hignett's chronology)was achievedthroughmercenariesand foreign money.

Furthermore,we cannotsuppose,with Hignett, that Peisistratos'"party"

86

ROBERT

W. WALLACE

consisted (only)of theagrarian poor.27In anycase,manyscholars have supposed thatSolon's reforms didnotleavea mass of landless freemen. 28 Solon claimed

to have removed

the horoi

and set the black earth free

(AthPol 12.4, lines8-10). Whateverthe precisemeaningof thisstatement, we shouldprobablyunderstandthat small farmerswere given back their propertiesunencumbered by mortgagesor debt. In addition to these arguments,two more significantpoints have been raisedin favor of the low chronology. First, Cadoux,Hignettand othersask how anybodycouldhaveknown when Soloncarriedout his reforms.The sourcesare merely inferringfrom the archon-list.

Second, Herodotos (1.29), Plutarch (Sol. 25.6-28.1) and the AthPol (11.1) all statethat after his legislationSolon left Athens for ten years. Visitsto Amasis,CroesusandPhilokyprosin Cyprusarevariouslyreported, and Plutarchquotesfrom Solon'spoemsto documentvisitsto Egypt and alsoto Philokypros.The datesof CroesusandAmasisat least,it is argued, must fall after 570. Therefore--it is argued--Solon's reforms must be dated after 580.

Neitherof theseargumentsis cogent.On the issueof sources,regardless of the broaderquestionof the successwith which later historianslinked

sixth-century events witharchon-years, 29several extant lawsof Solon--the amnesty-lawandthe law on inheritance(seen. 18)•imply passage during his archonship;much more evidence,both from the laws and from the poems, was availablein the fourth century.There is thereforeno reason to doubtthat ancientscholarscould have known the date of Solon'slegis-

lation. 3øOn the contrary, because familiarevidence (e.g., the storyof Solon and Croesus)was known to supporta later date, we may just as well argue that ancientscholarsfelt they had good reasonto adhereto an

earlierone.31Sincethetradition thatSolonenacted hislegislation during the courseof his archonshipis not inherentlyimplausibleand couldhave beenbasedon reliableinformation,asa pointof methodwe are not entitled to constructan argumentsimplyout of the a priori premisethatthe sources mightbe wrong. They may be questionedonly if someactualreasonexists for doubtingthem. Therefore,this speculativeargumentitselfprovidesno basisfor doubtingthe unanimoustraditionthat Solon'slaws were passed during his archonship. The reportsof Solon's travels thereforeconstitutethe sole remaining argumentfor downdatinghis legislation.For thisargumentto be accepted, we must establishthe historicityof thesetravels;the necessitythat these travelsoccurredduring the ten-yearperiodof Solon'sapod•mia; and the

THE

DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

87

chronologyof the reignsof Croesus,Amasis and Philokypros. We need not rehearse,in this context, the various argumentsfor the datesof thesethree rulers. For the date of Philokypros,we are told only thathis sonAristokyproswaskilled duringtheCypriotrevoltagainstPersia in 497 BC (Hdt. 5.113.2). Markianoscalculatesthat if Aristokyproswas no more than 60 in 497, he would have been born by 557, and on the throneby 537 at the earliest. If his father's reign was no longerthan 50 years,Philokyproswould haveaccededto the throneby 587. Thesecalculations are arbitrary;but the schemewould suit the traditionaldate for

Solon'sreforms.This probablyrulesout Solon'svisit to him as a factor

in thisdebate. 32However,Croesus'rule cannothavebegunbeforec. 561,33andthebeginning of Amasis' reignissecurely dated570or569.34 Therefore, I do not disputethat, if Solon met either Croesusor Amasis on a ten-yearapoddmiaimmediatelyafter his legislation,that legislation cannot be dated 594/3, but must be after 580. But did he visit those rulers?

And if he did, must thosevisits be assignedto a ten-yearapoddmiaimmediatelyfollowing his legislation?

As Linforthobserved, 35foreigntravelsby distinguished menwerea toposof ancientliterature.Amongotherthings,thispermittedthe description of interestingmeetingswith otherdistinguished men. Fancifulreports of travelsand meetingscertainlycollectedaroundSolon. We are told of Solon'smeetingswith the six otherWise Men at Delphi andCorinth(Plut. Sol. 4.1), andwith Thalesat Miletos (ibid. 6). (Of courseSolonmay have visitedThales,butthistextcannotbe considered evidencefor it.) According to Diod. 9.26 f., Anacharsis, Bion and Pittakos met Solon at Sardis, when

Solon was visiting Croesus.It is reportedthat Solon and Thalestogether visitedCrete; and the traditionof Solon'svisit to Cilicia (e.g. Diog. L. I 51) is an obviousaetiologicalinvention inspiredby the town of Soloi

(knownalready,asSillu,in seventh-century Assyrian texts). 36Howcredible are the reportsof his visits to Cyprus and Philokypros,Egypt and Amasis, or Sardisand Croesus?The poem quotedby Plutarch(Sol. 26) proves that Solon did visit Cyprus and Philokypros.Herodotos(1.30), Plato (Tim. 21c), the AthPol (11.1) and Plutarch (ibid.) all statethat Solon

visitedEgypt, 37andaccording toPlutarch Solonhimselfsaidthathelived N•.ov •[ •@oxo,fiot Kuvco13•6o• •¾¾60•v&x•q•. We may thereforeaccept

thatSolonvisitedEgypt. 38DidhealsovisitAmasis? OnlyHerodotos says this,39andHerodotos' testimony is contradictory. At 1.30heplacesthe visit during Solon's apod•rnia, following his legislation,but at 2.177.2 he saysthat Solonborrowedthe nornosargias from Amasis.Prirnafacie, 2.177 contradicts1.30, that the law-codeprecededthe travels. Of Markianos'varioushypotheses to resolvethis contradiction,his only plausible

88

ROBERT

W. WALLACE

suggestionis that the traditionof borrowingwas a later, speciousinference from similar laws. More likely, Herodotos' statementis just a fiction altogether,spawnedfrom the idea (amply attestedin Herodotosand Plato)

thatEgyptwasthesource of manyGreekcustoms andpractices. 4øThis showsthat fictions about Amasis and Solon were being concocted,and are present in our only source for their relationship. Amasis was well knownto the Greeksandwasdepictedas stronglyq>[k•kk,l¾ (Hdt. 2.178.1, cf. 172-182). His philhellenismdatesperhapsfrom c. 545; in the earlier

partof hisreignhewasapparently hostile to theGreeks. 4• Thismakes it lesslikely that Solon would have visitedhim in the 560s, and more likely that the story of Solon's visit to Egypt would later have been wrongly associatedwith that famousruler. It is quite possiblethat Solon visited Egypt earlier, possiblymuch earlier, than 570; there is no goodreasonto believe he visited Amasis.42 A similar objection can be raised against the visit to Croesus, also philhellene, and also welll known to the Greeks. Herodotos' elaborate storymustin any casebe largely a fiction. Is it safeto rely on thistestimony for a synchronismwhich was doubtlessof no concernto the originators of the story?Furthermore,the evidencewill not supporta date for the beginningof Croesus'reign earlierthanc. 561 (seen. 33), andHerodotos implies (1.30) that Croesuswas well establishedin power at the time of Solon's visit. If Solon died in 560/59 (see n. 22), the historicityof that visit can almost be ruled out. It is true that Croesus was an obvious

man

to visit--he clearly liked to be visitedby eminentGreeks. But just for this reasonthe story of Solon's visit was an obvioustopic for invention. Visits to Croesusand Amasis,then, seemunlikely. Sincethe (historical) visit to Philokyproscannothelp to fix the date of Solon's legislation, as we have seen, those who advocatethe lower chronologyon the basisof Solon's travels must acceptthe contradictoryand isolated statementof Herodotoson Solon and Amasis, and lengthenthe spanof either Solon's life or Croesus'rule in spite of the evidence. The third assumption,that Solonmusthave visitedAmasis,Philokypros andCroesusduringthe courseof his ten-yearapod•mia, is bothfundamental to the argumentfor redating Solon's legislation and quite unsupported.

We mayaccept thatSolondidgoabroad afterhislegislation. 43Butthere is no reasonwhy we must limit his travelsto this period. Accordingto Hermippos(ap. Plut. Sol. 2), as a youngman Solon supportedhimselfby

emporiaandtravelled extensively. 44It is perfectly reasonable thathealso continuedto travel after the ten-yearapod•mia. Herodotosdoesnot say (5.113.2) that Solon'svisit to Philokyprosoccurredduringhis apod•mia. There is no reasonto assumethat Herodotoshad any evidencefor the date

THE DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

89

of Solon's visittoCroesus (Plutarch didnotknowof any).4sIt is nothard to supposethat, with no evidenceor particularpurpose,Herodotossimply assignedthis visit to Solon's mostfamousperiodof travel. Presumablyin just this way PlutarchassignedSolon'svisit to Philokyprosto the ten-year

apod•mia,whichHerodotos hadnotdone.46Therefore, thevisittoCroesus, if it occurredat all, may well have occurredat somelater date. The same objection applies to the visit to Amasis, if it too is historical (which I doubt). These considerations further supportthe opinionof Jacoby,Podlecki and Rhodes, that the stories of Solon's travels were erroneously

connected withtheten-year apoddmia. 47 The casefor redatingSolon's legislationto the period 580-570, against all ancientsources,dependson one or more of the following arguments: first, that in 594 BCSolonwas too youngto be appointednomothetds and diallaktds(but not too youngto be appointedarchon);second,that Solon reformed Athens' coinage and Athens had no coinage as early as 594; third, that an interval of more than thirty years between Solon's reforms and Peisistratos'tyranny is unlikely; fourth, that the ancientsourceshad no goodinformationon the date of Solon'sreforms;and fifth, that Solon's visitsto Amasis,PhilokyprosandCroesusshouldbe regardedashistorical, and mustbe datedto a ten-yearperiodof apoddmiaimmediatelyfollowing his legislation. None of these argumentsis persuasive.The first is purely subjective, and is basedon unreliableguessesaboutSolon's date of birth; the second is vitiatedby the fact that Athensprobablyhad no coinageat all beforec. 560, at the earliest;the third is also subjective;as to the fourth, we cannot assume that the sources did not have reliable

information

on the date of

Solon'sreforms;andfinally, not all of Solon'svisitsarecertainlyhistorical, andnoneneedbe datedto the apoddmia.Thereis thereforeno goodreason to reject the ancienttraditionthat Solon's legislationwas passedduring thecourseof hisarchonship.This traditionis, inherently,perfectlycredible; it is well attested;and it is confirmedby the documentaryevidenceof the termsof Solon'samnestyandinheritancelaws, andby the eventssurrounding Damasias. North Carolina State University Raleigh

Robert W.

Wallace

90

ROBERT

W.

WALLACE

NOTES

* A version of this paper was read at the University of North Carolina at ChapelHill on Nov. 7, 1984. I am indebtedespeciallyto ProfessorsPhilip Stadter, Edwin Brown and GerhardKoeppelfor their commentsand suggestions. I would also like to thank Professors Jack Cargill, G.W. Bowersockand A. Henrichsfor reading and commentingon an earlier draft of this paper;ProfessorE. Badian, who has improvedevery pageof it; and the refereesfor thisjournal. 1. The most influentialadvocateof this view is C. Hignett, A historyof the Athenianconstitution(1952) 316-321; for otherreferences,a surveyand critique of the scholarship,and further argumentation,see S.S. Markianos, Historia 25 (1974) 18-20 and Hellenika 28 (1975) 5-28 (with Englishsummaryp. 239). Add A. French, The growth of the Athenian economy(1964) 181 f.; Molly Miller,

Arethusa2 (1969)62-86; W.H. Plommer,CR2 19 (1969) 127-9;T.J. Cadoux, OCD2 s.vv. "Solon","Eupatridai" (contrast JHS 68 (1948)93-9); J.K. Davies, Athenianpropertiedfamilies (1971) 323 ("the argument[is] very strongindeed"); R. Sealey, A history of the Greek city states(1976) 121-3, Historia 28 (1979) 238-41; and A.R.R. Sheppard,LCM 5 (1980) 205-8. At least a dozen other scholarscite this datingas possibleor plausible. 2. P.J. Rhodes(A commentaryon the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia (1981) 120-22, 169-70), A.J. Podlecki ("Solon's sojourns", Classica et Iberica, FestschriftJ.M.F.Marique (1975) 32-41), N.G.L. Hammond(Studiesin Greek

history(1973) 164-6 [butseen. 6 belowandtext]),A.J. Holladay(G&R2 24 (1977) 53-4) andA. Masaracchia (Solone(1958) 137)alsoarguefor thetraditional dating of Soloh's reforms. It shouldbe noted that a number of other scholars continue to cite this date, without comment.

3. For thedateof Solon'sarchonship, whichis directlymentionedonlyby the HellenisticbiographerSosikrates ap. Diog. L. I 62, but whichmay be confirmed by reconstructions, seeCadoux,JHS 68 (1948) 93-9 (this article will henceforth be referredto by pagenumberalone)andn. 8 below.Jacobyargued(Apollodors Chronik 165-78) that Sosikrates'date was takenfrom Apollodoros,and this is commonlyaccepted.Laqueur(RE 3 A (1927) 1163-4) showsit may have been independent. At Arethusa 2 (1969) 62-86 (cf. Klio 37 (1959) 49-52 and 41 (1963) 85-7), Molly Miller arguesthat Solonwas archon573/2 and enactedhis reformsbetween 573 and 570. She supportsthis unattested archonship datefirst by meansof argu-

mentsusedby othersto downdate thelegislation,andsecond by variouscalculations concerningthe chronologyusedby HerakleidesPontikos,based(shebelieves)on official Megariansources.Theselattercalculations andsuppositions are entirely arbitrary,and A. Mosshammer (The Chronicleof Eusebiusand Greek chronographictradition(1979) 94-7) discredits thegenealogical principlestheyarebased upon.The arguments for downdating thelegislationwill be dealtwith in thispaper; andMiller's evidencethatSolon'sreformsspanned a three-yearperiod(seeMiller, Arethusa1 (1968) 78) is both unacceptable per se and inextricablylinked to the earlierarchondating(seen. 15 below). For epigraphical reasonsM.F. McGregor

THE DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

91

alsoarguesagainstMiller's datefor Solon'sarchonship (seePolis and Imperium. Studiespresentedto E.T. Salmon,ed. J.A.S. Evans(1974) 31-4). On Sumner's argumentthat Solon'sarchonshipwas dated592/1 in the original archon-list,see n. 8 below.

4. •v •v o•v •o•g v6•otg •e6•e 6ox• 0•vet 6•1•o•x&, •6

6• •fig vo•o0•oleg

5. On this date, which is preferableto the alternative560/59, see Cadoux 104-6 and Rhodes,Pfioenix 30 (1976) 219-223 and Commenta• 191-199. 6. JHS 60 (1940) 71-83, reprintedwith addendain StuSies(see n. 2 above)

145-69;of. PCPS169-71(1938) 10-11 andA fiisto• of Greece • (1967) 160; seealsoBeloch,GG 1• ii 165.Hammond's viewis accepted by R. Develin,AC 48 (1979) 463 n. 31 and LCM 9 (1984) 155-6.

7. On cypher-numbers in theAtfiPolseeCadoux83 n. 50 (with reft.).

8. C• 2 11(1961)49. Sumner himself•guesthattheAtfiPo!'s dateforSolon's archonshipwas basedon the original archon-list;this list was revised(possibly coffectly)by Hellenisticscholars,collatingAthenianchronologywith otherrecords. Rhodes(Commenta•' 121) thinks he may be right, but Sumner'sevidencefor deliberatealterationin the original archon-listis inadequate.(Wilamowitz, Aristotelesun8 Atfien (1893) 1.3-28, Cadoux 78 f., Jacoby,Attfiis (1949) 171, and others convincinglyargue that this list remainedauthoritativedown throughthe endof antiquity.)Rhodes(Pfioenix30 (1976) 222 n. 7 andCommenta• 121, of. 194, 201) still allowsthe possibility•at two yearsof anarchymay have affected Aristotle'scount.Jacoby(Artills174-5) showedthatthis was unlikely:anarcfiiai must have been noted in the archon-list. 9. StuSies 162-3.

10. On the likelihoodthat Plut•ch and the AtfiPol are here basedpauly on the samesource,see Rhodes,Commenta• 118 f. 11. So for examplethe first scholarto advocatethe low chronology,T. Case (CR 2 (1888) 241-2), arguedfor an interval in Plut•ch of 25-35 ye•s. 12. Amat. 763d r•owo xotv• 6tu•ux•v xu• •ov•u xu• vo•o0•qv, andPraec. 13. Commenta• 1•.

14. FGrHist 3b Suppl. II 133 n. 20; of. Wilamowitz,AuA 2.62. 15. SeeM. Miller, "Solon'stimetable",Arethusa1 (1968)62 if., andHammond, JHS 60 (1940) 79-81: Studies157-9. Miller (76) suggests thatPlut•ch's tradition may be basedon poemsreportingfirst a measureof popularingratitude,and then renewedsuppo•. Hammond(ibid., with Studies165-6) addsthat knowledgeof chronologymay have beenbasedon the orderof Solon'slaws. We mustreject Miller's further •gument that Solon's legislativeactivity lasted for three years (which•at least in Arethusa 1969•she claimed were 573 to 570). The main evidence she cites for this is AthPol 14.1, that the nomothesiaoccu•ed 32 ye•s beforethe •chonship of Komeas(i.e., in 592/1), andthe reportat Diog. L. I 101 that, accordingto Sosi•ates, Anacharsiscame to visit Solon in A•ens in the forty-seventh Olympiad,duringthe •chonshipof Eukrates(i.e., probably592/1). Thesedata (which obviouslycannotsupporta date in the 570s) had alreadybeen

92

ROBERT

W. WALLACE

usedby Hammond,andaresimilarlyliableto theobjectionsraisedby Cadoux97-9. 16. For text and argument,seeR.S. Stroud,Drakon's law on homicide(1968) 67-8.

17. For the possibilityof textualcorruptionin Gellius, seeMarshall'sOCT ad loc., with ref. It shouldbe notedthat Clement (Strom. 1.65.3), Tatian (Ad Graec. 41 p. 160b Otto) and Eusebius(Praep. Ev. X 11,496 (Migne PG 21, col. 825))

all assignSolon'sfioruit to the46thOlympia•d (596-2). TheSouda(s.v. Z6)•cov) differsfromthis, listingtwo variants:•rr[T/lg[t• (47) 'Okv[tyrt•bog, or• (56 = 5562). Both figuresare probablycorruptformsof the correct[t•. (SeeJacoby,Apol-

Iodors Chronik167andBeloch, GG 12ii 163.)Thetradition placing Solon'sfioruit at the time of Cyrus (attestedfor Josephus,HerakleidesPontikos,Theophilosand Eutychianus:see A. Martina, Solon.' Testimonia veterum (1968), TT 8, 12, 13,

16, and for Herakleidesseen. 22 below) was probablyderivedfrom the storyof Solon, Croesusand Cyrus. 18. So also Hammond, Studies165-6 and Sealey, City states122. Cf. the law on inheritance at [Dem.] 44.68 (=Ruschenbusch F121a) and [Dem.] 46.14 (= F49a), which also mentionsSolon'sarchonship. 19. Cf. also Raubitschek's contention (CP 58 (1963) 139) that the "archi" referredto at AthPol 13.1 meant"a periodof power": Solonwas archonin 594/3, but his "periodof power"extendedfrom 594 to 576/5. For someof the arguments againstthis, see Markianos, Historia 1974, 19 n. 81. 20. Cf. alsoHignett 318: this idea is basedon Plato, Hippias I 285e (and may be anachronistic).

21. Jacoby(Atthis 175) believedthis was basedon the archon-list.See further F.W. Wrist, Historia 6 (1957) 187 ff. and 8 (1959) 1 ff. Againstthe authenticity

of the traditionof ten archons,seeL. Gernet,RPh3 12 (1938) 216-227, andcf. Sealey, Cio' states 118 f., for the (remarkable)idea that "Agroikoi" here means social "boors".

22. The reasonfor a lower date of 570 for Solon'sreformsis nowhereclearly explained,but it is basedon the ten-yearapoddmiaand reportsthat Solonwas in Athens, as a very old man, before the first tyranny of Peisistratosin 561/0, and that he died in 560/59. The first of thesereportsoccursat AthPol 14.2 (which mentionsthe incidentof Solon putting his armor before his door), and at length at Plut. Sol. 29-31 and Diog. L. I 49-50, both of which quote Solon's poetry on the rise of Peisistratos.(See also Diod. 9.20 and Val. Max. 5.3 ext. 3.) The second report, thatSolondied in 560/59, comesfrom Phaniasof Eresos(F21 Wehrli = Plut. Sol. 32.3), a pupil of Aristotle, giving an archon date. As Davies shows(APF 323-4), there is reasonto believe that Phaniasis in fact transmittingAristotle's date for Solon's death. This report is contradictedby HerakleidesPontikos(Plut. ibid.), who said that Solon lived ovxv6vXq6vovafter the rise of Peisistratos,but it is acceptedby most scholars(see Davies ibid., Rhodes,Commentao'169-70, with reff.) Herakleidesmay well have been misledby reportsaboutSolon and Croesus,and possiblya traditionthat Solonwas an older contemporaryof Peisistratos;his vagueexpressiondoesnot inspireconfidence. 23. Commentary 121-2.

THE DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

93

24. But cf. Plommer (n. I above) 128, French (n. I above) 181-2, Hammond, Studies 166-9 and M. Miller, "Solon's Coinage", Arethusa 4 (1971) 25-47. D. Kagan (AJA 86 (1982) 343-60) arguesthat Lydian coinagemay have beenintroduced as early as c. 700, and that therefore in 594/3 Solon may have enacteda coinagelaw. But the evidenceof Atheniancoin hoardsis nearly decisiveagainst this argument:see J.H. Kroll and N.M. Waggoner,AJA 88 (1984) 325-33.

25. SeeKraay,NC7 17 (1977)195-6, anticipated by W.P. Wallace,NC7 2 (1962) 28-31; and Kroll and Waggoner,art. cit. 26. NC7 15 (1975) 1-11. 27. For a contraryview, see Sealey,Historia 9 (1960) 155-80, and (in part)

A.J. Holladay, G&R2 24 (1977)40-56. 28. See Sealey, City states110 f., Forrest,The emergenceof Greek democracy (1966) 168 if., Rhodes, Commentary 126 and reft. 29. See Cadoux 80-82; Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 390-4; and Mosshammer (see n. 3 above) 91-7, defendingthe accuracyof sixth-centurychronological traditions, and the more cautious assessmentof A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman

chronology(1972) 195-7. Jacoby'sdiscussion (Atthis149-225) isjustly famous. 30. So also Rhodes, Commentary 122. 31. Cf. Plut. Sol. 27.1 on thesechronologicaldifficulties.In fact Herakleides Pontikosmay have downdatedSolon's life on the basisof this evidence(see nn. 17 and 22 above, with reft.). But there is no evidence that he also downdated the

legislation. 32. See I. Linforth, Solonthe Athenian(1919) 302, and Sheppard(n. I above) 205.

33. J. Cargill (AJAH 2 (1977) 97-116) may well haveeliminatedthe "Chronicle of Nabonidus"as evidencefor Cyrus' defeatof Croesus'Lydia in c. 547, by showingthatthe famousrestoration "Lu..." andtheidentification of thecountry namedas Lydia are arbitrary. Mosshammer255-273, especially259-262, demonstratesthat Apollodoros' date (547/6) for the fall of Sardis cannot be traced

in any earlier Greek source;he suggeststhat this date was taken from the three bookson Babylonianhistory,basedon documentary sourcc•andthereforepossibly on theNabonidusChronicle,written(in Greek)c. 270 by the Babylonianpolymath Berossus ( = FGrHist 680, andseeR. Drews,lraq 37 (1975) 50-55). (Mosshammer did not yet knowCargill'sarticle.)Herodotos'text (1.59, 64-5) hassuggested a datefor the fall of Sardisc. 544 (seeCargill 97, 103 with nn., thoughCargill himselfis rightlycautious).If we acceptHerodotos'statement (1.86.1) thatCroesus ruled Lydia for 14 years(H. Kaletsch,Historia 7 (1958) 46 arguesthat we can, and seeM. Miller, Klio 41 (1963) 63 f., 67), possibledatesfor that rule would seemto be c. 561/0-547/6 (followingApollodoros)or perhapsc. 558-c. 544. It remainsunclearhow muchdistortionmay be reflectedin any of thesefigures,but thereis no reasonto thinkthatthisrangeof datescanbe morethana yearor two off. (For other argumentson the date of Croesus'fall, see J.A.S. Evans, CJ 74 (1978) 34-40: Evanssupports547 for the fall of Sardis.)

34. Accordingto Hdt. 3.10.2, Amasisruled for 44 years,dyingjust before Cambyses'invasion.That invasionis datedto spring525 by combiningDiod.

94

ROBERT

W. WALLACE

1.68 and Manetho F70, 71 (Loeb). Therefore, the beginningof Amasis' rule is

dated570or 569. SeeEd. Meyer,GA 32(1937)181n. 1; A. Gardiner, JEA31 (1945) 20. 35. Solon the Athenian

297.

36. See E. Oberhummer, s.v. "Soloi", RE 3 A (1927) 938, and for the visit to

Crete,seethe"letterof Thales"atEpistolographiGraeci, ed. Herchef(1873) 740. 37. See also Plut. de Isid. et Osir. 10.354e, Diog. L. I 50, Schol. Plat. Rep. 10.599e.

38. Of coursean Egyptianvisit was alsoa conventionalelementin accountsof the lives of Greek philosophers and lawgivers.So, for example,Plutarch(ibid.) reports visits by Thales, Plato, Eudoxos, Pythagoras("as some say") and the SpartanLykourgos;Diodoros(1.96) reportsvisitsby Orpheus,Mousaios,Melampous,Daidalos,Homer, Lykourgos,Solon,Plato,Pythagoras,Eudoxos,Demokritos and Oinopides.(See furthern. 40 below.) 39. All othersourcesstatesimplythat Solonspokewith the priests.From Tim. 21e Podlecki(n. 2 above)contends(32) that "Plato's storyseemsto derive from an accountwhich had Solon'svisit to Egypt occurin the reign of Amasis". This inferenceis unjustified.On the contrary,becausePlatorefersto Amasis(who was well knownto the Greeks:seetext) withoutmentioningany connectionwith Solon, this passagemight be consideredevidencethat Plato was ignorantof any such connection.

40. SeeHdt. 2.4.2, 43, 49.1, 50.1, andPlato, Tim. 24a for parallels(obviously spurious)betweenAthenian and Egyptian law (in the story of Solon's visit to Egypt). SeealsoDiod. 1.96.4-98.9 (e.g., at 98.1 it is saidthatLykourgosborrowed extensivelyfrom Egypt). Accordingto Diodoros(1.79.3- 4), Solonborrowedthe idea for his seisachtheiafrom the laws of the (eighth-century)ruler Bocchoris. 41. See R.M. Cook, JHS 57 (1937) 227-37. 42.

See Podlecki

37.

43. Severalscholarshave arguedthat at AthPol 11.1 Aristotleparaphrases or quotesfrom a poemin which Solonannouncedthis intention:&0xobq•tlctv •ot/ioct•o xtra'•t0xo@ictv &•tct0eco@ic•v e[gA[yv0x•ov, e[•(ov(ogo6• •et 8•xct•(ov. o6 o[eo0ctt 6/xcttove[vct•xo•gv6•tovg•lye[o0ct• •ct@cbv, &kk'i•xcttrrov 'r&yey@ct•t•vct •ote[v. See Linforth (n. 32) 297 and Rhodes, Commentary 170: this first occurred to Wilamowitz, AuA 1.15 f. If this suggestion is correct,thenthe lengthof Solon's apodgmianeednot have been simply extrapolatedfrom the promisehe is saidto have exactedfrom the Atheniansnot to alter his laws for ten years. 44. H.-D. Reeker ("SolonsReisen", A&A 17 (1971) 96-104) acceptsand developsthe idea that Solonwas a merchant.In a brilliant exegesisof this question (The class struggle in the ancient worm (1981) 129-31), G.E.M. de Ste. Croix arguesthat Solon simply travelled with trading goods in order to pay for his voyages.For a different suggestion,that Solon's travels were a kind of rite de passage, see S.C. Humphreys,Anthropologyand the Greeks (1978) 165-8. 45. There is no reasonto acceptMarkianos' speculationthat Herodotos'oral sourceswerebetterinformedaboutSolon'stravelsthanwerescholars of subsequent periods.

THE

DATE

OF SOLON'S

REFORMS

95

46. And just so, I believe,Tzetzes'source(Chil. 5.350 if.) assigned to this periodSolon's(supposed) visit to Thales. 47. Jacoby,JHS 64 (1944) 50 n. 64; Podlecki,art. cit.; Rhodes,Commentary 170; see Cadoux 98, Hammond, Studies 165 n. 2.

CORRECTION

The Editor regretsthat, in A.M. Eckstein'sarticle in Volume 7 (1982) of thisjournal, a major error on p. 78, due to resettingof the type at a late stagein the productionprocess,madethe author'sargumentunintelligible at a crucial point. On p. 78, lines 12-14, for

in this way, foreignerscould be said to have come into possessionof the city might itself fall to foreigners,as the oracle warned (Zon. 8.19; here (Marc. 3.2-4) agreeswith the Dio tradition, althoughit is not nearly read

in this way, foreignerscould be said to have come into possessionof the city, but without harm to the Romans (ibid.). Plutarch's account here (Marc. 3.2-4) agreeswith the Dio tradition, althoughit is not nearly Since we were not notified

of this error until after the second number

of

Volume 7 had appeared,we are taking the first opportunityof correcting the error and apologizingto the authorand to our readers.

96